--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Unlike you, I learned more than one tech- > > > nique in my life. :-) I was referring to one > > > of the others. > > > > Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. Color me > > suspicious. > > > > Nobody's going to visit you in Spain to take > > advantage of your offer, so if it *is* a different > > technique, it won't be any loss to reveal it here. > > And it would give you an opportunity to GET JUDY > > by proving my suspicions wrong. Win-win for you, > > Barry. > > LOL. > > I'm not Curtis. Or Ruth. I can't be taunted into > entering into an extended pissing contest with you. > Win for me. :-)
Ooopsie, better be careful about declaring who "won." I mean, you might look like a hypocrite (in addition to a liar) when you try to put me down (falsely) for doing the same thing. > Besides, it's one of those "You had to have been > there" sorta thangs. It involves the use of occult > energies, Uh-huh. Sure it does, Barry. James "The Fabulous" Randi has a million bucks just waiting for you. something you don't know anything about > because they were never even mentioned by Maharishi. Ah, but I've read a great deal about them on the Internet. :-) > Come to think of it, you have a "You had to have > been there" relationship with Maharishi, too. You > never were. :-) So make a videotape of your "technique," Bar. We might not be able to see the "occult energies," but we'll surely be able to see the victims admit that the relative world not only exists, it needs to be paid attention to much more than they were paying attention to it before. You know, particularly to the relative world of "occult energies." I mean, what a testament that would be to your mastery of the occult, not to mention the Rightness of your view of reality! I don't see how you can resist such a demonstration, especially in the interests of Getting Judy. :-) :-) > That's 49 for you, Jude. Will you piss away your > last post also trying to "Get Barry," the way you > have pissed away 15 others this week? :-) Is not being able to count a symptom of impending dementia, I wonder? It's actually 11 (12 counting this one), all but 3 in response to Barry's attempts to "Get Judy." And I figure they were all pretty productive, or Barry wouldn't feel he has to inflate the count. Apparently he's lost count of the days of the week as well. It'll be only a few hours before I have another full complement of 50 posts. On the other hand, maybe these types of errors are just indications of how blissfully unattached he is to the relative. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
