--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > Damn dude, when does your vacation end? You need a good boot > in the pants and some decaf.
Like the events you continue to obsess on and carry a grudge over, Jim, my vacation ended long ago. Do you remember the famous Zen story about the two monks whose order prohibited contact with women? Approaching a river, one noticed a woman unable to get across, so he offered to give her a piggyback ride over on his back. They got to the other side, the woman thanked him, and went her way. The two monks walked on in silence, but the other monk, the one who had not helped the woman across the river, was quietly simmering inside. He finally couldn't control himself any more and said angrily, "How could you have dishonored your vows like that, to touch a woman?!" The other monk said, "Put her down. I did, back at the river." Put the vacation thing down, dude. You might also re-read the post you're replying to and consider it a challenge to you, too. Your call. Over and out... > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@> wrote: > > > > > > Barry I have read your message and I disagree with > > > everything you say :-). > > > > Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to > > continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to > > several other people's approach on this forum, > > in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, > > but an indication of a fatal character flaw. > > > > I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you > > only seem to be able to come up with something > > to say when it's "piling on" to one of the three > > folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into > > other conversations here, and contributed to them. > > I commend you for that and hope that you continue > > that trend. > > > > My comment was to poke you a little over the -- > > as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions > > here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect > > to play "pile on." Another thing I was pointing > > out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing > > Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the > > same five people, over and over. It's as if -- > > from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, > > and are desperate to get in the "last word." > > And not just once, but over and over and over. > > > > We have an opportunity right now to see whether > > I am correct. One of these instigators, told in > > no uncertain terms that from the other person's > > point of view the long, protracted discussion / > > argument he'd been lured into had reached its > > conclusion and that nothing new was ever going > > to be said, the person who wanted (some would > > say desperately) to prolong it responded by > > posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as > > her "last word." > > > > I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see > > what happens. The other party has an opportunity > > here to allow her to *have* the last word she > > craves so desperately, and just let the matter > > drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for > > one more attempt to get him to punch back against > > Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the > > argument again. I personally hope that he takes > > the latter route, because if he does that will > > set up an interesting experiment. > > > > How would the instigator react if he fails to? > > > > Will she let the argument drop and post about > > other things -- NOT just for the rest of this > > week but for weeks and months in the future, or > > will she just lie in wait for the victim's next > > post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to > > insult him back into a head-to-head again? > > > > My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the > > things that the instigator carefully snips out > > of her compulsive replies to every post in which > > I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with > > is OBSESSION. My suspicion is that whether the > > victim becomes one again and gets sucked back > > into this particular argument or not, she will > > within a very few days attempt to start another > > one. It's like a law of nature. She's obsessed. > > > > Or, I could be wrong about this. Watch, and > > decide for yourself. > > > > I no longer reply to anything she says, and rarely > > bother to read any of it because by this time I've > > learned that I can tell what is going to be said > > in the first two lines. As, I suspect, can pretty > > much everyone else on this forum. Vaj also rarely > > bothers to interact with her one-on-one because > > he's seen the movie before, and know that doing so > > will inevitably devolve into a long waste of time > > ended by her declaring "victory." Maybe Curtis -- > > saint that he is to still be willing to talk with > > her at all -- will do the same, and limit himself > > to the first two exchanges in any post in which > > she hides her true intent and hasn't managed to > > turn it into a Bash Curtis Session again. > > > > If so, WHAT WILL SHE DO? What will her "posse" do? > > > > My suspicion is that they'll go a little batshit > > crazy and turn up the OBSESSION dial to 11, and > > over the next few weeks redouble their efforts to > > start all the bickering up again. > > > > But only time will tell. I've made my prediction. > > Now it's up to the instigator herself -- and you, > > as one of her co-dependents -- to see what you're > > going to do. If we ignore you, will you have the > > strength of character to do the same with us? > > > > Your call. Over and out... > > >
