--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@...> wrote: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars1940/4259746842/ <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars1940/4259746842/>
I mentioned that I'm following my daughter reading Julies Caesar for her Literature glass. This picture reminds me of Casesar's "sucking wounds", (or something to that effect). That, and remember, "and Brutus is an "honorable" man". Remember that. Marc Antony really had it going on didn't he? I am sure you are right about Judy. She is quite thorough. I am just attention span challenged I guess. > Strictly for your edification; I've taken the liberty of > providing the question from Judy's last "Blues" post. > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > (BTW, did you notice how he's claiming to have "done > the setup for this week's experiment"? Did he explain to you > in private beforehand what he was going to do, and you've > just been playing along? Or did you get sucked up in it > unwittingly as he pulled your strings? Love to know what > he said to Bob in private email that portrayed you as a > hypocrite, wouldn't you?) > > That's my 50th for the week. You may have the last > word until I return. > > > ________________________________ > From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 6:57:58 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Blues > > > > This is where things get kind of screwy, (or so I think).  You think the point has been made, but then it still goes on. But I guess it is important to Judy to keep driving it home. To me it crosses a line from a normal discussion to something quite obsessive. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote > > > > And you know what? I've been pondering what Robin has > > > > said about your appropriation of context. I think this > > > > is an example. You have terrible difficulty perceiving > > > > any context but your own. Not that we all aren't limited > > > > to some degree in perceiving another person's context, > > > > but most of us do take a stab at it, if only so that we > > > > can more effectively argue our own perspective. You > > > > rarely even try. > > > > > > When it concerns a misrepresentation of my own POV I am not > > > open to considering what point you think I was making. And > > > if you are making a case for having a superior ability for > > > understanding my context this would be a counterexample for > > > that claim. You have attempted to reframe the discussion > > > about whether or not I was "comparing" Maharishi and Mao, > > > which was never in question, of course I was. > > > > This is what you said to Nabby: > > > > Usually I would > > > > > > > correct you concerning this vicious lie pointing out that > > > > > > > my point about Mao had to do with the unreliability of > > > > > > > people's subjective darshon experiences > > > > No "of course I was" about it. You were telling Nabby > > that you *hadn't* been comparing MMY and Mao, that > > your point about Mao had to do only with the darshan > > experiences of his followers. > > > > Nor did you contradict Nabby's assertion that you'd > > said MMY was "worse than Mao." You didn't even mention > > it. *I* was the one who mentioned it, calling it a "lie." > > I even *documented* that it was a lie by quoting you to > > the effect that MMY was "a dim bulb" by comparison with > > Mao. > > > > > But that comparison did not have the odious and practically > > > insane suggestion that a pop guru was worse than the single > > > greatest mass murder in history whose status in buttholery > > > might only be challenged by Stalin. > > > > Right. That's a given, and I acknowledged and documented > > it, as noted. Nabby's gun said "Bang!" and you freaked. > > > > > So no, I am not open to the bullshit context you are > > > attempting and that is not evidence of my lack of ability > > > to understand another person's POV. > > > > Well, yes, it is, because you've completely missed my > > context in this post as well. > > > > > The question I have for you is why you thought you would > > > get away with such a weak case while demonstrating the very > > > lack of perceptiveness you are accusing me of? You haven't > > > demonstrated that you get my context, quite the opposite. > > > > You've just proved my (and Robin's) point in spades, but > > you're incapable of recognizing it. > > > > You weren't even going after Nabby in your initial post, > > BTW; you were going after me *via* Nabby. But you were so > > intent on getting me that you lost focus and shot yourself > > in the foot instead. > > > >     >
