http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIKBq9TeFlw
Steve, You never disappoint; I'm not sure everyone realizes how wicked you are. I love you for it. More below. ________________________________ From: seventhray1 <steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 5:00:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Blues --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@...> wrote: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars1940/4259746842/ S7: 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). ***BP: Comparing Curtis's POV to Caesar's "sucking wounds" (and thereby Curtis to Brutus) seems a bit harsh. "How dearly he [Caesar] loved him [Brutus]" --- WS (guess you are implying we should reverse this one) S7: That, and remember, "and Brutus is an "honorable" man". Remember that. Marc Antony really had it going on didn't he? ***BP: As much as I would loved to sleep with Liz circa 1960, I'm not sure I want to be Antony teasing the crowd with Caesars will. I am; "no orator, as Brutus is"---WS S7: I am sure you are right about Judy. She is quite thorough. I am just attention span challenged I guess. ***Not to worry, I suspect updates will be provided; Antony may eventually provide details on the "set up". > 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. > > > >     >
