--- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: < > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Responding to two of zarzari's posts here: > > > > --- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > The moment you drop some turd on Barry, you have already > > > got 100 points with Judy. Next do some love-bombing, and > > > tell her that her logic is irrefutable, or even further, > > > tell her that she understands very subtle points about > > > enlightenment / God etc, you name it, nobody on FFL is yet > > > ready to 'get', and she throws her underwear at you.
<snip complimentary quotes from zarzari> > Judy, glad you found the above references, indeed > demonstrations of my love bombing to you as per your > verdict. (I'm putting on my best Ravi voice:) You can > frame it and put it on to your largest wall, and look > at the picture I have drawn of you - how nice. > > And, you know, Judy, I stand by those quotes, for the > reasons and in the circumstances I quoted them. My point, zarzari, was that you said all these nice things about me, but I never threw my underpants at you. That was a crude, stupid, insulting, sexist remark, and mistaken to boot. Even without the vulgar metaphor it was stupid. I don't base my opinions of and relationships with other people based on their opinions of Barry. On the other hand, of course, like most people, I'm going to be more kindly disposed toward those who express a good opinion of me and less kindly disposed toward those who express a negative opinion. But those aren't the sole criteria for my opinions about people. > That's one Judy I know. zarzari, my post addressed posts of yours very directly, point for point. You ignored everything I said except the compliments I quoted--without even acknowledging that your underpants thing was off-base--and the birthday thing, and instead wrote a long, detailed attack on me. I'm going to ignore most of it and just focus on a few points. <snip> > So, for example, Barry is very often providing a bird eyes > view, not getting into those nitpicking things, and he > certainly reveals aspects that are true and valuable. But > you don't get it, you concentrate only on the negatives. In many cases, what you call the "nitpicking things" turn out to show that his "bird eyes view" wasn't valid, because it was based on those things. It may be you who isn't getting it. And if the "bird eyes view" is true and valuable, it doesn't need me to put my stamp of approval on it; it can stand on its own. In many cases you and I just *disagree* about whether his "bird eyes view" is all that true and valuable. In addition to the views that don't stand up to examination when you look at the underlying premises (the "nitpicking things"), many of those views are simply repetitions of what we've heard from him before over and over. Others I find shallow and not very interesting. I'm entitled to that opinion. > That he exaggerates and uses abusive or drastic language > is not a secret, but yet, you do the same, once you > 'recognize' someone as your adversary. Same with Vaj, he > has a lot to give, in a certain way, given his background, > he is more similar to me, but for you he is only a 'liar'. He *is* a liar. When he's just prattling on about this and that, showing off his supposed knowledge of other traditions, I don't usually comment on his posts. Again, if what he says is valuable to you, you don't need me to certify it for you. > You are judgmental, negative and angry a lot of the time. I'm rarely angry, zarzari. That's *your* mind-reading. > You 'call out' people for things! WTF! What gives? How > spiritual are you? Measuring up to your or anyone else's notion of how spiritual I should be is not one of my concerns, sorry. To me, there has to be authenticity and honesty before there can be any spirituality. <snip> > How do you know, if a person can not be well meaning to > another person who is angry on him, and even in > disagreement wish her well? Call it a hunch. Sometimes people say things because they're more concerned with appearing to be spiritual than with being authentic. > What is intellectual dishonest about it, and what impells > you to insinuate that here? Do you really think, all > people have to feel like you do, and that you therefore > can conclude about their mind-state? Nope. <snip> > So sorry I didn't remember your 'rotten human' being, so > 'objectively' I am *proven* wrong by you using the word > evil!! OMG, big deal. It is a big deal as far as I'm concerned. People toss around the term "evil" much too loosely, IMHO. > This is the kind of dialogues you engage in. > > If you cannot understand, that a person may wish another > person well, even in disagreement, this is a major human > flaw. Gee, that sounds pretty judgmental, zarzari. How come you get to be judgmental but I don't? What makes you think that because I conclude that one person in one case is being inauthentic in wishing someone well in the context of an angry disagreement, therefore I must be drawing the same conclusion in all such cases? > I just got a shock, how quickly I got the get-at-Barry > treatment after this disagreement. Huh? If you mean my post in response to yours yesterday, you seem to have forgotten that you made *10 posts* critical of me on the days I was out. I said *nothing* critical of you after our disagreement about your mental-health speculations concerning Robin until yesterday, in the post you're responding to. <snip> > This conflict with Barry has become your whole life Oh, stuff and nonsense. *Barry* would like to believe that. He'd like *you* to believe it. But it's just ridiculous. <snip> > So, as Robin says quite right, but I don't think you > will accept this, you have to soften your hard and stale > heart. Let me put it this way: Robin and I understand each other very well. > You have to cease to be so judgemental about people, > and so condemning. "Have to"? Who are you to tell me what I "have to" do? > I never understood, that you call somebody a 'rotten > human being' Which words do you not understand? > how can anybody agree with language like this? There is > something fundamentally wrong in this. Fine, and you think there's nothing fundamentally wrong with his constant gratuitous, vicious insults and lies about other posters here and his absurd posturing about his own spirituality. That tells us something about you, doesn't it? I'm going to leave in all the things you didn't see fit to respond to in the rest of my post. > > I checked my records, zarzari, and I don't seem to have any > > underpants signed out to you. Perhaps I just forgot to mark > > down the transaction when I threw them at you. If so, in > > light of your present position, if you do have a pair, I'd > > be much obliged if you'd return them so I can throw them at > > someone else who will truly appreciate them. I'm sure Barry > > will be more than willing to replace the ones you have with > > a pair of his own. > > > > <snip> > > > I have also tried to post things here in the past, to add something, > > > to contribute something of substance, some memories of movement > > > history, some context of various traditions, some out-of-the-box > > > experiences. We do get this also from Barry 2, from Barry, from Vaj, > > > from Curtis. I would be hardpressed to think of anything of Judy, > > > which was not either coming from FFL informants itself, or is usual > > > TM meditator last weekend-course talk. > > > > Selective reading and memory-wiping can be very effective > > in reinforcing one's preferred perceptions of the moment. > > > > I'm surprised you find my weekend-course talk to be so up > > to date. My last weekend course, as it happens, was in 1995. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Absolutely. To say that she is neutral about people and only > > > addresses issues is absolute hypocrisy > > > > Straw man. Nobody has said this that I'm aware of. I certainly > > haven't. > > > > The issue here was Barry's claim that when I go after him or > > Curtis or Vaj, it's because they're TM critics, even if what > > I'm on them about has nothing to do with TM. > > > > That's what Raunchy was addressing. In her phrase, what I do > > here is to "confront bullshit," whoever it emanates from, > > whatever it's about. That doesn't mean I refrain from > > criticizing the bullshitter. > > > > > all the LABELS (Emily take note) like 'master of unintended irony', > > > or calling Vaj a notorious liar are from her. > > > > Of course, those weren't the kind of labels Emily was > > referring to. > > > > > She 'picks her fights' as she says > > > > You missed the context on that one. I was actually > > quoting Curtis. > > > > >, and she loves fights, that is obvious, and she > > > thoroughly believes that you Barry are evil, she said so several > > > times, (Can be here or in a private exchange, but she believes it) > > > > I have never said Barry was "evil," nor do I believe it. > > What I have said and do believe is that he's a thoroughly > > rotten human being. "Evil" applies to somebody like Hitler > > or Pol Pot or Stalin, not a chickensh*t like Barry. > > > > > It's visible since decades. Many people in the past, including > > > myself, who had a general positive view of her abilities and her > > > attitude, have seen this as her basic weakness, and actually tried > > > to persuade her from refraining from this behaviour, which is > > > mainly motivated by anger. > > > > In fact, it's rarely motivated by anger. It's usually > > disgust and contempt. > > > > > If she would only be neutral, making points and pointing out > > > logical flaws as raunchydog wants to make us believe > > > > Again, that isn't the point Raunchy was making. > > > > > why, I ask you, anyone, is she unable to wish a happy birthday > > > to her main adversary. She thinks she would be hypocritical if > > > she did so. > > > > No, that isn't what I said. In response to Rick's assertion > > on Barry's birthday that Barry's detractors had a chance "to > > shower him with love and kisses," I replied, "I'm not that > > enlightened, sorry. My love is still conditional on being > > treated like a human being." > > > > Now, if I had had a lengthy, mutually angry argument with > > someone that ended without resolution, and they had > > concluded by wishing me a happy birthday--or, you know, a > > happy New Year--I might well say I couldn't return the wish > > because I was still angry and it would therefore be > > hypocritical. Implicit in that remark would be that I > > considered it hypocritical for the other person to have > > wished *me* a happy birthday or happy New Year. > > > > Just a wee bit different from what you tried to put > > over here. > > > > > She thinks it would be some kind of moodmaking, as her > > > FEELINGS are really the opposite. So much for her > > > balanced and neutral view. > > > > Straw man, again. I don't claim to have a "balanced and > > neutral view" (I do try to be as balanced as possible, but > > I'm far from perfect); and I have FEELINGS just like > > anybody else. I don't like it when people don't treat me > > as a human being. I dislike it even more when people don't > > treat *others* as human beings. I find it difficult to > > express good wishes toward such people; I don't like to be > > insincere. > > > > Apparently being insincere doesn't bother you at all. > > > > > Barry, Vaj and Curtis, all say valuable things here, all > > > make good posts here, they may go overboard in the extend > > > they make a point IMHO, but it is simply wrong to not see > > > the validity of what they have to say. > > > > Curtis often says valuable things. In my opinion, Barry > > rarely does, and Vaj almost never does. > > > > > So Judy too has her good points, I can clearly see that, > > > she also makes good posts, once she pots with someone she > > > has a positive view of. > > > > I also make good points when I post with someone of whom I > > have a negative view. > > > > > But the main intercations are unfortunately these fights, and > > > she definitely has a list of adversaries, if it is a LIST or > > > simply a mental list doesn't matter, > > > > Everyone has "mental lists" of people they don't like, > > and I'm certainly no different. That's not the same as > > having an "Enemies List" as Barry uses the term. > > > > > and I know it, she makes a certain switch at some point, and > > > you are an adversary. > > > > I have been known to make a switch when someone I have > > previously respected and had a cordial relationship with > > does something inexcusable and not only refuses to > > even consider any criticism but goes on and on with > > elaborate and dishonest self-justification. > > > > I made a switch with you when you decided to engage in > > slimy speculation about Robin's mental health. You made > > a switch with me when I criticized you for doing so. > > > > Since then you've made something like 10 posts to others > > dumping on me. As with your remarks about Robin, you > > didn't have the guts to wait till I returned and confront > > me directly. > > > > > I don't want to complain, I can live with it, but I do see her > > > modus operanti. > > > > Poor victimized zarzari, he really doesn't *want* to > > complain, but he just couldn't help himself.
