Dear Steve, You see what a beautiful rose has flowered from your last post. Your weakness has been perfectly exploited, and the post which you see here from Amsterdam is the offspring of your Inspector ClouseauNeville Chamberlain approach to these disputes.
Barry is one tricky dude, that's for sure. Poor obbajeeba. She now knows that Barry acted with justice. I hope she realizes this. The sadism, it has made you a pawn, and this is only inevitable, given your refusal to call that nun a burglar when even the judge declared, based on the evidence, she was guilty of stealing your mother's jewellery. No, Barry is much worse than I thought. But I can thank you, Steve, for drawing him out like this. Obviously he has made his case. Now go back to his post to obbajeeba, read it carefully from beginning to end; then read Judy's post; after that my first post to Barry; and finally read the post to which Barry is referring here, which, according to him, *he has not read*. I think it best just to give him his rightful influence at FFLeven as he, most despicably has refused to speak to me directly, or make his case inside the context of a counter-argument which takes me on personally. He is the subtlest liar there could be. And everything, down to the last nuance, is, in this post addressed to you, deceitful and manipulativebut very inspired. This level of bullshit, it leaves everyone, or almost everyone, with their head spinning. As it will yours. You see, Steve, Barry has taken the hard and categorical position vis-a-vis myself that you in principle refuse to or cannot take. You should take your cues from him. For he has finally committed himself all the way. You now can't have it both ways. Either you argue with Barry the way you have argued with mewhich you will not do; or if you make the half-hearted attempt to do so, Barry will just have contempt for you. As he does even now. You have allowed yourself to be used, Stevie Baby. And he looked upon his works. And he saw that it was good. This is on one level great fun; on another level it is politics that goes well past poor little Nicolo. You will have to come down, finally, on one side or the other, Steve. >From strictly a human standpoint I deem this long post by Barry Wright to be >devoid of human feeling, and to be deliberately and cunningly conceived out of >pure malice and deceit. But to perceive this, well, I guess you'd have to hate >Barry as much as I do. Lovely man, Barry. And I am only saying this because he has, gentle FFL reader, refuted me up and down. And this, by cracky, hurts. As you can imagine. Barry has found your weakness, Steve, and he has put it to use big-time. If Barry is who I think he is, then you have just received all the proof you need of the stupidity and blindness of a particular aspect of your modus operandi. By the way, unless you can testify to me that you have read obbajeeba's post to Barry; Barry's response to obbajeeba; Judy's response to Barry's post to obbajeeba; then my first response to Barry; then my second response to Barry; and finally, my open letter to Ravi (#4), I will not be saying another word to you. Unfortunately for those readers who enjoyed readingperhapsposts by both Barry and Robin you are faced with an either-or proposition, because Barry has made it thus. You either go with the good guyRobinor you go with the bad guythe unsinkable Mr Wright. No other choice, else you will find yourself attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. It is hard to make one's case when one's enemy chooses never to come onto the battlefield directly. I wonder if a war could be fought this way? But Barry Wright is a coward and a dissemblerbut the serpentine movements of his mind here will be discerned by perhaps one of two readers at FFL. The rest will have to accord him some points, just on the face of it. Which will mean that my standing at FFLeven after my letter to Raviwill have taken a major hit. There is no human person arguing from behind the mask of the person who wrote this post this morning. I can feel nothing of the real Barry person. He is not there. He has taken a big shit in my sandbox, and I don't see how I can clean it up. Obbajeeba, want to give it another try with Barry, to see if you can'tpleaseget him to let up on Canada? Oh, by the way, Steve, there is a right and a wrong here. Barry is not going to compromise on this, and Robin is not going to compromise on this. Any intermediate position will just come off as ineffectual and impotent. No, ladies and gentleman, it's black and white. Robin, the nice guy; Barry, the not so nice guy. How could it be any other way ? :-) And don't worry: I ate my spinach, so I am fine. That Ravi, he was a just a little boy playing with fire. If you want to learn how it's really done, then study the masterwork of the rather inspired Mr Wright. But make sure you do the background reading as well, starting with poor obbajeeba's post to Barry. No, it looks as if only Barry were capable of coming to the defense of himself. (You remember that challenge I issued at the end of my first post in response to Barry's post to obbajeeba? None answered it until now. You have unwittingly provided Barry with a context to defend the indefensible. That should tell you how seriously I took you, Steve. Barry has brought forth a child conceived out of his own mind as it made love to your exploitable post. And you, dear Steve, when you first read what Barry has posted here, you said to yourself: Ah, you see? I was right. I hope Robin reads this. And you were right at least on one score, Steven: I did read Barry's post, from beginning to end. But my verdict was: This is Saddam Hussein if he had brains. The terror continues. Where are the Marines? Notice Barry's first and only response to my long post: the picture of the beautiful zebra and the cheap alcohol in my name. Little did he know he would awake the next day with the perfect stooge. The stooge which brought forth his true genius. Which is found here by the way. It's all quite impressive. Just that it has the form of perfect craftbut for all that its soullessness should make the friends of Barry weep. Like you, Steve. For Barry Wright in Amsterdam. Just for fun, Steve, especially because I didn't read a word of the rant that you're referring to, but can almost certainly tell you what it said, and what motivated it. --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > For instance, I feel it would be cruel of me to ask you > > to read my last long post to Barry. And why is this? > > Because the extent to which it was successfully exposing > > Barry's weakness, is precisely the extent to which you > > would not like it. And in fact, you *couldn't* continue > > to read itfor this very... > > I read about a third of it. And you are right, I *couldn't* > read anymore. That's because you're sane, Steve. :-) I didn't read any of it, but I can tell you all about it. First, it was long, at least a couple of thousand words, the result of easily half an hour or an hour's worth of ranting. Second, it went through my post point by point and tried to turn each point into a condemnation of me, "pointing out my weaknesses." Third, it was so badly written that only someone with abysmally low standards (like an avid Dan Brown reader) would be able to make their way through it. And fourth, it was so obviously an "attack on Barry" that no one other than a person who already had a grudge against him would *want* to read it. Also, it was "cruel" to ask you to read it, but it wasn't cruel of him to write it, or to demand that I read it. How'd I do? :-) The reason I'm bothering to comment is to point out some- thing that has been pointed out before by Vaj and to some extent by Curtis -- the fact that Robin's act *has not changed in the least since he was a faux spiritual teacher in Fairfield*. It's the same old same old. He's an abuser. Back in the Bad Old Days, RWC would drag his followers up on stage and yell at them (and possibly even strike them), "pointing out their weaknesses" and telling them exactly what kinds of demons were possessing them. Now think about the post you're talking about, or his many posts to Curtis or Vaj. Does the pattern sound familiar? That's exactly what he has tried to do since Day One on FFL to Curtis and to anyone else who doesn't treat him as "special" or authoritative, and allow him to preach at them. So *of course* that's what he would have done with me in the post you're referring to. My crime? I think he's a total ego-dork, and don't find him interesting enough to bother with. The crime of the people back in Fairfield? Who knows. But we DO know one thing -- in both cases 1) he felt that it was his RIGHT to abuse someone by "pointing out their weaknesses" or their demons, and 2) he felt that it was almost the DUTY of the person being abused to not only stand there and take it, but be somehow grateful for it. That's classic abuser mentality. What a load of ego-crap. What insanity. *Especially* in a followup to a post originally (I assume) criticizing me for telling Obbajeeba that I wasn't at all impressed by her whiny pleas for more of my attention. I got the feeling from Message View that both he and the Judester thought it was BAD of me to suggest to her that she might be better served by getting a life of her own than by obsessing on the lives of others on this forum. So what does Mr. Formerly Enlightened do? He obsesses on me, and runs his standard abuse number again. I presume that, as he did with Curtis, he inserted all sorts of comments as needy and whiny as Obba's, suggesting again that it was almost my DUTY to reply to him and debate with him, and what an awful person I was if I didn't. Well, I didn't. And I won't. He's just not worth my time. Guess that makes me an awful person. But, if you think about *time*, and the efficient use of it, I would have to say that I think I'm winning. I don't bother to read ANY of his silly ego-rants, because by now I know what they'll all say without bothering to read them. Same with the other people on my Don't Bother With list. But *THEY* are so obsessed with me that *they read every word of every one of my posts*. They probably read them multiple times, trying to work up enough faux outrage and hatred to fuel a stinging reply. Seems to me that obsession is its own reward. They're trapped in a samskaric cycle that they cannot escape from. They're in EXACTLY the position they want *me* to be in, but which they cannot achieve. They have to sit there and read every word I write, whether about them, or about anything else. As Ravi might say, they're my bitches. :-) And they will continue to be as long as they continue obsessing on me... --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Just for fun, Steve, especially because I didn't read a > word of the rant that you're referring to, but can almost > certainly tell you what it said, and what motivated it. > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > For instance, I feel it would be cruel of me to ask you > > > to read my last long post to Barry. And why is this? > > > Because the extent to which it was successfully exposing > > > Barry's weakness, is precisely the extent to which you > > > would not like it. And in fact, you *couldn't* continue > > > to read itfor this very... > > > > I read about a third of it. And you are right, I *couldn't* > > read anymore. > > That's because you're sane, Steve. :-) > > I didn't read any of it, but I can tell you all about it. > First, it was long, at least a couple of thousand words, > the result of easily half an hour or an hour's worth of > ranting. Second, it went through my post point by point > and tried to turn each point into a condemnation of me, > "pointing out my weaknesses." Third, it was so badly > written that only someone with abysmally low standards > (like an avid Dan Brown reader) would be able to make > their way through it. And fourth, it was so obviously an > "attack on Barry" that no one other than a person who > already had a grudge against him would *want* to read it. > > Also, it was "cruel" to ask you to read it, but it wasn't > cruel of him to write it, or to demand that I read it. > > How'd I do? :-) > > The reason I'm bothering to comment is to point out some- > thing that has been pointed out before by Vaj and to some > extent by Curtis -- the fact that Robin's act *has not > changed in the least since he was a faux spiritual teacher > in Fairfield*. It's the same old same old. He's an abuser. > > Back in the Bad Old Days, RWC would drag his followers up > on stage and yell at them (and possibly even strike them), > "pointing out their weaknesses" and telling them exactly > what kinds of demons were possessing them. > > Now think about the post you're talking about, or his many > posts to Curtis or Vaj. Does the pattern sound familiar? > That's exactly what he has tried to do since Day One on > FFL to Curtis and to anyone else who doesn't treat him as > "special" or authoritative, and allow him to preach at them. > So *of course* that's what he would have done with me in > the post you're referring to. > > My crime? I think he's a total ego-dork, and don't find > him interesting enough to bother with. The crime of the > people back in Fairfield? Who knows. But we DO know one > thing -- in both cases 1) he felt that it was his RIGHT > to abuse someone by "pointing out their weaknesses" or > their demons, and 2) he felt that it was almost the DUTY > of the person being abused to not only stand there and > take it, but be somehow grateful for it. That's classic > abuser mentality. > > What a load of ego-crap. What insanity. > > *Especially* in a followup to a post originally (I assume) > criticizing me for telling Obbajeeba that I wasn't at all > impressed by her whiny pleas for more of my attention. I > got the feeling from Message View that both he and the > Judester thought it was BAD of me to suggest to her that > she might be better served by getting a life of her own > than by obsessing on the lives of others on this forum. > > So what does Mr. Formerly Enlightened do? He obsesses on > me, and runs his standard abuse number again. I presume > that, as he did with Curtis, he inserted all sorts of > comments as needy and whiny as Obba's, suggesting again > that it was almost my DUTY to reply to him and debate > with him, and what an awful person I was if I didn't. > > Well, I didn't. And I won't. He's just not worth my time. > Guess that makes me an awful person. > > But, if you think about *time*, and the efficient use of > it, I would have to say that I think I'm winning. I don't > bother to read ANY of his silly ego-rants, because by now > I know what they'll all say without bothering to read them. > Same with the other people on my Don't Bother With list. > > But *THEY* are so obsessed with me that *they read every > word of every one of my posts*. They probably read them > multiple times, trying to work up enough faux outrage and > hatred to fuel a stinging reply. > > Seems to me that obsession is its own reward. They're > trapped in a samskaric cycle that they cannot escape from. > They're in EXACTLY the position they want *me* to be in, > but which they cannot achieve. They have to sit there and > read every word I write, whether about them, or about > anything else. > > As Ravi might say, they're my bitches. :-) > > And they will continue to be as long as they continue > obsessing on me... >
