"Invisible" worm, not "enviable". Makes a big difference to this poem about sexual shame.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > O rose, thou art sick! > The enviable worm > That flies in the night, > In the howling storm, > > Has found out thy bed > Of crimson joy: > And his dark secret love > Does thy life destroy. > > WB > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 it—for 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... > > >
