Thank you, feste37.
--- In [email protected], "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote:
>
> "Invisible" worm, not "enviable". Makes a big difference to this poem about
> sexual shame.
>
> --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > O rose, thou art sick!
> > The invisible 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 [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 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...
> > >
> >
>
