Steve. Pull up, pull out...I think I might see a ray of light....but, come on Steve....you have a *BIG* heart, I know you do...look how upset you were about Ravi's dismissal...after all. Here's Madonna for you. She's in white.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyBQ0MDDcCQ&feature=related ________________________________ From: seventhray1 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 4:15 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Internet freedom converning Ravi's posts Let me reply as I go through. --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > 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 Clouseau—Neville Chamberlain approach to > these disputes. You already have me smiling with these references. > > 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. This is a good point. I do seem to have a blind spot in that regard. FTR, it was the detective who coaxed a confession out of her. Her date with the judge is coming up. > 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 FFL—even 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 manipulative—but > 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 me—which 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. Robin, I will be completely honest. I pull my punches with both of you. And that is all I will say on that for now. > You have allowed yourself to be used, Stevie Baby. And he looked upon his > works. And he saw that it was good. How about as Shakespeare in Julies Caesar might say, "And Barry is an h-o-n-o-r-a-b-l-e man". I couldn't resist that. Apropos of nothing > 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. Yes, I thought Barry's reply to Obbajeeba was a little harsh, but that's Barry - often. I mean, even Curtis has called him on this sometimes. In particular in one instance when he was harsh in responding to you. But, I mean, so what. Is this a capital offense? > 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. Okay, confession time. I had my astrological chart done by Hart Defoe around 25 years ago, and he said I was a slow processor. And of course as recently as just last week, I was declared to be a "pea brained heartland retard". At least I wasn't called a "heartless retard". Now that might have hurt. > 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. Ouch!. Does 3-1/2 out of 5 count. (and yes, I did have to use my fingers) > Unfortunately for those readers who enjoyed reading—perhaps—posts 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 guy—Robin—or you go with the bad guy—the > unsinkable Mr Wright. No other choice, else you will find yourself attempting > to reconcile the irreconcilable. No, I am going with the unsinkable Molly Brown. And that is my final answer. > 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? I read a funny comment in the NYT today. Someone asked when Israel was going to declare war on Iran, and the answer was, "two years ago". I am going to take a break right now, because my daughter is crying for chicken wings, so I better get a move on. She likes the one that have a little mustand tang. BTW, thanks much for your reply! This has lifted my spirits. > But Barry Wright is a coward and a dissembler—but 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 FFL—even after my letter to Ravi—will 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't—please—get 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 craft—but 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 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... > > > --- 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... > > >
