Barry, here is my heartfelt and light response to several of your recent posts. Yes, I included a "funny" for you in video format, although not nearly as "face value" funny as the Kate Winslet clip re: gender perceptions. Nor as humorous and gentle and as Merudanda's posts. Mine is focused more on social convention as an art :)
For context of my post, consider that perhaps some or many FFL participants are giving similar treatment to all members in acknowledging and witnessing their posts as being written by human beings; of participating in a conversation; of expressing and sharing different points of view; of serving as entertainment or provoking thought with regard to the topics discussed; or aiding in understanding the human condition and ourselves better. IMO, you misconstrued (and changed the reality) of Obba's email to you by representing it as a "whiny plea for attention from you" and you would also have your readers believe that you were being "compassionate" in your response. Is that how you were feeling about the "dreck?" I thought you were angry. It's O.K. - we all get angry now and again, Barry, and this is now all in the past and the dirty laundry has been aired out.. Barry, do you really think that all of us who respond to you, who you don't like, or who you continually put down, are just "looking for attention from you?" And you go even further in assuming this (and I read you here at face value as you seem so intent on making this point): "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..." You are most definitely not "prescient", IMHO. Could you have predicted that in Ravi's absence, you would choose to assume this part of his internet character where you now refer to *THEY* that read your posts and respond to you in ways that offend you as obsessed with you and your "bitches?" So funny, Barry, you must see the humor in this, n'est-ce pas? I hope you weren't serious. You just have been presenting in such a depressed manner of late (IMO), I'm not sure anymore. Barry, you so undersell yourself here....think better of yourself, man. In the context you wrote it, why assume that the only reason I might read you, for example, is because I am "obsessing" on you? Was it meant as a put-down to your readers that don't always agree with you? It says more about your own self-worth. Maybe I think you may have something to say that could be "interesting," regardless of whether I appreciate all of your posts all the time, and regardless of whether I comment back to you in ways you don't always like. And, this statement below from another of your posts is also truly amazing coming out of your mouth. Why are you here? What is the payoff of staying here? You could easily correspond offline with those people you deem worth reading - why suffer here year after year? There is a reason, Barry, and I hope you continue to stay until you figure it out. Barry, IMHO, you don't see "trends" - how can you when you only look at some of the data? You don't see "the forest through the trees" - how can you when you are so far in the forest yourself on a daily basis? If you were to decide to take a few weeks off, or even maybe one, or maybe even a few days, you might be able to walk out far enough or climb far enough up in a tall tree to get a different perspective on FFL, as a whole and also on its participants. Again, you are undermining your own choices and yourself badly, IMO. "If I had to recommend to a young person what might be better for their evolution -- hanging out on an Internet movie forum or hanging out on a spiritual forum -- I'd have to go with movies. You meet a nicer class of people." And speaking of funny, because in your rant on "interesting and not interesting" you give yourself an *out* at the end by saying that "funny overrides everything," here you go. Will this override everything and warrant a read? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81szj1vpEu8&feature=youtu.be THE END.... of my long and "obsessive" post to you (as I'm sure you will characterize it), boring to the very end. Even though I am compassionately trying to get through to you on a couple of things. But, not to worry, I wrote it for myself as much as for you, Barry, and I will likely continue to read your posts, because your participation in FFL is part of the gig and I am an equal-opportunity reader. So your ego should feel stroked on this one. I wish you peace and self-acceptance on your journey through life. P.S. To Robin, per your comment below and in case you also read this very mundane response; while I may be of the same gender, I am *not* another Obbajeeba any more than you another Ravi. Capiche? However, I agree with your sentiment that Barry used the same patronizing, derogatory and dismissive tone on me last week, but I got off a few insults in my defense in descending to his level, so I feel at peace with the whole thing. And, I hope he is listening, as Barry, I took your advice and "watched" this week. I agree with you in your decision to no longer read anyone that upsets your carefully constructed self-image - what's the point? In your case, I would recommend that you stay with the light humor and movie review mode here on FFL, with the occasional "moments of clarity" generalizing the behavior of others, given your self-assessed undeniable insight. It would be so much more pleasant for you and those on your DNRL, isn't that true? ________________________________ From: maskedzebra <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Internet freedom converning Ravi's posts Several of nature's people I know, and they know me; I feel for them a transport Or cordiality; But never met this fellow, Attended or alone, Without a tighter breathing And zero at the bone.* *for confirmation of Emily's experience, read Barry's post to obbajeeba. (Another Emily) --- 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... >
