http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87XQKCXfFjQ
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HRa4X07jdE --- In [email protected], obbajeeba <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Beautiful. > Welcome back, Emily. > > You give such a kind way to botox the turq's value up. > Tendering his heart is what is needed for him to see not all women carry a > whiny tone as he interpreted. If only he could here the voice, he would feel > so much different in what he reads. The non squeaky, clear as a bell sooth, > he misses in his extraction of meanings from the words typed, like > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWZV-FHB2U > or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZPmZ64m3_4 or > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Ckee7rabM > or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0 > Turq just has the wrong tone in his musical ear when he reads the typed words > from the babes of FFL. > > --- In [email protected], Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > 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 [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 itâ"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... > > > > > >
