--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > ... I was genuinely curious, seeing there were so many > > gaps in my mind. I wasn't making a dig at Ann. I wasn't > > thinking indirectly about a dig at Robin either. In fact, > > I can't even remember the motivation for writing the post > > we are discussing here. I am going to have to reread it. > > Continuing my ongoing raps on the theme of "Everything > you need to know about Fairfield Life you can learn from > Yahoo's Message View" :-), I suggest that you don't have > to reread anything. You gained the same impression that > many others did, that so far Ann's presence here pretty > much revolves around her perception that FFL delivers up > Robin to her as a captive audience. > > He's never responded to anything she writes, nor even > acknowledged her existence. Yet she's still on the "Robin > was and still is brilliant" bandwagon. Call me crazy, but > I think the best commentary on this so far was someone's > comparison of her to Squeaky Fromme. 'Nuff said. > > > You make up this stuff in your mind. The mind manufactures > > fictions. This is the enlightenment trip, to see through > > those fictions. > > You presume that folks here actually have a real interest > in enlightenment. If FFL has done anything for me over the > years of my participation here, it has dissuaded me of > this notion. Nothing dies a faster death here than *actual* > discussions of enlightenment and its many mysteries. They > are derailed quickly into digs at the person who attempts > to ponder those mysteries *from their POV*, attempting to > denigrate that POV and the person who holds it, and ignor- > ing the larger issue of enlightenment completely. > > Often (and the subject of this rap), such derailments seem > to not even be aimed at the person they are presumably > written to. In many cases, the derailer is "writing to" > someone who has made it crystal clear that he or she wants > nothing to do with the derailer, and in many cases doesn't > even bother to read what they write. They have been, in > as real a sense as in the romantic one, been "dumped." > > And, just as one finds in bars full of sad men and women > desperate for someone -- anyone -- who will sit there and > listen to them drone on endlessly about the person who > dumped them and what horrible, nasty, inexcusably > inexcusable people the act of dumpage makes them. In bars, > you could deal with such people the same way people do in > real life -- get up and move to the other side of the bar > and leave them ranting to themselves. > > Here, you can't. They can continue to rant, often pretending > that they are *still writing directly to the person who has > made it clear they aren't reading a word of it*. (Or, as in > my case, only the first 10 words or so shown in Message View.) > > Few call them on this. WHY? Because IMO *they're* the ones > reading it, and in fact *they're* the ones being written to. > It's all part of a phenomenon we discussed briefly earlier, > trying to form what you call "associations" with other > people, what I call cliques. > > On one level, I think that people on Internet forums who > continue to rant angrily at people who have dumped them > (or defend and praise them just as embarrassingly) are in > the same ballpark as stalkers who stand outside the apart- > ments of men or women who have dumped them romantically and > scream at their closed, double-paned-for-soundproofing-purposes > windows. The ranting is *not* for the purpose of communication; > it's a way of either venting their own line-on-stone anger > at the person who has dumped them or a way of (in their > minds) trying to "get them back." > > Because the dumper is not paying any attention to the some- > what deranged dumpee, and thus refusing to become a "captive > audience" for those they've dumped, the dumpees settle for > the "next best thing." That is, the same thing that the > drunks in the bars settle for if they can get it. Someone > -- anyone -- who will listen to them rant endlessly about > the horrible dumper and then hopefully either pile on to > ragging about them or, at the very least, respond with an > occasional "Uh huh" or "Whatever you say," which the raging > dumpee interprets as meaning "You go, girl" or "You rock, man." > > Meanwhile I'm over here in another corner of the bar, > wondering why others are still sitting there listening to > someone drunk on attachment carrying on endlessly about it.
No you aren't, you're the silly nit who thinks that a woman who chooses to climb on your lap at this bar is actually enthralled with your conversation and is longing for you to caress her ass. >
