Dear Em, I'm glad you noticed that, I myself hesitated using that word - but just went along with it anyway :-), you can consider it more as a writer's liberty or flourish. Wasn't trying to exclude anyone - FFL in itself is a coterie would be a better way to put it. The only cliques I have seen are formed by Barry, you weren't around when I first came here in May 2010, Barry thought I was someone who he could bully around, the arrogance and stupidity of that man..LOL..he and his clique took such a hard beating that he has never ever recovered from that :-)
Yes - I have been blessed with an ability to learn languages, accents very quickly. I speak Hindi, Telugu and English - conversational at least with barely detectable accent, as in, in an accent which is well accepted in all these 3 languages. However lacking an arts degree and being stuck in a corporate world I don't have two many chances to display and improve my English vocabulary. However things changed since 2010 - FFL has greatly helped, not to mention all the various books I read when I was young. I spend a lot of time on Merriam Webster m-w.com, practicing pronunciation,words, subtle differences between each of the adjectives - pronunciation is an area which I'm a little weak in - more as in the American pronunciations for the words which I don't use on a day to day basis. My memory really helps, all my forefathers chanting Vedas by memory have done the dirty work for me, I repeat something a few times and I retain it - I think I have at least 1000 songs memorized. My English practice went up way high these past 7 months - practicing, articulating, vocalizing all my ideas. So there's an element of hard work as well driven by my love for adjectives in the English language and the need to express my ideas. So thank you. Love, Ravi On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Emily Reyn <emilymae.r...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ** > > > Don't even know that I'd agree with the "coterie" thingy, although I love > your use of descriptive words. You have a better command of the English > language than many English speakers, no? You are a smarty pants. I'm just > a "cool cat", ya dig? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.r...@gmail.com> > *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:07 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Why do people form cliques? > > > Dear Barry Baby > > You opined* - " Immediately after after the minor clique-ist proposed his > Enemies List, the clique leader responded, not only stroking the first > clique-ist for dissing these eight people, but dissing them even further, > suggesting that they lacked the spiritual, moral, emotional, and > intellectual intelligence to...wait for it...see things the way she does. > "* > > Seriously you got all that Yahoo's message view - sometimes I > underestimate your skills. > > Anyway it's not cliques - it's a coterie, a coterie of cogent, coherent, > compelling mavericks. > > Love, > Ravi > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 2:48 AM, turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>wrote: > > ** > > My day started with young Maya doing her Sunday morning routine, and > asking me to show her "moovees" on my "competer." We chose a couple of > episodes of a British kids' show "Charlie and Lola." It's pretty good, > seemingly based on a series of very popular books written and > illustrated by Lauren Child. > > I can see why they're popular. They are aimed at an audience aged 3 to > 7, and they speak to this audience about real-life situations that a > person of that age might encounter. Lola is an inquisitive girl, Charlie > is her protective older brother, and their parents are never seen, so > they have to figure out how to handle these situations *on their own*. > This is what I consider the secret of these books' and this series' > success -- it teaches *self-sufficiency*. > > Synchronistically, the second episode we watched was about Lola having > to deal with her first experience with cliques. A group of kids, both > girls and boys, took a disliking to her on the playground and decided to > gang up on her and diss her. As you might expect, if you have ever had > any experience with cliques, most of the dialog was spoken by the > clique. One of them -- the girl who ran the clique -- would diss Lola, > and then the others would pile on, one by one. As they did, the clique > leader would praise them, so then they'd all do it again. > > Lola mainly didn't reply, and instead wandered off to another part of > the playground, where she ran into her brother Charlie. She explained > the situation to him, and he -- wise beyond his years -- asked her to > turn and look at the clique members, who were across the playground > *still* dissing her, even though they knew they couldn't be heard by > anyone outside the clique. > > "Look at them, Lola," said Charlie. "Do they look happy? Would you ever > really want *any* of them as your friend?" Lola looked, shook her head > "No," and smiled. Just then her best friend Lotta came up and they went > off to play together, laughing, the clique and their taunts forgotten, > washed away like...like...like a line drawn through water. > > Maya seemed to like it, even though she's been fortunate enough to have > been spared exposure to cliques so far. Looking at her I thought, "When > you are, I suspect you'll be self-sufficient enough to not let them get > to you." > > And *that* thought, interestingly enough, was the genesis of this > particular cafe rap, and the answer to the koan posed in its Subject > line. > > I think that the answer to that koan is: "People form cliques because > they're not self-sufficient." > > Either that, or "Mu." Your call. :-) > > People who tend to form into cliques do so in my opinion because they're > not comfortable with themselves. Or their selves. Whatever. So they > clump together with others who are just as uncomfortable with their > selves, and they stroke each other so that they won't feel so > uncomfortable. > > Sometimes that "stroking off" takes the form of: > "Wow. Did you see the latest Lady Gaga video? Isn't she cool?" > "Yeah, she sure is cool." > "Very cool." > "And aren't we cool to be able to see her coolness?" > "Sure am glad WE'RE so cool!" > > Other times it takes the form of: > "Wow. Isn't that skank Missy such a...such a skank?" > "Yeah, she sure is a skank." > "Major skank." > "And a bad dresser, too." > "Yeah, a major skank bad dresser." > "Sure am glad WE'RE not like Missy!" > > My theory of why people form into cliques may be simplistic, but > hey!...we're talking about people who form into cliques. You can't get > much deeper than simplistic when discussing them. :-) > > But I think I'm onto something with it. > > The people in cliques don't identify with Self. Because they're so > uncomfortable with their selves, they don't even identify with *them*, > either. They can only feel comfortable when they're surrounded by a > bunch of people who are stroking them off. Sounds kinda kinky to me -- > kinda like a ménage à many -- but if that's what gets them off, so > be it. > > But one of the things I don't understand is WHY, having formed the > clique to stroke each other off when they agree on things or people they > like, as in the first bit of dialogue above, they stroke each other off > by ganging up on the things or people they *don't* like? If they're > getting everything they need from the mutual masturbation society of the > clique and its members, WHY do clique-ists so often feel the need to > come up with an Enemies List of the people Not In The Clique? > > That happened here yesterday. I don't know whether you noticed. > > A minor clique member listed eight people Not In The Clique and then > dissed them. The only thing these eight people had in common, as far as > I could tell, is that they continue to have friendly relationships with > and chat with people who the clique doesn't like. Immediately after > after the minor clique-ist proposed his Enemies List, the clique leader > responded, not only stroking the first clique-ist for dissing these > eight people, but dissing them even further, suggesting that they lacked > the spiritual, moral, emotional, and intellectual intelligence to...wait > for it...see things the way she does. > > Interesting, thought I. If I were asked to come up with any single term > to describe each of these eight people, I would choose > "self-sufficient." They think for themselves, and hang out with who they > choose to hang out with. They are the very opposite of the clique-ists, > who only hang out with the people their clique leaders have told them > are OK to hang out with. > > Hmmmm. Maybe that's the answer to my second koan, WHY clique-ists seem > to come up with Enemies Lists so often: "They hate what they are not -- > people who are self-sufficient and capable of making up their own > minds." > > Either that, or "Mu." Your call. > > > > > >
