--- In [email protected], "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > If the rules of this forum were fairly applied, Turquoise B > would be expelled. See post no. 321026, in which he appears > to disclose the real name of an anonymous poster. Ravi was > thrown off for a similar offense, I believe.
Ah. "True colors," and all that. :-) I'm not going to bother to look up the post in question, but if you're referring to me outing Jim Flanegin as doctordumbass, he did that himself. The guy was so stupid that in the first days of his new pseudoincarnation here, he sent me a personal email that purported to have come from doctordumbass, but was clearly listed in its headers as coming from Jim Flanegin, at his regular email address. :-) It's essentially the same dumb stunt that he pulled in several other pseudoincarnations here, where he claimed *not* to be Jim as he was masquerading as someone else, and then posted some terrible pseudosong on YouTube, which was clearly copyrighted there to...dare I say it... Jim Flanegin. If it were anyone else, I wouldn't bother. But seeing as how it's someone who has claimed repeatedly on this forum and others to be enlightened, I thought that it was worth informing the newbs on this forum who they were dealing with, and what the "Maharishi-enlightened" feel constitutes enlightenment. If Rick or Alex feel that me revealing what Jim was stupid enough to reveal to me (and not just me) is grounds for booting me off of FFL, I have *no problem* with that. But don't pretend that I revealed something that anyone with a lick of sense couldn't have figured out by themselves. I at least waited until at least one other person here recognized the inimitable style of the Jimster before I mentioned it. If feste or Rick or Alex feel that I should be booted off of the forum for recognizing the obvious, what should be done to those who are so dense as not to? Just askin'... :-) > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > Yes, of course. "I also get that his connections can have > > > an edge to them, or be rough." My take is that he is often > > > being intentionally up front about the things and people > > > that annoy him. > > > > BARRY: While I fully cop to being both edgy and rough at times, > > I thank you for getting the upfrontnessitude. And it's > > really not just about people or things that annoy me; > > I'm pretty much telling it the way I see it across the > > board. > > > > ROBIN: But you are ridiculous, Barry: you insult, demean, violate--and yet > > you are so cowardly and dishonest and invulnerable that you never feel you > > have to defend yourself. Susan is being therapeutic: her encouragement to > > you is absurd, because in order to do this she has to ignore and deny the > > truth about you. So her compliments directed towards you always shows the > > immense strain in her soul. Your criticism of persons here on FFL is > > unmeaning and unreal. You confuse--deliberately, perversely--swans with > > pigs. It is a kind of craziness, and Susan is an enemy of your well-being > > to imply that you are not an absurd character. At least you are in the 3 C > > form of yourself. It is--I have said this--intellectual Andy Kaufmanism. > > That perfectly describes my experience, Barry. You are not serious. And > > Ann, Raunchy, and Judy have been charitable and objective in their analysis > > of your posts. > > > > BARRY: There are some here who like to pretend that I'm somehow > > "lying" when I describe them *exactly the way I see them*, > > but that's just them trying not to hear it. > > > > ROBIN: A three year old would not be able to keep a straight face in saying > > what you have just said here, Barry. You called these women the C word--AND > > YOU THOUGHT YOU PROVED YOUR CASE SIMPLY BY UTTERING THIS WORD. You never > > attempted to show how Ann's response to Curtis in any way was less than > > reasonable, honest, and innocent. She was as anti-C as anyone could be. And > > yet you called her names. Never letting us know how you arrived at such a > > bizarre and unbelievably inappropriate conclusion. > > > > But it is all summarized in what you say here: "There are some here who > > like to pretend that I'm somehow 'lying' when I describe them *exactly the > > way I see them*, BUT THAT'S JUST THEM TRYING NOT TO HEAR IT". This puts > > your How To Act Human IQ at below 25, Barry. > > > > You are asking the reader to believe that when these three women read that > > you had called them the C word, their response proved how true you were in > > describing them in this way. There is neither logic, reason, feeling, or > > truth inside whatever process you went through to arrive at your conclusion > > about these women--and then you have to gall to say their protests are > > "just them trying not to hear it". > > > > There is not one person who in good conscience can possibly believe what > > you say here, Barry. No: it is the very opposite: by calling these three > > women C's, *you proved how anti-Cs they were*. And everyone--including poor > > Susan--knew this, Barry. You're like an ungovernable child who, standing on > > a water ski in his bathtub, announcing he is slalom-skiing in the ocean. No > > one I have ever known in my life is more psychologically obtuse than you > > are, Barry. And once again I say it: Your whole philosophy of life, your > > relations with women, your conception of the interpersonal is summed up in > > this one passage. "But that's just them trying not to hear it". Susan, this > > means that these three women ACTUALLY BELIEVED IN THE TRUTHFUL APPLICATION > > OF THE C WORD TO THEM. > > > > Do you believe this, Susan? No you don't. You should tell your friend Barry > > to STFU. Because he is a disgrace to himself. Do you believe that Barry > > believes, Susan, that he has struck at the truth of these three women, and > > they are just being defensive and irrational in denying this? Why do you > > indulge this kind of thinking in Barry, Susan? Hey, Susan! Don't worry > > about it; I am having a bad hair day. > > > > BARRY: What you see is what you get. If I describe someone as mentally ill, > > I honestly think they're mentally ill. There is no "lying" > > there, or any of the posturing that many others use here, > > parroting invective and putdowns that (to be up front) > > they probably don't even understand the meanings of. > > > > ROBIN: Andy Kaufman to a brilliant degree, Barry. This is irony beyond the > > imagination. Either you are a literal zombie, or your heart has died, or > > you have insulated yourself in your repressed pain and trauma from being > > disillusioned first with Maharishi, then with Fred Lenz--SOMETHING has > > turned you into the most extreme caricature of a human being. You are like > > someone asked to give a paper on Plato, and instead just starts throwing > > shit around the room, stomping your feet and saying: "Socrates was a pimp > > and an asshole. He never made sense--and he knew it. What a bunch of BS all > > that Greek philosophy is." Barry you are primitive, crude, and coarse--you > > need to know what manners are. Because you have none. Speak to me, Suzie Q. > > > > BARRY: Subtle I ain't. Except when I am. Either way, if I say > > something about someone here, I mean it. If they pretend > > I don't, that's their problem, not mine. > > > > ROBIN: Andy Kaufman here again--I say this with the same seriousness as I > > would say that David Letterman has a sense of humour sometimes. You might > > say you "mean it", but you spare yourself any self-examination which would > > entitle you to your conclusions, Barry. Remember Raunchy's three dialogues? > > You act as if you have no critics, Barry. But it is not that you have > > critics: it is that civilized persons on this forum find you obnoxious and > > brutal--You are existing in some kind of coma of self-delusion, Barry. I > > call call you knucklehead of fairy tale proportions. > > > > BARRY: You have to remember that I came out of a spiritual trip > > that likened itself more to a dojo than a temple. There > > was not a whole lotta "punch pulling" there, because it > > was assumed that everyone was adult enough and had been > > around the karmic block enough to handle the truth. Here, > > and in the TMO, not so much. > > > > ROBIN: You have never engaged with anyone here on FFL in a fair and honest > > and decent way, Barry. NOT ONCE. You throw your shit around and you say you > > have quoted Shakespeare. You do not even know what it is like to be > > respectful and sincere and civil with someone who disagrees with you. You > > are in a bad dream, Barry. Utterly anaesthetized to the soft and gentle and > > delicate urgings and promptings of Lady Reality. > > > > Think about it, Barry. What does this post signify? It could only, in > > general, mean one of two things: either Robin is wrong about Barry, or he > > is right about Barry? But you will never know whether I was right or wrong, > > because I am just trying to get back at you for telling it as it is. > > > > You have crippled yourself, Barry, in the profound disillusionment of your > > spiritual fathers. If you could react to this post with the infinitesimal > > evidence of feeling, honesty, THAT WOULD BE A FUCKING GODDAM MIRACLE--and I > > shall, for some reason, keep praying for it. > > >
