Thanks doc. I didn't take it personally, as you acknowledged.
I enjoy respectful dialog, though I much prefer in person to text or Skype or phone. And I get that you aren't taking sides. Nor am I asking anyone to take sides. If my posts come across that way...well they just do. Text is limiting. (I realize you aren't saying that what I have posted is coming across that way but rather that you are simply clarifying that you aren't taking sides.) To life! :) PS: Since there are some old timer TMers here, does anyone know Dee Nelson? ************** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > doctordumbass stated "[...] the[re] is no substitute to digging into one's > > self awareness for answers and solutions." > > > > Totally agree. > > > > Unfortunately, when followers choose to leave toxic authoritarian > > lifestyles/relationships, it can be difficult to break the cycle. > > Self-blame and self-doubt had become habit. > > **I agree, and thanks for not taking this as a judgment on you, 'cuz it > isn't. > However, the whole idea of a guide to provide the badly needed self-esteem to > us, after being psychologically destroyed, is one of those deals that seems > too good to be true, because it is - though impossible to recognize at the > time. Kind of like a rebound relationship after a break-up. > > > > I think we all have agendas. Agendas aren't bad in and of themselves. > > Hidden agendas, on the other hand, are the traps. > > ** Agreed - we've all got goals whether we know it or not. As to hidden > agendas, I really struggle with what those might be, even for the most > conniving and mean spirited people. All I see when I really get into it, is > their monstrous insecurity, that allows them to hurt others in service to > their own imagined protection. Weak, mean babies.:-) They are easy to spot, > God love 'em, and if I can avoid a personal or professional relationship with > them, so much the better! > > Also, this is not to take sides either for or against John K. or you, since I > do not know you at all, and only knew John briefly 35 years ago, when he was > strutting about with his peers as a Governor Of The Age Of Enlightenment And > Don't You Forget It.:-) > > > > ********** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > fwiw, I think that after being exposed to, and heavily influenced by, an > > > authoritarian cult, the last thing I would do is go to another authority > > > figure, who "specializes" in curing people, in order to fix myself. Its a > > > set up. > > > > > > Fortunately I learned at a young age that psychologists and psychiatrists > > > all have agendas of their own, simply by virtue of each having distinct > > > personalities and karmas, and no matter how sympathetic or empathetic > > > they are, they is no substitute to digging into one's self awareness for > > > answers and solutions. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > > > > > PS and FYI: Interestingly I posted what my "*chuckly* Barry..." post > > > > before I read Ann's response. I purposefully did that so as not to have > > > > my impression influenced by her response. Just so you know, Barry...if > > > > you even read my response. > > > > > > > > Thanks Ann, for bringing the posts you did forward. It does give a > > > > little more background to Barry's what-appears-to-be general mode of > > > > operation for him. > > > > > > > > ************** > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *chuckle* > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure you are not interested in my impression of you. > > > > > > > > > > I am interested in your impression of me. I do actually care, to a > > > > > point. > > > > > > > > > > Your impression of me is that I am an obsessive psychopathic > > > > > cyberstalker that has made a profession out of dishing The Way and > > > > > Knapp. (or something like that) That is your opinion; you cannot > > > > > provide facts. You think I am a loon. > > > > > > > > > > Well, my impression from this post you just made is that you like > > > > > manipulating people by passive aggressive type actions. You view it > > > > > as entertainment, apparently. And you have in your mind that these > > > > > people are trying to motivate you to apologize? I don't know where > > > > > you get the idea that they want you to apologize...but that is your > > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > That said, I don't think you manipulated anyone to do anything. I > > > > > think these ladies simply looked up verifying facts to your > > > > > allegations and claims. That isn't obsessive; that's investigative. > > > > > It hardly took all afternoon. > > > > > > > > > > Why do you feel the need to share with us what you did for the day? > > > > > > > > > > All that aside, in 3-D life you may be a great guy. You're probably a > > > > > good neighbor and responsible. You add to society in a good way. > > > > > > > > > > Folks in your 3-D life may have no idea you spend time on the > > > > > internet posting 1000s of arguments, name calling, guessing > > > > > people-whom-you-know-little-about motives, and typing in capitals > > > > > like that makes things more important, and whatever else you do > > > > > online. > > > > > > > > > > Through my six-year internet *career* and learning how to try to > > > > > converse in text, I (like others) have wondered what it would be like > > > > > if all these people were in a 3-D cafe. How many would behave the > > > > > same or similar as they do online? > > > > > > > > > > Hope you have another good day Barry. > > > > > > > > > > ******** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's, however, note that Barry had no objection to Lord > > > > > > > > > > Knows or Bill and Brahmi "barging" in and going after > > > > > > > > > > Robin. In fact, Barry, you loved it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please document this claim. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ann has done exactly this. Will Barry admit it? Don't > > > > > > > > be ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just love assigning homework to obsessives. > > > > > > > It keeps them busy for hours, and then they feel > > > > > > > so triumphant afterwards, as if the original > > > > > > > idea was theirs. Thanks for jumping through > > > > > > > hoops, girls. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for fun, and as an excuse to order a second > > > > > > cup of really *excellent* coffee here at a cafe > > > > > > I hadn't tried before, I'm going to explain the > > > > > > nature of the game to these gals, knowing in > > > > > > advance that they won't hear a word of the > > > > > > explanation, and that they'll fall for it again > > > > > > the next time I run it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Knowing that their mindset (Judy's originally, > > > > > > and Ann's because she's trying to emulate Judy) > > > > > > is to either 1) prove one of their perceived > > > > > > "opponents" WRONG, 2) prove themselves RIGHT, > > > > > > or 3) get the "opponent" to actually APOLOGIZE, > > > > > > what you do is assign them a task. Hopefully > > > > > > the task will involve digging into the past, > > > > > > hopefully for quite some time (so that they > > > > > > feel they've done their due diligence), at which > > > > > > point they trot out their "research," hoping for > > > > > > the outcome they were looking for -- a "win." > > > > > > > > > > > > And then nothing happens. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only people they impress are those who think > > > > > > the same way they do, in terms of "opponents" > > > > > > and "wins." They never notice that they've been > > > > > > assigned yet another "make work project," and > > > > > > leapt upon it like salivating dogs. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > The thing is, I had *no earthly idea* whether > > > > > > I'd interacted with Lord Knows the way Ann said > > > > > > I had, and for a very simple reason -- nothing > > > > > > about Robin sticks in my memory, because nothing > > > > > > about him is interesting enough enough *to* stick > > > > > > in my memory. But I figured Ann wouldn't be able > > > > > > to resist, so I assigned her a task that she would > > > > > > believe that -- if she completed it -- she'd "win." > > > > > > So she wasted a bunch of time trying to "win," > > > > > > while I watched a couple of good TV series with my > > > > > > housemates. I leave it up to you to decide who > > > > > > "won" in this scenario, or whether "winning" is > > > > > > even possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Both of the TV shows were "finds" I discovered on > > > > > > a UK list of "best TV of 2012." These shows have > > > > > > not (to my knowledge) been aired in the US, although > > > > > > they might someday, so I'll tell you about them just > > > > > > in case they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > The first was an episode of a series called "Accused." > > > > > > As I understand it (having seen no other episodes > > > > > > but the one I watched), it's...uh...non-episodic, in > > > > > > that there are no continuing characters or plotlines. > > > > > > Each week's episode is standalone. The one that got > > > > > > flagged as among the "best of the year" got that > > > > > > honor because it starred Sean Bean (from LotR and > > > > > > Game Of Thrones) *as a transvestite*. The reviewer > > > > > > called his performance -- dressed in complete drag, > > > > > > and looking remarkably like...uh...a man dressed in > > > > > > drag, whom no one on earth would ever mistake for > > > > > > a woman -- a "career best." She was right. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second was a mini-series (two 90-minute episodes) > > > > > > called "Restless." What drew me to it was the cast, > > > > > > including actors of the quality of Hayley Atwell, > > > > > > Rufus Sewell, Michelle Dockery, Michael Gambon, and > > > > > > (the clincher for me) Charlotte Rampling. It turned > > > > > > out to be a well-written, tightly-crafted spy drama > > > > > > set both in modern time and in flashbacks to the WWII > > > > > > era. Charlotte Rampling plays the spy in modern times, > > > > > > having to explain to her daughter (Dockery) that back > > > > > > during the war she worked as a spy, and that people > > > > > > from that era were now trying to find and kill her. > > > > > > This leads to flashbacks of that era, with the young > > > > > > spy being played by Hayley Atwell. This sorta thing > > > > > > can be really lame and pedestrian in the wrong hands, > > > > > > but "Restless" kinda clicked for me on all levels. > > > > > > > > > > > > There. That's how I spent my day yesterday. Doesn't > > > > > > that sound more productive than diving into the past > > > > > > digging through old posts made to a tiny Internet > > > > > > forum that almost no one reads trying to "get" someone > > > > > > and "win" something that can never be "won?" :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Priorities. For the cyberstalker/obsessive mentality, > > > > > > *nothing* is more important than going for the "win." > > > > > > For others, watching TV is much more fun. Different > > > > > > strokes for different folks. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
