I don't mind making mistakes - a little humility never hurt anyone, including 
me. I will sometimes take chances with the things I express here on the 'net - 
and learn a lot from the experience. 

I am also flattered to be in the the same company, in your head, as all of 
those teachers, good or bad, with one significant difference - You've gotta be 
fucking insane to think I am trying to start an organization as each of them 
did, and teach people stuff - not exactly a tiny distinction.

My advice to you, is to stay away from the hyperbole. Absolutely demolishes 
your credibility. :-) 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks - you don't strike me as looking for allies - rather 
> > simply stating things as they happened. All the best to you. 
> > PS I think JK got in waaaaaaay over his head.:-)
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, Jim, I agree with you about this
> last thang, the part about John Knapp.
> 
> Then again, I feel the same way about Maharishi, and 
> the Rama guy, and Robin, and...uh...you. 
> 
> There is IMO no bigger mistake one could make along the
> spiritual path than believing that one is in the position
> of being able to offer advice to others before one is
> capable of handling the karma of doing so.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.  :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to