Barry, I don't think I've ever seen you so upset. You didn't lose your job, did you? I hope not.
(Actually I made four posts, not three--two for you on Wednesday, and one each for Xeno/Susan and Stevie/ Lawson yesterday. I think you must have missed one of yours, but that's probably just as well, considering. BTW, what's a "SERIAL FARTHING"?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Judy, I understand that you're feeling...uh...impaired > as a result of the Post Count, and that you'd prefer > to bombard FFL with hundreds of tiny fart-posts a week > like you used to, and that only having a few posts left > this week you have been reduced to emulating your > imaginary boyfriend's style and trying to pack all > those farts into one big, smelly fart-cloud, hoping > desperately for a response. Any response. > > So I will be compassionate and give you one. > > First, compared to Robin, you're still a slacker. You > only managed to spew 2,096 words in this one. He used > to be able to come up with 3 or 4 thou in a single rant. > > Second, you *have* achieved his level of unreadability, > based on the fact that I took one glance at this, didn't > bother to read *any* of it, and just ran a word count > on it to see how far your hatred of Barry And Anyone > Who Dares To Defy Me And Like Him had progressed. I > suspect that this was wise on my part and, as with his > posts, provided more elucidation than actually reading > them. > > Third, if you want to emulate the guy you have the > heavy mind-lusties for, you need to spew stuff like > this earlier in the week, when you still have enough > posts left to perform SERIAL FARTHING. Robin, after > all, could poot out five or six short story-length > rants about his enemies like this in a row. You've > only managed three Save Up All My Farts For One > Big Poot posts this week, and you "diluted" them > by farting at *different* enemies. How are you ever > going to DEMAND at the top of your high-pitched, > needy voice that these enemies RESPOND to every > little poot you aimed at them if you don't focus on > one sole victim at a time. Ya really gotta pay more > attention in class if you ever want to be considered > as psychotic as the Robinster. > > My advice is to start over next week and try to do > this Robin-like Massive Fart Post Thang all over > again, when you have 50 whole posts to do it with. > Instead of pooting out tiny, ineffective hate-clouds, > put some EFFORT into it, and SAVE THEM UP, > encapsulating them into five or six serial > fartposts, all trying to "get" the same enemy. > > Then you can practice Robin's brand of Tantrum > Yoga and DEMAND a response, and threaten to run > away and hide if you don't get one. > > Just a few suggestions... > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > First, Xeno's intellectual dishonesty in defense of Barry's > > shitting on Robin. > > > > Second, some comments on explaining Robin to those with a > > 15-year-old mentality. > > > > Finally, Susan's reading comprehension problems (among other > > difficulties). > > > > > > > > > > 348888 > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sorry, no street cred for you, little guy. Any student of human nature > > > > knows that you cannot first shit all over someone, as you have Robin, and > > > > then trot out some third party excerpt, trying to show your objectivity. > > > > > > > > Who does that?? Only an idiot would operate that way, or someone so > > > > bent on denigrating someone, that they fail to see their own transparency > > > > (in other words, an idiot). > > > > > > > > Personally, I rate your post, "CI", for Completely Impotent. > > > > > > I found that academic tome interesting. As one who experienced turquoiseb > > > > on coming on this forum, I re-post below his comments to Robin after Robin > > > > came on FFL: > > > > You realize, Xeno, that I could use this post of Barry's > > as evidence of his utter *lack* of objectivity concerning > > Robin, and of the fact that Barry started shitting all > > over Robin practically the moment he showed up on FFL, > > *before Robin had ever addressed a post to him*, right? > > > > Also, that you failed to provide the context for the quote > > from Barry's post puts you under strong suspicion of > > intellectual dishonesty. Here's the context: > > > > --Robin posts to whynotnow (DrD) in a conversation > > they were having about the nature of enlightenment. > > > > --Rick responds to Robin's post, challenging what he > > said to whynotnow about his (Robin's) experience of > > enlightenment. > > > > --Robin responds to Rick's challenge to his account of > > his experience of enlightenment. > > > > --Barry--entirely gratuitously--blasts Robin for having > > posted to Rick about Robin's experience of enlightenment. > > > > --Robin responds ironically to Barry's post; it was so > > absurd and so completely uncalled-for that there was no > > way for Robin to respond other than with irony. > > > > --Barry comes back with the long, very unpleasant slam > > that you posted part of. > > > > The salient fact here is that Barry busted in on a > > serious exchange Robin was having with Rick. Barry > > seemed to be under the impression that Robin should > > have posted in a way that was of interest and agreeable > > to Barry (no matter who Robin was writing to or about), > > and that because Robin hadn't done that, there was > > something very wrong with him. > > > > I mean, it was a jaw-dropper. Especially given the > > context, there is no way one can consider the quote > > you posted even minimally objective. > > > > Here's some of Barry's first post to Robin (two > > comments of mine in square brackets): > > > > "MZ, here's a free clue to explain to you why I got no > > more than two sentences into the self-serving drivel > > below [that being Robin's response to Rick's challenge]: > > I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR 'ENLIGHTENMENT.'...Someday you > > might want to figure out that expecting other people > > to be interested in your subjective state of > > consciousness [as Rick obviously was] is like expecting > > them to be interested in your retelling of a vivid dream > > experience you had the previous night...." > > > > WTF?? And if you actually read Robin's post that Barry > > was complaining about, there wasn't that much about > > Robin's experience of enlightenment in it. Most of it > > is in those first two sentences that Barry claims were > > all he could manage to get through. And Robin was > > writing *to Rick* in response to something Rick had > > said *to him*. He wasn't writing to Barry or about > > Barry. > > > > Why should Robin have to write only about things > > Barry cares about? Why shouldn't he be able to > > discuss his experience of enlightenment with someone > > who wrote to him about it? > > > > Here's something you snipped from the quote you posted > > that's quite telling: > > > > "I suggested that (on the receiving end) it was > > a lot like having to sit there and listen to someone going > > on and on about the vivid dream they had the previous night, > > and how incredibly meaningful that dream was to them." > > > > Since when does Barry have to "sit there and listen" to > > something he doesn't care about? And why does he assume > > that Robin cares whether Barry is listening? The self- > > importance is just astonishing. As if it were some kind > > of offense for Robin not to be eager to entertain Barry! > > > > When Rick challenged Robin about his enlightenment, should > > Robin have said, "I'm sorry, Rick, but I can't talk about > > that because it's not interesting to Barry"? > > > > And then at the end: > > > > "You give the impression of someone who is convinced that > > his subjective view of the world and how it works is more > > than opinion. Good luck finding people who might agree with > > you about this. You haven't found one in me." > > > > Again, remember, *Robin was responding to Rick*. What > > on *earth* makes Barry think Robin was looking for > > agreement *from Barry*? > > > > This is what you call "pretty straightforward"? It's > > one of the most blatant displays of presumption and > > overinflated ego I've ever seen. And you *didn't even > > quote* the really nasty parts of that post. More > > intellectual dishonesty on your part. > > > > Here's the link to it (which you also omitted) if anyone > > is interested: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280410 > > > > Folks can track backward to see what the posts that > > preceded it were about if they want to verify the context > > I outlined and get the flavor of the posts in question. > > > > > > 348897 > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, that weak-minded reply to Robin set the stage, that Barry was > > > > incapable of tracking Robin's thought process, and really had no clue what > > > > the man was talking about. Then as Barry grew increasingly frustrated with > > > > his own lack of comprehension, his commentary on Robin grew increasingly > > > > negative and distorted. > > > > > > > > The same response as a small child might have, when attempting to read > > > > a book far beyond his capability. Barry is an excellent writer, for the > > > > consciousness he reflects. The problem is that the consciousness is dim. > > > > > > Why should Barry, or anyone be interested in Robin's > > > thought processes? > > > > No reason at all. So why did Barry--in the very post you > > quoted--*complain* that he wasn't interested in Robin's > > thought processes? > > > > > How do you interpret what Robin says? Say you had to > > > explain what Robin says to someone who was, say, 15 > > > years old, let us say I have the mental capacity of a > > > 15 year old (and you had better believe that is what > > > some here think). What would you say Robin's message was? > > > > This is, of course, a complete non sequitur. But assuming > > it weren't, my response would be that I wouldn't try to > > explain Robin's thought processes to someone with the > > mental capacity of a 15-year-old. Robin hasn't been > > addressing people with that mental capacity, he's been > > addressing adults who presumably can read at the college > > level. Robin himself could probably adjust his language > > and mode of expression to make himself clear to a 15- > > year-old (given that he used to teach middle school), but > > that's a skill I don't have. > > > > > > > > 348894 > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > wow! what a reaction. is this an extreme example of > > > > > shooting the messenger? don't even need a show of > > > > > hands for that. > > > > > > > > Now you understand why the person who sent the > > > > link to me in email didn't want to post it them- > > > > selves. > > > > > > > > Sure is good to see that the "enlightened" don't > > > > throw balls of shit like chimpanzees, eh? :-) > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, no street cred for you, little guy. Any student > > > > > > of human nature knows that you cannot first shit all > > > > > > over someone, as you have Robin, and then trot out some > > > > > > third party excerpt, trying to show your objectivity. > > > > > > Doc, are you kidding? I mean think about it - is Barry the > > > only person here on FFL that has "shit all over someone"? > > > > Susan, you need to think about it. DrD never said Barry > > was the only person here on FFL who has done that. > > > > > Several other people here seem to feel quite free and expert > > > in putting down other people and calling them names (I would > > > say Judy and Ravi are probably most skilled at name calling > > > and putdowns, and they do so frequently) > > > > Bit of a difference, Susan. I never do so *gratuitously*, > > and I never do it *dishonestly*. Plus which, I'll respond > > if someone wants to engage with what I say. I don't do hit- > > and-runs. Nor do I diagnose mental disorders in people I'm > > not on good terms with. > > > > > Barry certainly seems to think Robin was and probably is a > > > strange guy. No argument there. > > > > Nor is that the problem, as you know--or should. > > > > > Now, Barry posted something written by other people. My > > > take was that it was not focusing on Robin and his > > > personality and his diagnoses or problems; it was about > > > the events of that time as seen thru the theme of > > > spiritual movements and how they grow or split in factions > > > or dissolve. > > > > You apparently didn't bother to read Barry's post with > > any attention. The big deal for Barry was that the book > > excerpt appeared to contradict what Robin has said about > > his devotion to Maharishi. (There are problems with that > > conclusion, but I've addressed them briefly in another > > post.) > > > > > Robin, Shri Shri and Deepak were the players, along with MMY > > > and the TMO. Personally I thought it was interesting to get > > > an objective view of those years in the TMO. There were some > > > details about Robin's activities that I did not know about, > > > and it presented his concerns witht he TMO and how it had > > > changed for the worse. It was a rather clear summary from > > > one point of view. > > > > I have no problem with this precis. But then you go on > > to say: > > > > > I hardly consider that "shitting all over Robin." > > > > Susan, your reading comprehension ain't so good these > > days. DrD didn't say it was. Go read the quote from his > > post at the top, see if you can figure out where you > > went wrong. If not, I'll be happy to help. > > > > From another post, 348899: > > > > > And I meant to add, neither do I consider Barry's past posts > > > about Robin to be "shitting all over him." > > > > Apparently you've read very few of them, then. They've > > been about as nasty as it gets around here: gratuitous > > and dishonest and vicious and insulting and repellent > > in the extreme. > > > > > But then I too found Robin's writings odd and uncomfortable > > > to follow. > > > > So that excuses Barry's unpleasantness toward Robin? > > > > What are you trying to say here? > > > > > He appears to be extremely intelligent. And it is not that > > > his posts were intellectually impossible to get, but that > > > his whole style and switching of topics and use of words > > > made me feel as if I was being manipulated (that is the best > > > I can put it, and I did so directly to Robin from day 1). > > > > You sure don't put it very well, Susan. It doesn't make > > much sense. I strongly suspect it's a hangover from your > > TMO days when you were *told* negative things about Robin > > that you accepted without question, and you're just > > parroting them back, assuming he hasn't changed. > > > > Maybe you should look at whether you have an unwarranted > > fear of being manipulated that arises in the presence > > (electronic, in this case) of someone you feel is > > considerably more intelligent than you are. > > > > Do you remember Robin's response when you told him you > > felt you were being manipulated? He basically said that > > he wasn't entirely sure what you were getting at, but: > > > > "It's one of those moments where one senses: Hey, this > > guy [Wayback] is having an innocent experience, and that > > experience hints at SOMETHING potentially at least, > > problematic about what you are saying, MZ." > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280403 > > >
