Yes, Barry doesn't see beyond his little pee-pee very often.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Dripping with your glorious sense of your self, you have
> > not one constructive comment in this long, masturbatory rant
> > of yours, you twit.
> >
> > It is all about YOU, and how YOU don't like this, and how YOU
> > talked with Curtis about it, and how YOU don't have time for
> > it.
>
> Exactly the way he reacted to Robin, attacking Robin for
> not writing things that interested *Barry*. (And this,
> his first post to Robin, was a comment on something
> Robin had written *to Rick* in a discussion *they* were
> having, believe it or not.)
>
> Interestingly, re Barry and Curtis purportedly deciding
> they didn't want to "interface" with "'bots" any longer,
> very shortly after Barry's attack on Robin, Curtis and
> Robin embarked on probably the most prolonged and
> fascinating "interfacing" we've seen on FFL (although
> it didn't end well, but that didn't have anything to do
> with what Barry found unacceptable about Robin).
>
>
>
> >
> > Newsflash: Who gives a shit? If you don't have another way to say what Rory
> > has said, than you are clearly out of your depth, once again.
> >
> > You are one of the least creative people on here. You don't create
> > anything, except these rants of yours. A critic is all you are.
> >
> > As Ann has said before, twice, sometimes you just need to go and fuck off.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you do pro-bono work?
> > > > >
> > > > > If I make a specific appointment with someone to work
> > > > > with them privately, real-time, in person or by phone,
> > > > > then no, not any more; I am sorry! For those who are
> > > > > in Fairfield, I set aside most afternoons to play
> > > > > Bananagrams and to talk with people, and I am
> > > > > generally available then for free if anyone wishes
> > > > > to speak with me there. And we can correspond by
> > > > > email and facebook for free.
> > > >
> > > > That must be where you perfected what Curtis
> > > > called your Neuro-Linguistic Programming robot-
> > > > speak. Having now experienced it, I cannot help
> > > > but agree with his description. :-)
> > > >
> > > > They fall for that stuff in Fairfield, do they?
> > >
> > > Please don't take this as a total slam, or a
> > > declaration that I don't like you. I do. I'm
> > > still available for discussions about real-world
> > > things we both might like, such as movies or TV
> > > or good food or just humor. It's just that I've
> > > learned my lesson about interfacing with you on
> > > issues of belief or supposed states of conscious-
> > > ness or whatever.
> > >
> > > You have a tendency to drop into what Curtis may
> > > have called NLP 'bot-speak when talking about such
> > > things. I'd term it more "spiritual teacher schtick."
> > > But either way, I have neither respect for it, nor
> > > the patience to endure it. I've heard the same
> > > schtick from so many people -- both teachers and
> > > students -- over the years that for me it's like
> > > trying to have a conversation with ELIZA.
> > >
> > > Do you know about ELIZA? "She" was one of the
> > > first experiments in natural language and pseudo-
> > > AI, written at MIT during the mid-1960s:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA>
> > >
> > > "She" employed simple pattern matching to emulate
> > > the experience of talking with a psychiatrist, and
> > > to those early programmers' credit, "she" did a
> > > fairly good job of it. But after the first initial
> > > buzz, users soon wrote it off as what they called
> > > it, a "chatterbot."
> > >
> > > That's my take on "spiritual teacher schtick." It's
> > > a FORMULA. Given a question of type A, respond with
> > > a corresponding answer, always designed to perpetuate
> > > the idea that the "teacher" is in charge and wiser
> > > than the person being spoken to. It's a control
> > > mechanism.
> > >
> > > Some people seem to like that sorta thing, especially
> > > those who are searching for some guru to "Beam me up,
> > > Scotty." I don't care for it much, and tend to prefer
> > > people who don't speak according to preset formulas.
> > > I am NOT suggesting that you *consciously* speak/write
> > > this way, BTW, just that you've been doing it so long
> > > that you speak/write that way out of habit.
> > >
> > > Curtis and I have had many offline discussions about
> > > this kind of spiritual schtick, and I've learned a
> > > lot from his studies of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
> > > But the bottom line is that neither of us sees much
> > > benefit in interfacing with a 'bot any more.
> > >
> > > That said, I appreciate that your formula is mainly
> > > funny. That's a big improvement over the "mean girl"
> > > formulas one usually encounters here.
> > >
> >
>
