--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > I think you may have actually been *jealous* of my > > > admiration of Robin. You thought I should be admiring > > > *you*. Remember all your "love-bombing"? So you > > > figured you needed to tear him down to "correct" my > > > opinion of him. > > > > Oh, you really believe this? > > In English, "I think" and "you may have" are not expressions > of certainty, as in "really believe." > > > my god, Judy, you gave me the laugh of the day. You really > > descend into the rabbit hole, don't you? Any more similar > > insights? I am starting to enjoy it. > > Well, I'll share with you what gave me the idea: > > "Judy, your post was brilliant, and I never had a doubt that > your intellect is among the sharpest here."--zarzari, #298524 > > "Judy, already there was so much praise about this post of > yours, and I agree with that! that I hardly dare to answer > you."--zarzari, #298541 > > "Just imagine, you got a new lover, with whom you are deeply in > romantic love, and after three years you notice, that he is > utterly stupid, and you can't even talk to him, because he > wouldn't even understand. What a shame for somebody with your > brilliant intellect."--zarzari, #298541 > > "This is a very clear and beautiful explanation here Judy." > --zarzari, #299795
Judy, I just went through the posts you linked there. Your interpretation is more than funny, so I can't imagine, you even thought it could be true, or deemed it likely to make a big point out of it. But it's all there, right there in all those posts you are linking to, only, you didn't re-read it, you just took the 'introductory compliments', and cut the rest, the elaboration. This introductory compliment signaled an agreement to a point, but in the post I would differentiate, and make it clear what I really thought. You know, it's maybe a TM teacher thing, saying to the audience: 'Yes this is a very good question.' and then say, what you really have to say. In this case, re-read #299795 The following post, your answer was post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299805 which basically contained, what finally set me off! Can't believe when you read it? Yes, it is there. It's all about 'first person ontology', Robin's 'omni-subjectivity' of God, while at the same time denying Unity Consciousness, as a state that has - forgot the exact formulation, but is not founded in reality (obviously HIS reality). There's a whole line up to, what I have called your over reverential tone. Sentences like: "I'm flying blind here; Robin's going to have to bail us out." to which I had answered: "I actually feel more comfortable with your explanations, they are more clear to my mind." To which you answered: "Could be they're clear because they're not accurate..." And: "You and I are totally immersed in third-person ontology in this discussion, BTW, trying to figure out what it's like to be Robin." That's were I lost patience, and turned tables. What I had thought about his de-enlightenment, his Unity not being founded in Reality, his use of words like 'first person ontology' I had clarified before. Here I was talking to Judy, not to Robin, who could make intellectual sense, and then all you refer to was Robin, what he says, I think he was off-board and you were kind of calling him. You know, I didn't want to talk to a zombie. But I'm not in love with grannies. :D > That last quote is from right before your exchange with > Barry about Robin's mental health. IOW, up until I became > angry with you over that, you were practically sucking my > toes. > I thought all that extreme flattery was pretty amusing at > the time. And when I came across it again as I was looking > for something else relevant to this current discussion, it > was a huge LOL. Back then I hadn't connected it with your > attacks on Robin, but it sure does fit, given what you've > told me this time around about the ways you've gone after > him--including in the Great Misattribution Upset--because > I got angry with you over a year and a half ago. > > I knew you'd deny it, and I'm sure you'll find a way to > somehow dismiss the evidence. But you did say all that. > And after I told you off in email, you've done nothing > but find reasons to attack me. So everyone reading this > can make up their own minds as to your motivations. >
