--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> [moved from the end of the post] > Thanks again to Curtis and Marek for exemplifying what > makes FFL a great forum, and pointing out via their > examples what *detracts* from that great forum in the > behavior of a few (and these days, *very* few) other > people. > > The "New FFL." Long may it wave...
Not so "new" as you'd like to portray it, Barry, if by "new" you mean an absence of trashing. You yourself are one of the "few" whose behavior is *still*, as of today, in this and subsequent posts, detracting from FFL's potential to be a great forum. [returning to the beginning] > What I am *not* as comfortable with is those who have > *never* made any strong commitment to the TMO or to > any other spiritual path, and who consistently try > to put down those who have walked away from one or > more spiritual paths as if doing so were some kind of > failure on their part. When the word "phony" comes up > here, as it tends to do more often than it should, > *those* are the people who leap to my mind. Unfortunately, this extended attack on me (among others, but primarily me, as usual) is based on several misconceptions. I was not putting Curtis down either for having committed himself to the movement or for having left it. My criticisms have to do with how he views and communicates about that process. <snip> > There is something "about" those who have made a > strong, decades-long commitment not only to their > own spiritual path, but to *promoting* and *teaching* > that spiritual path that "removes the rough edges" > of the ego to some extent, and that cultivates a > sense of compassion and of caring for one's fellow > man. I often find that missing from those who have > never had the experience of putting someone else's > welfare ahead of their own (other than, say, their > own children and families). Probably not such a hot idea to dismiss putting the welfare of children and family ahead of one's own as somehow less demanding than a teaching or other commitment to the larger society, when the former is an experience one has not had. > So, like > Curtis, do I sometimes get tired when people who have > *never* done this suggest that I'm a slimeball because > I no longer choose to do this accuse me of being a > "failure" or of "having missed the whole point of the > teaching?" You betcha. Barry puts in quotes, as if to attribute these words to me, things I've never said about him or anybody else in this context (I don't recall ever calling anyone a "failure" for any reason). Nor have I ever suggested he was a "slimeball" for having given up on teaching. However, both Barry and Curtis have on numerous occasions demonstrated rather serious misunderstandings of what MMY teaches. To what extent these misunderstandings had anything to do with their signing on to or signing off from their commitment to the movement is a different question entirely. <snip> > When they start ragging > on those who *have* made such a commitment as if they > are better than they are, I consider them spiritual > pissants, legends in their own tiny minds who do *not* > have the right to insinuate themselves into the thoughts > that go through *my* mind on a regular basis. Have you ever considered the possibility that your impression that those who rag on you think they're "better" than you are comes from your own mind, and not theirs? <snip> > And I have a kind > of "rule" that I've made for myself that says that I > will not reply to anyone who has gone out of their way > to trash me here for at least a week after they have > done so. > > Fortunately, given the way that things seem to work > here, that means that there are at least a couple of > people here who I *never* will have to reply to again, > because they seem to be UNABLE to go a full week without > making some comment here trashing me. :-) It cuts down > on my posting needs at FFL tremendously. If you were able to abstain from trashing these people for an extended period, you might well find they would refrain from trashing you. There may be a bit of lag time, considering the extent to which you've trashed them in the past, including the very recent past. You've just got done, here and in subsequent posts, trashing them *again*, so it'll be awhile before you can legitimately put this to the test. <snip> > The time it takes to deal with > the spiritual pissants of the world is no longer "worth > it" to me, so they're not going to get any more of that > time in the form of replies from me. See, it's not just replies, Barry. One of your specialties is trashing people in your replies to others, as here. You have to stop *both* types of trashing before you can expect not to be trashed in return. One last point. You started out in this post with what looked like it was going to be a very positive commentary, but it turns out that the only reason for the positives was to contrast them with and expand on negatives. You might want to ponder that for a bit.
