[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
> > I admit to going to that energy level in > > my word usage, but in real life over here > > behind the keyboard, not so much... > > TurquoiseB wrote: > Edg, I was going to let this slide as just > another example of YOU lashing out... > Go get him, Tiger!
Re: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
Listen dipshit, there's nothing different in what Rick did then in what your Creme inadvertantly did by misappropriating the Theosophists teachings after they had died and no longer could object. You uphold and flag wave watered down and corrupted Tibetan Buddhist teachings without knowing anything! You blind oaf. - Original Message - From: "nablusoss1008" To: Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:41 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > There are already such forums. > > Very much inspired by your ideas of denouncing former teachers, no doubt. > > >> And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! >> Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of >> speech? > > No. I find nothing whatsover to credit you for. You are a deranged fool > and a simpleton who will bitterly regret the trend of "teacher-bashing" > you sat in motion on the internet. > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 4:42 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" wrote: There are already such forums. Very much inspired by your ideas of denouncing former teachers, no doubt. > And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! > Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of speech? No. I find nothing whatsover to credit you for. You are a deranged fool and a simpleton who will bitterly regret the trend of "teacher-bashing" you sat in motion on the internet. Nabby, you underrate me. I invented the Internet.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: There are already such forums. Very much inspired by your ideas of denouncing former teachers, no doubt. > And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! > Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of speech? No. I find nothing whatsover to credit you for. You are a deranged fool and a simpleton who will bitterly regret the trend of "teacher-bashing" you sat in motion on the internet.
RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:38 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> ] > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist > "monasteries") > > Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations > They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and you > seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily > threatened by contradictory evidence. Right. And what "evidence" are you Mr. Rick Archer able to cough up ? Nothing whatsoever, nada, rien. No semen-stained sari, if that's what you mean. You are a forwarder of rumours and lies, the king of rumour-mongers, Raja Rumor! having created your own forum in which you felt it was legimite to try to drag your former Guru into the mud. The purpose of this forum is to openly discuss anything people want to discuss. Understandably, there are some things the TMO would rather were not discussed. Within months you will find the same kind of forums dragging your present Guru into the mud with false lies and accusations. There are already such forums. And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! Are you crediting me with having conceived of the idea of freedom of speech? Quite an achievement to think of at the time of death, don't you think ? I'd be flattered if you think of me when you die, Nabby.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 > Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist > "monasteries") > > Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations > They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and you > seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily > threatened by contradictory evidence. Right. And what "evidence" are you Mr. Rick Archer able to cough up ? Nothing whatsoever, nada, rien. You are a forwarder of rumours and lies, the king of rumour-mongers, having created your own forum in which you felt it was legimite to try to drag your former Guru into the mud. Within months you will find the same kind of forums dragging your present Guru into the mud with false lies and accusations. And who started this trend ? Mr. Rick Archer ! Quite an achievement to think of at the time of death, don't you think ?
RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:14 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") Yeah Baba o Nablus au Pakistan, Rick humours you because he sees what a foul critter you are, and frankly, I believe that as a service to humankind he allows you to emote here rather than at a post office with a gun. I always feel that FFL would be much less entertaining without Nabby. I have to praise his fortitude, taking one for the team. Rick, I raise a glass to you. Thanks, Kirk. I must confess that I've had one beer since the one you gave me when you were cooking the NOLA benefit dinner in FF. Should I go to AA?
Re: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
Yeah Baba o Nablus au Pakistan, Rick humours you because he sees what a foul critter you are, and frankly, I believe that as a service to humankind he allows you to emote here rather than at a post office with a gun. I have to praise his fortitude, taking one for the team. Rick, I raise a glass to you. - Original Message - From: Rick Archer To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:46 PM Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and you seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily threatened by contradictory evidence. I don't suggest that you accept every rumor that comes along, but you might find it liberating to shift your source of security from faith and idealistic thinking to an openness to what is. Your preachy, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude, which is blatantly obvious to everyone here, is just like that of the fundamentalist Christians, and for the same essential reason: ego aggrandizement. and even more pathetic rescent post "It wasn't me, it was someone else !" Nabby, I'm limited to 2nd hand accounts because: 1. I personally have never had sex with MMY, although I've talked with a couple of very credible women who say they have. 2. I was never one of MMY's personal secretaries, although I know many of them, and about half of them, during their tenure, became aware of these goings on. I find every word in my post to be justified. Then by golly it must be.
RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 1:05 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations They're pathetic to you because they don't jibe with your worldview, and you seem to build that on unproveable hopes and dreams, so it's easily threatened by contradictory evidence. I don't suggest that you accept every rumor that comes along, but you might find it liberating to shift your source of security from faith and idealistic thinking to an openness to what is. Your preachy, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude, which is blatantly obvious to everyone here, is just like that of the fundamentalist Christians, and for the same essential reason: ego aggrandizement. and even more pathetic rescent post "It wasn't me, it was someone else !" Nabby, I'm limited to 2nd hand accounts because: 1. I personally have never had sex with MMY, although I've talked with a couple of very credible women who say they have. 2. I was never one of MMY's personal secretaries, although I know many of them, and about half of them, during their tenure, became aware of these goings on. I find every word in my post to be justified. Then by golly it must be.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > > > Turqy, > > > > > > If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and > > > "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies > > > you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd > > > have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm > > > and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire. > > > > > > But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, > > > and we'll see what that does. > > > > No, what I'll do is stop reading at this point > > (I did) and write you off as still just as insane > > (and as mean about it) as you were then. > > > > This whole obsession on your part IMO has to do > > with the fact that YOU feel guilty that you didn't > > teach your own daughter how to tell the difference > > between when a man is just appreciating her > > company and when he is hitting on her sexually. > > I sss now that you failed so miserably at that > > task because you don't know the difference > > yourself. > > I give an 80% probability of a 100+ line response, and a 50% > probability of a 200+ line response. > > Or a 20% probability of a one line response. Containing the > letters F and U. Firetruck!
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Edg, I was going to let this slide as just > another example of YOU lashing out, but t'would > seem that you need a reminder of how you do so. > > Nabby's a twit. Thank you. If you were not already the President of Twitdom I'd invite you over for a glass of Champagne. We (The Turq, Vaj and Curtis) all know that. There was no > call to ask for him to be banned. THAT was over > the top. > > Besides, what Lurk may be hinting at is that you > are not exactly in a position to call anyone here > on going over the top. Here's an example you might > resonate with, one that *includes* slurs against > other people. > > Did you happen to read the link posted by Bob B. > in the "A poet with hate mail" post, about poet > Frederick Seidel? Here's the link again, if you > did not: > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12Seidel-t.html > > In the article, the 73-year-old poet tells the > story of getting a hate message on his answering > machine from a reader who seemed not to like what > someone his age said about younger women and his > fondness for them. > > Now remember back to when I posted an innocent > tale of meeting two young women in a bar here in > Sitges and my delight at finding them both 1) > English speakers, 2) charming, 3) intelligent, > 4) knowledgeable about music, and 5) fun to be > with. *Literally* everyone on this forum -- > including my own long-time stalker -- saw it > as an innocent appreciation of a neat conver- > sation and two neat women. Everyone except you. > > You launched into a weeks-long harangue against > me as a "predator," "stalking" these young women > and trying to seduce them with my "wiser, older > man ways." You basically lost it and became a > stalker yourself. In the process you heavily > insulted not only me but the young women, neither > of whom I ever had the least sexual interest in, > one of whom who has become one of my best friends > here in Sitges, and has *still* endured the least > sexual or romantic interest from me. > > Basically, as I saw it then, because of your own > guilt feelings about a family situation, the situ- > ation of an older man *appreciating the company of > younger women* pushed your buttons almost as much > as Frederick Seidel's poems pushed his stalker's > buttons. She reacted by basically threatening his > life. You contented yourself with calling me a > predator, and persisting in doing so to this day. > > So the next time you feel like getting up on a > soapbox and declaring someone here persona non > grata, please remember this and many other inci- > dents in which you did far worse. > > You have a very selective memory when your > righteous anger button gets pushed, one that > allows you to forget that you ain't exactly > righteous. > > I'm not looking to reopen the "predator" scenario, > just to remind you that of all the people here, > you are the LEAST competent to blast anyone for > lashing out in anger, and in unjustified, com- > pletely invented and projected anger. > > 'Nuff said, I hope... Amazing. I never thought I'd congratulate you, of all people, on a post here. But I do now. You bothered to answer a post from Edg that is shining in some kind of bordeline glow, to remind him of his past ridicelous attack on someone who simply enjoyed the comany of young women. I didn't bother to answer him simply because, as so often with Edg's posts I find his intense rants rather boring. And because he chose a pityful "cause", as he unfortunately often does, in accusing me of all sorts of rubbish regarding the wife of Rick. Again borderline behaviour comes to mind. Rather, he should try to develop his obvious writing-skills. I quite remember a post he did on "showelling snow" which was a joy to read. Perhaps I chose harsh words towards Rick, but with his pathetic accusations and even more pathetic rescent post "It wasn't me, it was someone else !" I find every word in my post to be justified.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Turqy, > > > > If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and > > "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies > > you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd > > have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm > > and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire. > > > > But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, > > and we'll see what that does. > > No, what I'll do is stop reading at this point > (I did) and write you off as still just as insane > (and as mean about it) as you were then. > > This whole obsession on your part IMO has to do > with the fact that YOU feel guilty that you didn't > teach your own daughter how to tell the difference > between when a man is just appreciating her > company and when he is hitting on her sexually. > I sss now that you failed so miserably at that > task because you don't know the difference > yourself. I give an 80% probability of a 100+ line response, and a 50% probability of a 200+ line response. Or a 20% probability of a one line response. Containing the letters F and U.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Turqy, > > If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and > "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies > you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd > have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm > and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire. > > But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, > and we'll see what that does. No, what I'll do is stop reading at this point (I did) and write you off as still just as insane (and as mean about it) as you were then. This whole obsession on your part IMO has to do with the fact that YOU feel guilty that you didn't teach your own daughter how to tell the difference between when a man is just appreciating her company and when he is hitting on her sexually. I sss now that you failed so miserably at that task because you don't know the difference yourself.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > I know the allure of having a session of erudite repartee > -- I get it -- I see your Utopian vision of what cafe- > society could be -- as an ideal. > > But your phrase "I'd hit it" sullies any such idealism. > If you, with all the wisdom life's given you by now, > cannot see the gulf that that attitude creates, then I > cannot educate you about it. He didn't say "I'd hit it." Here's what he said: "And yeah, she is 'way cute, and I would be the luckiest guy on earth if I were fortunate enough to be hittin' that. But that really wasn't on my mind." What part of "That really wasn't on my mind" are you not grasping, Edg?
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
Turqy, If I thought for a moment that you'd "debate fairly" and "be truthful" about your bar-agendas and the strategies you use when you interact with "much younger women," I'd have another go with you, but you always fall into smarm and snark instead of intimacy when I put your feet to the fire. But, hey, I'll try again, and you'll smarm and snark again, and we'll see what that does. I have many projections founded upon delusions, and I have trotted them out here, and I've been corrected many a time; I bow to my teachers -- you, for instance have opened my eyes about the nuances of a lot of issues, but I have yet to think you've made a case that your bar-ethics would pass muster with many here. I mean, would you ever post a video of you having a conversation with women about whom you'd freely admit "I'd hit that?" Would you let us see your old man ways and give us the snickers when we saw that the girls got it that you were targeting the inside of their pants instead of, say, the nurturing of their souls? I don't think you'd post that video. Or, hey, if you WERE pulling off being worldly and suave, and the girls actually started buying into it, would you show us THAT video of them seemingly thinking they might "get lucky and have a roll in the hay with an expat, brainy, well dressed, master of French and Spanish, an author, an exponent of the good, sexually liberated life?" No, you wouldn't post that video either, because the greater the disparity in your ages, the more we'd see the girls being hopelessly naive or damaged goods in some way if they thought so little of themselves that they'd have a sexual experience with you so haphazardly and be so clueless about the power of sexual bonding and clueless that they'd have "you" in their past to one day have to explain to themselves. If they ever were lucky enough to gain the love of a man who wouldn't be caught dead in a bar hitting on or wanting to hit on much younger women, with what regret would they think of a tryst with you then? Give us your write-up of a typical session of "meet a much younger sexy girl and put the moves on her." You're certain to not attempt such a writing project here, because you know that even with your great rationalization skills, you'd be a predator in the eyes of most here if you actually tried to flesh out your "everyone's an adult and a free thinker here" concept. The younger the girl, the more ludicrous the scenario would become. Not that magic couldn't happen, not that a May-December pairing couldn't work, but that the rarity of such an event precludes anyone easily thinking, "Hey, I'll just keep hitting on the young ones until I find one willing to do me, and this will validate that the age difference isn't a concern and mitigate any suggestions that I'm marauding another's life when I know with certainty that I'll all-too-soon be at the end of my sexuality while that person still has decades of mojo left, and that virtually every aspect of life will be impacted relentlessly by the age difference in ways that I can see but she cannot yet see." I get it. I can grok the delight of peering into the minds of modern day youth, I can be happy to observe first hand that someone is discovering their powers as a sexually radiant person who has raw shakti to spend and likes wiggling her ass to see the droolers drool, I can get off being a mentor of some sort by showing all the tee shirts life-experience has gained for me, I can get off buying a drink for those who cannot as easily afford to do so, I know the allure of having a session of erudite repartee -- I get it -- I see your Utopian vision of what cafe-society could be -- as an ideal. But your phrase "I'd hit it" sullies any such idealism. If you, with all the wisdom life's given you by now, cannot see the gulf that that attitude creates, then I cannot educate you about it. I know not "today's woman's" ability to spot a clown, or failing that, be unaffected by a casual one-nighter with one. I don't know how easily they can be manipulated by the dangling of money. I don't know how rare "a decent man" is these days. I don't know why a woman would risk her time with anyone who wasn't in her age bracket and obviously was presenting inherent incompatibilities that only the wisest of couples could hope to successfully address. But I do know women. Yes, I do. They want depth, commitment, intimacy, honesty, clarity about their partners and all the decisions they've made "so-far." They want family, they want Hallmark Card memories, they want snap shots to show to all their friends. To the extent that you can "get around" these innate qualities of women, it is a tell about the woman's lack of clarity about her own best interests, and, your willingness to exploit it. You've written dialog here many times. Give us a script. Let us read the play: "Turq gets laid by the co-ed." Try to make that
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > *Literally* everyone on this forum -- > including my own long-time stalker Every one of Barry's countless references to me as his "stalker" is a barefaced, malicious, out-and-out lie, an assertion that is knowingly contrary to fact. > You launched into a weeks-long harangue against > me as a "predator," "stalking" these young women > and trying to seduce them with my "wiser, older > man ways." You basically lost it and became a > stalker yourself. In the process you heavily > insulted not only me but the young women, neither > of whom I ever had the least sexual interest in, While I agree that Edg's harangues were just about totally unjustified, let's for the record look at what Barry *actually* said in the post in question: "While it might be really enjoyable to ball the 19-year-old's sweet little buns off -- or even those of her slightly older sister -- that's almost certainly not going to happen." There's not a thing *wrong* with his finding the young women of sexual interest; it would be strange if he hadn't. And he claimed explicitly in his post that he had no intention of trying to consummate that interest, which is why Edg's tirades were so utterly unwarranted. But Barry, as usual, can't quite get it up to tell the *whole* truth, even when he's not lying through his teeth.
RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
Since there's all this talk about my wife, here's a photo of her: http://www.book-cover-design.com/about-us.html
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > Egd, relax. The Rick fellow is the one that indicated > > > that he had information that M and N had a sexual > > > relationship; lying is his obsession and dearest hobby, > > > quite like the Turq and the Vaj; it becomes a call in > > > life they so thoroughly identify with. . . . Lies upon > > > lies as usual from Rick, the king of Rumour-Monging - > > > a deranged and deeply perverted soul. What then would > > > be more natural than to ask his wife if she thinks, > > > perhaps, her husband is rather, Gay, or sexually > > > disoriented ? > > > > lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > I'm with you on that Nab. Edg went immediately to Defcon > > 4 or 5. I'm staying a Defcon 2, which is about the normal > > setting. > > Lurk-nomo, > > I admit to going to that energy level in my word usage, > but in real life over here behind the keyboard, not so much. > > Where do we draw a line, Lurk? > > Nab's poor brain is not creative enough to do any real > damage here, and his past posts surely have convinced all > but a few FFLers that he's in deep psychological trouble, > so his opinion about Rick's wife has zero merit, but > though he crossed a line due to his brokenness and deserves > our pity for being so public with his dysfunctions, I wanted > to underline that a slippery slope exists and that he was > eagerly dancing upon it. > > Think now about my creativity and my past writings that > have used such graphic and raw terms -- isn't it true that > "the likes of me," could really take Nab's kind of attack > up several notches and really strike out with a cruel > targeting of those who are in the periphery of the lives > of the posters here? Edg, I was going to let this slide as just another example of YOU lashing out, but t'would seem that you need a reminder of how you do so. Nabby's a twit. We all know that. There was no call to ask for him to be banned. THAT was over the top. Besides, what Lurk may be hinting at is that you are not exactly in a position to call anyone here on going over the top. Here's an example you might resonate with, one that *includes* slurs against other people. Did you happen to read the link posted by Bob B. in the "A poet with hate mail" post, about poet Frederick Seidel? Here's the link again, if you did not: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12Seidel-t.html In the article, the 73-year-old poet tells the story of getting a hate message on his answering machine from a reader who seemed not to like what someone his age said about younger women and his fondness for them. Now remember back to when I posted an innocent tale of meeting two young women in a bar here in Sitges and my delight at finding them both 1) English speakers, 2) charming, 3) intelligent, 4) knowledgeable about music, and 5) fun to be with. *Literally* everyone on this forum -- including my own long-time stalker -- saw it as an innocent appreciation of a neat conver- sation and two neat women. Everyone except you. You launched into a weeks-long harangue against me as a "predator," "stalking" these young women and trying to seduce them with my "wiser, older man ways." You basically lost it and became a stalker yourself. In the process you heavily insulted not only me but the young women, neither of whom I ever had the least sexual interest in, one of whom who has become one of my best friends here in Sitges, and has *still* endured the least sexual or romantic interest from me. Basically, as I saw it then, because of your own guilt feelings about a family situation, the situ- ation of an older man *appreciating the company of younger women* pushed your buttons almost as much as Frederick Seidel's poems pushed his stalker's buttons. She reacted by basically threatening his life. You contented yourself with calling me a predator, and persisting in doing so to this day. So the next time you feel like getting up on a soapbox and declaring someone here persona non grata, please remember this and many other inci- dents in which you did far worse. You have a very selective memory when your righteous anger button gets pushed, one that allows you to forget that you ain't exactly righteous. I'm not looking to reopen the "predator" scenario, just to remind you that of all the people here, you are the LEAST competent to blast anyone for lashing out in anger, and in unjustified, com- pletely invented and projected anger. 'Nuff said, I hope...
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
nablusoss1008 wrote: > > Egd, relax. The Rick fellow is the one that indicated that he had information that M and N had a sexual relationship; lying is his obsession and dearest hobby, quite like the Turq and the Vaj; it becomes a call in life they so thoroughly identify with. . . . Lies upon lies as usual from Rick, the king of Rumour-Monging - a deranged and deeply perverted soul. What then would be more natural than to ask his wife if she thinks, perhaps, her husband is rather, Gay, or sexually disoriented ? lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > I'm with you on that Nab. Edg went immediately to Defcon 4 or 5. I'm staying > a Defcon 2, which is about the normal setting. > Lurk-nomo, I admit to going to that energy level in my word usage, but in real life over here behind the keyboard, not so much. Where do we draw a line, Lurk? Nab's poor brain is not creative enough to do any real damage here, and his past posts surely have convinced all but a few FFLers that he's in deep psychological trouble, so his opinion about Rick's wife has zero merit, but though he crossed a line due to his brokenness and deserves our pity for being so public with his dysfunctions, I wanted to underline that a slippery slope exists and that he was eagerly dancing upon it. Think now about my creativity and my past writings that have used such graphic and raw terms -- isn't it true that "the likes of me," could really take Nab's kind of attack up several notches and really strike out with a cruel targeting of those who are in the periphery of the lives of the posters here? Who here would willing say that any post of theirs represents the morality and thinking of their partners in life? By the mere insertion of the concept "Rick's wife" into a post that portrays Rick as he does above, Nab is backhanding her, tarring her when he uses a broad brush to attack Rick. I battle my babe every single day. She's often quite upset with my posts, and I've had to face this concept that she, however slightly, is at least represented here as "someone who can stomach Edg." But, get this, I have never met a person more my opposite. It is the funniest thing to us when we see it. How can a vanilla lover get along with a chocolate lover? Answer: easy peasy. De gustibus non est disputandum, eh? But miss not that her associating with me is not supportive of the things I do, but, instead, she's helping the world by counterbalancing me. And I her. If a Nabbishesque Nazi death camp guard were posting here about the second coming of Maitr...er, Hitler, and he was saying that Hitler would give us a new world, would attacking the poster's wife for associating with him be allowed here? Maybe, maybe, eh? When evil is as obvious as a smoke coming out of a stack, we might think that the wife had an onus to be on one side of the issue or another. Yet, the wife might be trying regularly to wean her husband away from his foul attachments and being a Mother Theresa on his ass. Anyone see Dead Man Walking? I didn't but I know enough to say that the nun's love for the murderer was a pure as fresh snow. When Nab brought the group attention to Rick's wife, he was tarring her indirectly for the "failure of associating with Rick." Yet, though I have met Rick, heard his voice, peered into his eyes, I know not the least about his wife. Yet Nab handled her image here like a burglar going through someone's underwear drawer. And, Lurk, to put it to you, would you post a photo of your wife here so that Nab could describe her? Even though you know everything would be without merit, would not your heart be on red alert and ultra-sensitive to his imaginings? Casual readers here may think the Nab actually knows Rick's wife and that his statements about Rick are founded upon facts instead of Nab's demented fictions. We FFL regulars know who Nab is, but many who come here might, at first, take him to be cogent, informed, and a concerned citizen. Would your grandchildren one day read Nab's description of your wife and be able to laugh it off as easily as you could now? Do we really want to give Nab the wiggle-room to smear anyone anytime for any reason? Rick puts himself in harm's way, so he has to be a big boy and take Nab's scurrilous accusations, but his wife has never done anything to Nab. In fact, Rick's wife might be more of a true believer than Nab and trying daily to help Rick change his ways. But, we don't know her, she's done nothing to us, but she gets spotlit as someone who loves "a deranged and deeply perverted soul." From Nab, we get nothing else about her. We can all find a photo of Obama shaking Joe the Plumber's hand, but who here would not scoff if Joe had a Web site displaying the photo as if he had some sort of valid knowledge about Obama from having been within two feet of Obama? What if Joe the Plumber started putting down Michele for being Obama's associate?
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > I'm with you on that Nab. Edg went immediately to Defcon 4 or 5. I'm staying > a Defcon 2, which is about the normal setting. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > Snip.. > > > > You'd never post a photo of your loved ones for fear that they'd be victims > > > like you've just attempted to make of Rick's wife. > > > > > > How bad is it inside that lopsided skull of yours? Is it true that every > > > single thought you have is like a fist coming down on a piano keyboard in > > > the middle of the Moonlight Sonata? IMHO, fisting is a swell alternative method of playing slow triplets, now ain't it?
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > Edg > > I'm OK. He was trying to insult me, not my wife. I'm > > used to that. It's part of what makes Nabby such a warm > > fuzzy guy. > > Was this a typo? Did you mean to say, "warm fuzzy gay" Hmmm. I thought that the typo was that Rick meant to use the word "furry" -- http://mirror.servut.us/kuvat/motivation/furries.jpg For the uninitiated, including those FFL readers who now know more than they ever wanted to know about "teabagging," a "furry" is someone who gets off sexually and/or psychologically by dressing up as a furry animal. Can't you just see Nabby doing that? :-)
RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nablusoss1008 Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 5:59 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") Egd, relax. The Rick fellow is the one that indicated that he had information that M and N had a sexual relationship; lying is his obsession and dearest hobby, I would admit to lying if I had fabricated the things I have said or posted. As it is, I have merely relayed things others have told me. A couple of those "others" had firsthand experience of the matters in question. Others second hand. So all of it may be regarded as rumor, since no concrete evidence has been provided, and it may also be dismissed as lies if you wish, but it was not I who did the alleged lying. I was merely passing on information provided to me.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
I'm with you on that Nab. Edg went immediately to Defcon 4 or 5. I'm staying a Defcon 2, which is about the normal setting. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > Snip.. > > You'd never post a photo of your loved ones for fear that they'd be victims > > like you've just attempted to make of Rick's wife. > > > > How bad is it inside that lopsided skull of yours? Is it true that every > > single thought you have is like a fist coming down on a piano keyboard in > > the middle of the Moonlight Sonata? > > > > Edg > > Egd, relax. The Rick fellow is the one that indicated that he had information > that M and N had a sexual relationship; lying is his obsession and dearest > hobby, quite like the Turq and the Vaj; it becomes a call in life they so > thoroughly identify with. > > Rick Archer is obessed with sex; whenever he hear the word "sex" his > imagination goes bananas (!) > > Lies upon lies as usual from Rick, the king of Rumour-Monging - a deranged > and deeply perverted soul. What then would be more natural than to ask his > wife if she thinks, perhaps, her husband is rather, Gay, or sexually > disoriented ? > Not that she bothers to read this page or would answer the question ofcourse, > but nonetheless. > > We know the rumours from Rick since many years. He's a sex-nutcase and his > problems arouse (!) from that. > > Not you. It's his bad, not yours. Relax. >
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > Edg > I'm OK. He was trying to insult me, not my wife. I'm used to that. It's part > of what makes Nabby such a warm fuzzy guy. > Was this a typo? Did you mean to say, "warm fuzzy gay"
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
Snip.. You'd never post a photo of your loved ones for fear that they'd be victims > like you've just attempted to make of Rick's wife. > > How bad is it inside that lopsided skull of yours? Is it true that every > single thought you have is like a fist coming down on a piano keyboard in > the middle of the Moonlight Sonata? > > Edg Egd, relax. The Rick fellow is the one that indicated that he had information that M and N had a sexual relationship; lying is his obsession and dearest hobby, quite like the Turq and the Vaj; it becomes a call in life they so thoroughly identify with. Rick Archer is obessed with sex; whenever he hear the word "sex" his imagination goes bananas (!) Lies upon lies as usual from Rick, the king of Rumour-Monging - a deranged and deeply perverted soul. What then would be more natural than to ask his wife if she thinks, perhaps, her husband is rather, Gay, or sexually disoriented ? Not that she bothers to read this page or would answer the question ofcourse, but nonetheless. We know the rumours from Rick since many years. He's a sex-nutcase and his problems arouse (!) from that. Not you. It's his bad, not yours. Relax.
RE: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Duveyoung Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 3:14 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries") You know, I've hit some quite crude, even creepy low points in my posting here. I've put my creativity to the max and scourged The War Monger, but, correct me I'm wrong fellow FFLers, I've never gone as low as Nab has here with his remarks about Rick's wife. Alex, you've got the power -- I say fucking abuse this bastard with some time off, since Rick's hands are tied by the "conflict of interest rule." To hell with the rules though, make it personal and stand up for Rick, and let's see Nab's reply, say, a whole month from now. We could all use the break, and Nab's given us reason enough. Nab, you are so off limits -- what the fuck is going on in your life that is so bad that you're so tortured and striking out blindly that you must beat upon everyone even to the extent of bringing their loved ones into this mix here? You'd never post a photo of your loved ones for fear that they'd be victims like you've just attempted to make of Rick's wife. How bad is it inside that lopsided skull of yours? Is it true that every single thought you have is like a fist coming down on a piano keyboard in the middle of the Moonlight Sonata? Edg I'm OK. He was trying to insult me, not my wife. I'm used to that. It's part of what makes Nabby such a warm fuzzy guy.
[FairfieldLife] ALEX ALERT (Re: Paedophile sex in the Buddhist "monasteries")
You know, I've hit some quite crude, even creepy low points in my posting here. I've put my creativity to the max and scourged The War Monger, but, correct me I'm wrong fellow FFLers, I've never gone as low as Nab has here with his remarks about Rick's wife. Alex, you've got the power -- I say fucking abuse this bastard with some time off, since Rick's hands are tied by the "conflict of interest rule." To hell with the rules though, make it personal and stand up for Rick, and let's see Nab's reply, say, a whole month from now. We could all use the break, and Nab's given us reason enough. Nab, you are so off limits -- what the fuck is going on in your life that is so bad that you're so tortured and striking out blindly that you must beat upon everyone even to the extent of bringing their loved ones into this mix here? You'd never post a photo of your loved ones for fear that they'd be victims like you've just attempted to make of Rick's wife. How bad is it inside that lopsided skull of yours? Is it true that every single thought you have is like a fist coming down on a piano keyboard in the middle of the Moonlight Sonata? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, I am the eternal wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I like this post. Explains a lot about Bevin, IMO. It's interesting > > that it's been 5 years and FFL just goes round and round discussing > > the same subjects, only with a whole lot more b.s. now. > > I also "like" the post from Rick. It's interesting to see that he has not > moved an inch the (few) years I've been here, still the same old > rumour-monging, the same addiction to rumours however unconfirmed. And throw > in some sex-rumours and Rick goes bananas (!) > Personally I wonder, on a scale from 1 - 10, how Gay his wife views him. >
