[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted. You mean the way that Ravi was booted off of the forum after *he* began stalking Curtis, with the intention of destroying his online reputation and jeopardizing his ability to find work as an educator? Or the many times that Judy and others have openly declared their intention to drive people they don't like off of this forum? How about the times one or more posters on this forum have accused people of crimes such as tax evasion, or accused them of being drunks or drug addicts? That stuff stays on the Internet forever, and can be found by any potential employer. Drama, drama, drama. And drama queens, drama queens, drama queens. If it weren't for people like you and Ann, who actually seem to be *impressed* by Jr. High School Mean Girl behavior and both look up to and try to emulate Judy's tactics, nobody would be paying any attention to her at all. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: snip Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Hey, obba, unless there's some truly apocalyptic economic disaster in the meantime, Social Security will still be around when you're eligible for it. Don't buy into the myths that it's going bankrupt. If we don't do anything at all to fix it, the worst that will happen is that benefits will be cut by 25 percent in 2033--and that's highly unlikely to happen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Thank you auth. I appreciate all and any replies with, and by you. :) Heaven on earth? Happened yet? Myth? Social security will only continue if we allow tons of new immigrants to work and pay into the system and that depends on how much keeps going to the outsourced world. I am not buying into any myths, my Aunty. I am looking at the population of younger people not having children and also they are very annoyed with the hippies, so if i just keep soothing their minds, I may get them to let me watch their one kid later for pay or other types of knowledge sharing they wish to pay me for. lol. Hippies, is a term used regularly with the under 40 crowd. They say, They were all about peace and all about freedom and all about loving, yet, where is the peace? The freedom (Freedom to sue the people downloading their songs for free without the RIAA, etc.) Love? They are afraid to have children and sleep with people because of fear of disease. Not like the old timers screwing anyone in the port, anymore. :) Love you, Auth. I respect you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Hey, obba, unless there's some truly apocalyptic economic disaster in the meantime, Social Security will still be around when you're eligible for it. Don't buy into the myths that it's going bankrupt. If we don't do anything at all to fix it, the worst that will happen is that benefits will be cut by 25 percent in 2033--and that's highly unlikely to happen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Lovely poem, brilliant videowow...or oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, my dear. What lines (I may get a few of these wrong)...I am a bilingual illiterate. I only get turned on by Jewish cowboys. I wrote the song myself, but I can't read music, so I don't know what it says. I'm going there, but I like it here, wherever it is. Stop the car, I'm getting out, you are no longer here. From: Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Obba, Any man able to fog a mirror would know only a city as great as Manhattan could contain a woman of your qualities; TB is still upset about getting caught mood making while he was doing PUJA, if he had any class, he'd offer to buy you a new pair of shoes: http://pinterest.com/priscill/outrageous-shoes/ “Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind, And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.” -A Midsummer Night's Dream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX2wybAIAHU From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:41:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Lipstick does not remove a dick. Unless the bitch licks with a strap on? (last I read, Barry appears to still be a man, regardless the shade he glamors his lips with.) LOL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: If he had the lipstick on, wouldn't the roles be reversed, wrt the dog? I dunno -- Once you threw cross dressing and/or gender bending into the mix, it became weirder than a david lynch movie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. What the article Barry posted was describing had nothing to do with anything that was going on or ever *has* gone on on FFL. Barry knows that, navashok knows that. Commenting negatively on something someone said in a post on an Internet forum is not stalking by any honest definition. If it were, almost all of us here would be stalkers, Barry and navashok most definitely included. The motivation for calling this stalking is very simple: It's an attempt at revenge by Barry and nashoka on those who make negative comments on their posts because they are unable to refute the comments, and when they instigate arguments in an attempt to do so, they are unable to win. They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. Neither of them will even try to address what I just said, because they know it's accurate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: snip Re the stalking thang, try not to take it too personally. The forms of stalking we see on FFL We don't see any forms of stalking on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. authfriend: As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. What the article Barry posted was describing had nothing to do with anything that was going on or ever *has* gone on on FFL. Barry knows that, navashok knows that. Commenting negatively on something someone said in a post on an Internet forum is not stalking by any honest definition. If it were, almost all of us here would be stalkers, Barry and navashok most definitely included. The motivation for calling this stalking is very simple: It's an attempt at revenge by Barry and nashoka on those who make negative comments on their posts because they are unable to refute the comments, and when they instigate arguments in an attempt to do so, they are unable to win. They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. Neither of them will even try to address what I just said, because they know it's accurate. It's open season on anyone who cross-posts FFL to Usenet. LoL! P.S. Is this even legal? Subject: THINGS TMers BELIEVE, Volume II (6 February 2007) Author: Uncle Tantra Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: March 6, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/aplehry
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Re the stalking thang, try not to take it too personally. The forms of stalking we see on FFL We don't see any forms of stalking on FFL. Barry thinks stalking consists of people disagreeing with him. If he doesn't like something he gives it a label i.e. dumb cunt, stalker, bliss ninny, cultist... And the list goes on. Because he has so many disparaging names for so many there are obviously a number of readers who find his musings, er, less than objective or, shall we say downright odious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. Because I agree with Barry? That's all the criterion you ever have right? And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. What the article Barry posted was describing had nothing to do with anything that was going on or ever *has* gone on on FFL. Barry knows that, navashok knows that. According to your own admission, which you obviously don't remember, you not only expressed, that you would prefer me not being on the forum, but said to one of your piling-on-comrades at the time, when you were engaged in some kind of slugfest with me, 'that's the way to do it. Soon he will give up' (not literally). To chase somebody on a public forum where everyone can post and flood them with negativity, as you do it, under whatever pretext, is actually quite possible, and obvious in your case. In this sense, the article was indeed relating to this type of behavior on FFL, and it is even more obvious, why you of all people don't like this to be discussed. The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. In addition to the normal stalker, who is usually just a single person, you have on groups the phenomenon of piling on. Bullying and psychological harassment are all similar behaviors, and are known to occur in Internet forums, and on Facebook and studied by psychologists. Commenting negatively on something someone said in a post on an Internet forum is not stalking by any honest definition. If it were, almost all of us here would be stalkers, Barry and navashok most definitely included. The motivation for calling this stalking is very simple: It's an attempt at revenge by Barry and nashoka on those who make negative comments on their posts because they are unable to refute the comments, and when they instigate arguments in an attempt to do so, they are unable to win. Total BS of course. In the case of the thread we just talked about, YOU were asking ME, if I didn't know what my mistake was supposed to be!! Give me a break, you didn't even make an argument. They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. Now you are talking a little bit too collectively. With all appreciation of Barry that I have, he could be rough with people. That's not me though. You have not reason to accuse me of any kind of similar behavior. My simple appreciation of Barry, which does not relate to ALL his posts and opinions makes you say that this would prove my lack of integrity and my dishonesty. Not at all! That I acknowledge the positive points in a person, and that I can see - from within his own perspective - the integrity and the wisdom that he expresses, that makes you think that I am dishonest? It only shows your own lack of empathy, you are a social cripple who is unable to wish your opponent even a happy birthday or a happy new year!! You think that would be hypocrisy!!! It speaks volumes about you Look how you treat Richard over the years, how arrogant and full of contempt you speak of him, despite of the fact that he supports you (except in political questions.) I may not agree with him, but I NEVER tread him that way! Your constant appeal to your own supposed intellectual superiority is simply disgusting. Neither of them will even try to address what I just said, because they know it's accurate. Because they know that you are thickheaded, and nobody actually cares about your endless quibbles.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:14 AM, navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. Because I agree with Barry? That's all the criterion you ever have right? And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. No because both of you get your buttons pushed by Judy and you both end up being dishonest and lacking in integrity when you go after her. Very pathetic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:14 AM, navashok wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. Because I agree with Barry? That's all the criterion you ever have right? And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. No because both of you get your buttons pushed by Judy and you both end up being dishonest and lacking in integrity when you go after her. Very pathetic. So disagreeing with Judy means being dishonest and lacking in integrity, because she is the proclaimer of truth? Grow up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:29 AM, navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:14 AM, navashok wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. Because I agree with Barry? That's all the criterion you ever have right? And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. No because both of you get your buttons pushed by Judy and you both end up being dishonest and lacking in integrity when you go after her. Very pathetic. So disagreeing with Judy means being dishonest and lacking in integrity, because she is the proclaimer of truth? Grow up. Judy's right - you indeed have a problem with your English comprehension..LOL
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:29 AM, navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:14 AM, navashok wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. Because I agree with Barry? That's all the criterion you ever have right? And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. No because both of you get your buttons pushed by Judy and you both end up being dishonest and lacking in integrity when you go after her. Very pathetic. So disagreeing with Judy means being dishonest and lacking in integrity, because she is the proclaimer of truth? Grow up. Judy's right - you indeed have a problem with your English comprehension..LOL For you navashok, even Steve - http://www.englishclub.com/esl-exams/levels-test-wc.htm. Happy New Year !!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
snip The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted. Drama, drama, drama. From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:  The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Why 50? There is more than just one poster here Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding.  Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. It's not ridiculous at all. Harassment and bullying do occur. If, whenever you start posting, a majority jumps at you, and immediately starts to pull anything you say into negativity, you will think if it's worthwhile to continue. And if there is a conscious intent behind it, you could very well call it a form of stalking.  If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted.  Drama, drama, drama.  Not necessarily. And in the case of Ravi, it has already happened, so you actually prove my point. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
First of all, I don't emulate anyone. I speak for myself. Secondly, I don't have the past info, nor do I care. Obsessive posting and cyberstalking are not happening now. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:01 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted. You mean the way that Ravi was booted off of the forum after *he* began stalking Curtis, with the intention of destroying his online reputation and jeopardizing his ability to find work as an educator? Or the many times that Judy and others have openly declared their intention to drive people they don't like off of this forum? How about the times one or more posters on this forum have accused people of crimes such as tax evasion, or accused them of being drunks or drug addicts? That stuff stays on the Internet forever, and can be found by any potential employer. Drama, drama, drama. And drama queens, drama queens, drama queens. If it weren't for people like you and Ann, who actually seem to be *impressed* by Jr. High School Mean Girl behavior and both look up to and try to emulate Judy's tactics, nobody would be paying any attention to her at all. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
You mean the way that Ravi was booted off of the forum after *he* began stalking Curtis, with the intention of destroying his online reputation and jeopardizing his ability to find work as an educator? Are you going through another episode of your paranoid, delusional narcissism today Barry baby? On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:01 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted. You mean the way that Ravi was booted off of the forum after *he* began stalking Curtis, with the intention of destroying his online reputation and jeopardizing his ability to find work as an educator? Or the many times that Judy and others have openly declared their intention to drive people they don't like off of this forum? How about the times one or more posters on this forum have accused people of crimes such as tax evasion, or accused them of being drunks or drug addicts? That stuff stays on the Internet forever, and can be found by any potential employer. Drama, drama, drama. And drama queens, drama queens, drama queens. If it weren't for people like you and Ann, who actually seem to be *impressed* by Jr. High School Mean Girl behavior and both look up to and try to emulate Judy's tactics, nobody would be paying any attention to her at all. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Not necessarily. And in the case of Ravi, it has already happened, so you actually prove my point. No - that's what is known as pimp slap. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:09 AM, navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:  The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Why 50? There is more than just one poster here Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding.  Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. It's not ridiculous at all. Harassment and bullying do occur. If, whenever you start posting, a majority jumps at you, and immediately starts to pull anything you say into negativity, you will think if it's worthwhile to continue. And if there is a conscious intent behind it, you could very well call it a form of stalking.  If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted.  Drama, drama, drama.  Not necessarily. And in the case of Ravi, it has already happened, so you actually prove my point. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
On Jan 25, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Not necessarily. And in the case of Ravi, it has already happened, so you actually prove my point. No - that's what is known as pimp slap. Oops..that is Kali's Pimp pimp slapping his hoes. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:09 AM, navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:  The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Why 50? There is more than just one poster here Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding.  Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. It's not ridiculous at all. Harassment and bullying do occur. If, whenever you start posting, a majority jumps at you, and immediately starts to pull anything you say into negativity, you will think if it's worthwhile to continue. And if there is a conscious intent behind it, you could very well call it a form of stalking.  If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted.  Drama, drama, drama.  Not necessarily. And in the case of Ravi, it has already happened, so you actually prove my point. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
You and Barry might consider starting your day with a Bubble Bliss Footbath. http://www.ambientweather.com/psfb50.html From: navashok no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:  The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Why 50? There is more than just one poster here Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding.  Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. It's not ridiculous at all. Harassment and bullying do occur. If, whenever you start posting, a majority jumps at you, and immediately starts to pull anything you say into negativity, you will think if it's worthwhile to continue. And if there is a conscious intent behind it, you could very well call it a form of stalking.  If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted.  Drama, drama, drama.  Not necessarily. And in the case of Ravi, it has already happened, so you actually prove my point. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
With the intention of what? Don't be ridiculous - you are reinventing reality again. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while You mean the way that Ravi was booted off of the forum after *he* began stalking Curtis, with the intention of destroying his online reputation and jeopardizing his ability to find work as an educator? Are you going through another episode of your paranoid, delusional narcissism today Barry baby? On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:01 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted. You mean the way that Ravi was booted off of the forum after *he* began stalking Curtis, with the intention of destroying his online reputation and jeopardizing his ability to find work as an educator? Or the many times that Judy and others have openly declared their intention to drive people they don't like off of this forum? How about the times one or more posters on this forum have accused people of crimes such as tax evasion, or accused them of being drunks or drug addicts? That stuff stays on the Internet forever, and can be found by any potential employer. Drama, drama, drama. And drama queens, drama queens, drama queens. If it weren't for people like you and Ann, who actually seem to be *impressed* by Jr. High School Mean Girl behavior and both look up to and try to emulate Judy's tactics, nobody would be paying any attention to her at all. From: navashok To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Just as a reminder of the Bad Old Days, from post #121696, back in November, 2006, before the posting limits were imposed: Total posts: 4672 shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) Again, the top three account for a third of all posts. And again, they'll take no notice of this. So far in November, they account for 47% of all posts made. Please note that my total was little more than we would have today, with the 50-post-per-week limit. Shemp has since left the forum, and when sparaig posts, he clearly has his OCD under control now, and posts only a reasonable number of comments before disappearing again. Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. Because I agree with Barry? Because you are supporting him in his ludicrous and knowingly false characterization of what goes on on FFL as stalking, in general, and specifically with regard to our argument yesterday (which *you* started). That's all the criterion you ever have right? Hell, no. This is just the latest instance, as you know. And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. What does he intent to say, and what is his attitude? What the article Barry posted was describing had nothing to do with anything that was going on or ever *has* gone on on FFL. Barry knows that, navashok knows that. According to your own admission, which you obviously don't remember, you not only expressed, that you would prefer me not being on the forum, but said to one of your piling-on- comrades at the time, when you were engaged in some kind of slugfest with me, 'that's the way to do it. Soon he will give up' (not literally). Sorry, this is entirely inadequate. You can't remember what I actually said, or to whom I said it, or even when, let alone the full context. I suspect you're either making it up out of whole cloth, or deliberately misinterpreting what I said. Most likely I was referring to the fact that you pop in and out of FFL. Unless I simply meant you would give up on whatever the argument was (if I even used those words). At any rate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with cyberstalking. To chase somebody on a public forum where everyone can post and flood them with negativity, as you do it, under whatever pretext, is actually quite possible, and obvious in your case. No chasing is involved, first of all. We're all here together in the same place. Second, you and Barry both have chosen to flood me with negativity. You have been attacking me on a regular basis ever since I called you on your speculation about another participant's purported personality disorder. And Barry, of course, has been obsessed with attacking me since even before I got here, as I found out *after* I got here (not to mention repeatedly lying about how I purportedly have followed him from forum to forum for the sole purpose of attacking him). In this sense, the article was indeed relating to this type of behavior on FFL, and it is even more obvious, why you of all people don't like this to be discussed. I have no objection to anyone discussing my behavior (as long as they're honest about it), nor do I have any problem with folks discussing cyberstalking, as long as they don't try to portray it as what happens on FFL. And when they *do* try to portray it as such, quite obviously I'm not at all averse to discussing it. The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. It does not correspond. This is a public forum, and anything one person says about another can immediately be contested, in public. Furthermore, if you actually read the article, you know that what the stalker said in her emails was of an entirely different order than what anybody has ever said here about another participant. Plus which, she began sending emails alleging serious misbehavior on the stalkee's part (all false) to associates of the stalkee, which he only found out about when they asked him about her accusations. Wait, I take that back. Barry accused me on FFL of having badmouthed an opponent of mine (back on alt.m.t) to his employer. That was entirely, completely false, and he knew it. That's close to the kind of false accusations the stalker in the article made. Fortunately Barry made the accusation in public, so I was able to refute it. (Although for all I know, he's made it to others in private. But at least my denial is on the public record.) In addition to the normal stalker, who is usually just a single person, you have on groups the phenomenon of piling on. Bullying and psychological harassment are all similar behaviors, and are known to occur in Internet forums, and on Facebook and studied by psychologists. That may be, but it has nothing to do with cyberstalking. It's a different phenomenon. It would never occur to me to call it cyberstalking when Barry or you pile on or engage in bullying and psychological harassment. Commenting negatively on something someone said in a post on an Internet forum is not stalking by any honest definition. If it were, almost all of us
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Just as a reminder of the Bad Old Days, from post #121696, back in November, 2006, before the posting limits were imposed: Total posts: 4672 shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) Again, the top three account for a third of all posts. And again, they'll take no notice of this. So far in November, they account for 47% of all posts made. Please note that my total was little more than we would have today, with the 50-post-per-week limit. Shemp has since left the forum, and when sparaig posts, he clearly has his OCD under control now, and posts only a reasonable number of comments before disappearing again. Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-) And let us not forget the tribute site created by one of her stalking victims over on alt. meditation.transcendental, before she came here to continue stalking people who had left that forum. Andrew Skolnick was a prize-winning journalist who didn't like TM very much, so that meant that Judy didn't like *him* very much. Andrew chose to reply to her stalking by preserving *her own words* and those of a few of her supporters on this website: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ Read through a few of her quotes from that pre-FFL era. See if you find any difference whatsoever between her tactics and language then, and now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Oh no Barry baby - you have started talking to yourself again..LOL.. - that's when we sane folks start losing you and know you have drifted in to your paranoid, delusional fantasy la-la-land. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:47 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Just as a reminder of the Bad Old Days, from post #121696, back in November, 2006, before the posting limits were imposed: Total posts: 4672 shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) Again, the top three account for a third of all posts. And again, they'll take no notice of this. So far in November, they account for 47% of all posts made. Please note that my total was little more than we would have today, with the 50-post-per-week limit. Shemp has since left the forum, and when sparaig posts, he clearly has his OCD under control now, and posts only a reasonable number of comments before disappearing again. Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-) And let us not forget the tribute site created by one of her stalking victims over on alt. meditation.transcendental, before she came here to continue stalking people who had left that forum. Andrew Skolnick was a prize-winning journalist who didn't like TM very much, so that meant that Judy didn't like *him* very much. Andrew chose to reply to her stalking by preserving *her own words* and those of a few of her supporters on this website: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ Read through a few of her quotes from that pre-FFL era. See if you find any difference whatsoever between her tactics and language then, and now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Barry, this is like a deja vu moment. You've posted that website at least twice, maybe three times that I can recall. I find Judy's highlighted quotes on their face absolutely hilarious. I really do. This is so passe, as are your constant attempts to cite statistics that prove something. Obviously, the forum determined posting limits were a good idea - they were in place before I got here. I've been booted for a week more than most regular posters here for going over the limit, a few times by accident and also a few times on purpose. They work and I like them and that's the current reality. What are you trying to prove again? From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:47 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Just as a reminder of the Bad Old Days, from post #121696, back in November, 2006, before the posting limits were imposed: Total posts: 4672 shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) Again, the top three account for a third of all posts. And again, they'll take no notice of this. So far in November, they account for 47% of all posts made. Please note that my total was little more than we would have today, with the 50-post-per-week limit. Shemp has since left the forum, and when sparaig posts, he clearly has his OCD under control now, and posts only a reasonable number of comments before disappearing again. Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-) And let us not forget the tribute site created by one of her stalking victims over on alt. meditation.transcendental, before she came here to continue stalking people who had left that forum. Andrew Skolnick was a prize-winning journalist who didn't like TM very much, so that meant that Judy didn't like *him* very much. Andrew chose to reply to her stalking by preserving *her own words* and those of a few of her supporters on this website: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ Read through a few of her quotes from that pre-FFL era. See if you find any difference whatsoever between her tactics and language then, and now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Deja vu and time to ignore Barry - we have lost him for a while, just give him time, he's obsessing - I have lived with a person like him and trust me it sounds very hard for normal people to understand, was hard for me to understand but once these people drift off into paranoid, delusional territory it's very hard for them to switch off - it's a mental disability, so I totally understand. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.comwrote: ** Barry, this is like a deja vu moment. You've posted that website at least twice, maybe three times that I can recall. I find Judy's highlighted quotes on their face absolutely hilarious. I really do. This is so passe, as are your constant attempts to cite statistics that prove something. Obviously, the forum determined posting limits were a good idea - they were in place before I got here. I've been booted for a week more than most regular posters here for going over the limit, a few times by accident and also a few times on purpose. They work and I like them and that's the current reality. What are you trying to prove again? -- *From:* turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2013 9:47 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Just as a reminder of the Bad Old Days, from post #121696, back in November, 2006, before the posting limits were imposed: Total posts: 4672 shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) Again, the top three account for a third of all posts. And again, they'll take no notice of this. So far in November, they account for 47% of all posts made. Please note that my total was little more than we would have today, with the 50-post-per-week limit. Shemp has since left the forum, and when sparaig posts, he clearly has his OCD under control now, and posts only a reasonable number of comments before disappearing again. Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-) And let us not forget the tribute site created by one of her stalking victims over on alt. meditation.transcendental, before she came here to continue stalking people who had left that forum. Andrew Skolnick was a prize-winning journalist who didn't like TM very much, so that meant that Judy didn't like *him* very much. Andrew chose to reply to her stalking by preserving *her own words* and those of a few of her supporters on this website: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ Read through a few of her quotes from that pre-FFL era. See if you find any difference whatsoever between her tactics and language then, and now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: Deja vu and time to ignore Barry - we have lost him for a while, just give him time, he's obsessing - I have lived with a person like him and trust me it sounds very hard for normal people to understand, was hard for me to understand but once these people drift off into paranoid, delusional territory it's very hard for them to switch off - it's a mental disability, so I totally understand. Considering Barry is intelligent and creative it's such a shame he can't get some treatment for his mental disability. If the person I lived with was as intelligent and creative as Barry I perhaps would have not dumped her. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.comwrote: ** Barry, this is like a deja vu moment. You've posted that website at least twice, maybe three times that I can recall. I find Judy's highlighted quotes on their face absolutely hilarious. I really do. This is so passe, as are your constant attempts to cite statistics that prove something. Obviously, the forum determined posting limits were a good idea - they were in place before I got here. I've been booted for a week more than most regular posters here for going over the limit, a few times by accident and also a few times on purpose. They work and I like them and that's the current reality. What are you trying to prove again? -- *From:* turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2013 9:47 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Just as a reminder of the Bad Old Days, from post #121696, back in November, 2006, before the posting limits were imposed: Total posts: 4672 shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) Again, the top three account for a third of all posts. And again, they'll take no notice of this. So far in November, they account for 47% of all posts made. Please note that my total was little more than we would have today, with the 50-post-per-week limit. Shemp has since left the forum, and when sparaig posts, he clearly has his OCD under control now, and posts only a reasonable number of comments before disappearing again. Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-) And let us not forget the tribute site created by one of her stalking victims over on alt. meditation.transcendental, before she came here to continue stalking people who had left that forum. Andrew Skolnick was a prize-winning journalist who didn't like TM very much, so that meant that Judy didn't like *him* very much. Andrew chose to reply to her stalking by preserving *her own words* and those of a few of her supporters on this website: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ Read through a few of her quotes from that pre-FFL era. See if you find any difference whatsoever between her tactics and language then, and now.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: Deja vu and time to ignore Barry - we have lost him for a while, just give him time, he's obsessing - I have lived with a person like him and trust me it sounds very hard for normal people to understand, was hard for me to understand but once these people drift off into paranoid, delusional territory it's very hard for them to switch off - it's a mental disability, so I totally understand. Considering Barry is intelligent and creative it's such a shame he can't get some treatment for his mental disability. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.comwrote: ** Barry, this is like a deja vu moment. You've posted that website at least twice, maybe three times that I can recall. I find Judy's highlighted quotes on their face absolutely hilarious. I really do. This is so passe, as are your constant attempts to cite statistics that prove something. Obviously, the forum determined posting limits were a good idea - they were in place before I got here. I've been booted for a week more than most regular posters here for going over the limit, a few times by accident and also a few times on purpose. They work and I like them and that's the current reality. What are you trying to prove again? -- *From:* turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2013 9:47 AM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Just as a reminder of the Bad Old Days, from post #121696, back in November, 2006, before the posting limits were imposed: Total posts: 4672 shempmcgurk -- 541 (11.6%) sparaig -- 533 (11.4%) authfriend -- 482 (10.3%) new.morning -- 265 (5.7%) off_world_beings -- 253 (5.4%) turquoiseb -- 218 (4.7%) Again, the top three account for a third of all posts. And again, they'll take no notice of this. So far in November, they account for 47% of all posts made. Please note that my total was little more than we would have today, with the 50-post-per-week limit. Shemp has since left the forum, and when sparaig posts, he clearly has his OCD under control now, and posts only a reasonable number of comments before disappearing again. Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-) And let us not forget the tribute site created by one of her stalking victims over on alt. meditation.transcendental, before she came here to continue stalking people who had left that forum. Andrew Skolnick was a prize-winning journalist who didn't like TM very much, so that meant that Judy didn't like *him* very much. Andrew chose to reply to her stalking by preserving *her own words* and those of a few of her supporters on this website: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/ Read through a few of her quotes from that pre-FFL era. See if you find any difference whatsoever between her tactics and language then, and now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Let's count the lies in this post of Barry's... And see responses to his other two posts in this vein at the end. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: (Note that Barry has carefully not included an attribution for the paragraph immediately below. We'll see why in a moment.) (Navashok wrote:) The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can occur here. Please, don't be ridiculousflooding up to 50? Posts in a row is not obsessive flooding. Emily, don't show your newbie ignorance. The very reason there is a posting limit is BECAUSE of Judy and a couple of other posters, who used to flood this forum with hundreds of posts per month. The posting limit was imposed quite some time ago, but navashok refers to flooding as if it were still happening. That's why Barry didn't include an attribution; he doesn't want his buddy to look stupid. Nor does he want anybody to notice that he's reaching years back in his attempt to defend navashok and shame Emily for being a newbie (Emily began posting to FFL over a year and a half ago). Between the three of them, they often accumulated over a third of all the posts made to FFL. When asked to stop, and voluntarily cut down on their excessive (and almost always obsessive, in that they were stalking one person or another) posting, they all refused. Lies number one and two. Rick wisely invented the posting limit, and that is the ONLY reason she posts as little as she does today. Stalking? - again, don't be ridiculous. If there were anything akin to stalking going on here - they'd be booted. You mean the way that Ravi was booted off of the forum after *he* began stalking Curtis, with the intention of destroying his online reputation and jeopardizing his ability to find work as an educator? Lies number three and four. Or the many times that Judy and others have openly declared their intention to drive people they don't like off of this forum? Lie number five. How about the times one or more posters on this forum have accused people of crimes such as tax evasion, Lie number six. or accused them of being drunks or drug addicts? (Actually this would be giving the posters in question the benefit of the doubt--i.e., they were so swizzled they didn't know what they were saying. But let's let this one pass.) That stuff stays on the Internet forever, and can be found by any potential employer. Drama, drama, drama. And drama queens, drama queens, drama queens. If it weren't for people like you and Ann, who actually seem to be *impressed* by Jr. High School Mean Girl behavior and both look up to and try to emulate Judy's tactics, nobody would be paying any attention to her at all. Lie number seven. In a five-paragraph post. If anyone is interested, I'll be happy to expand on why these are all lies (meaning deliberate misrepresentations of the facts--nothing to do with opinions). From another of Barry's posts this morning: Judy has made BY FAR more posts than any other person to this forum, approximately 22,650 of them, a cumulative average of 8 posts per day for 7.7 years. Or only a little over 10 posts more per week than if the posting limit had been in effect all that time. snicker Of those, 7574 (33.4%) mention Barry OR Turquoiseb, 2976 (13.1%) mention Vaj, and 2659 (11.7%) mention Curtis. Nope, no stalking there. :-) As I've pointed out several times before--and as he knows without my saying so--Barry's counting methodology here introduces *gross* distortions into the numbers, with the exception of the total number of my posts. 2279 of those posts (10%) contain the words lie OR liar OR lying. It's basically her mantra. :-) However many original posts of mine there actually were containing these terms, almost all of them would have been addressed to or about the liars here, Barry most prominently. And from still another post of Barry's this morning: And let us not forget the tribute site created by one of her stalking victims over on alt. meditation.transcendental, Lie number one for this post. before she came here to continue stalking people who had left that forum. Lie number two. Andrew Skolnick was a prize-winning journalist who didn't like TM very much, so that meant that Judy didn't like *him* very much. Andrew Skolnick, as Barry knows, was a chronic and malicious liar whose prize-winning journalism where TM was concerned was a compendium of fractional truths carefully calculated to give an impression contrary to fact. Even Barry recognized how dishonest he was. He and Andrew had some very nasty fights in the beginning of Andrew's tenure on alt.m.t, until they decided the enemy of my enemy (moi) is my friend and banded together to get
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. Because I agree with Barry? Because you are supporting him in his ludicrous and knowingly false characterization of what goes on on FFL as stalking, in general, and specifically with regard to our argument yesterday (which *you* started). That's all the criterion you ever have right? Hell, no. This is just the latest instance, as you know. And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. What does he intent to say, and what is his attitude? What the article Barry posted was describing had nothing to do with anything that was going on or ever *has* gone on on FFL. Barry knows that, navashok knows that. According to your own admission, which you obviously don't remember, you not only expressed, that you would prefer me not being on the forum, but said to one of your piling-on- comrades at the time, when you were engaged in some kind of slugfest with me, 'that's the way to do it. Soon he will give up' (not literally). Sorry, this is entirely inadequate. No, it is adequate. You can't remember what I actually said, or to whom I said it, or even when, let alone the full context. I remember well the context, and that you said it to either Ann or Raunchy (most liekely). That I don't remember the quote VERBATIM doesn't mean I don't remember it in its context and what that meant. I suspect you're either making it up out of whole cloth, This is your standard phrase when you DENY something. For me it is clear, as I remember it well, and it shows to me YOUR DISHONESTY. I can't prove it, I don't need to, it is enough for me to KNOW and recognize you. or deliberately misinterpreting what I said. Rubbish. You actually know it is true, but you deny it and lie about it. And THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME you do that. You deny and lie repeatedly. Most likely I was referring to the fact that you pop in and out of FFL. Nope, it wasn't about me specifically, it was about somebody else you where chasing away, and in that context you revealed that I would be the next, that I was 'almost at that point' (paraphrased) Unless I simply meant you would give up on whatever the argument was (if I even used those words). At any rate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with cyberstalking. No, it clearly referred to the presence on FFL. And everything is related in some way. Stalking is one expression, bullying or harassment is another. And it is about YOU lying and being in denial, Mrs honesty. To chase somebody on a public forum where everyone can post and flood them with negativity, as you do it, under whatever pretext, is actually quite possible, and obvious in your case. No chasing is involved, first of all. We're all here together in the same place. What about YOUR command of English? Chasing is not meant to be literal and physical. In this case it means that whenever a person appears you jump on him (again allegorically) and try to drag every conversation into something negative, by focusing on some insignificant detail, and by constantly insulting the poster. IOW that what you do here. Second, you and Barry both have chosen to flood me with negativity. You have been attacking me on a regular basis ever since I called you on your speculation about another participant's purported personality disorder. You should really get this out of your head. I mentioned nothing of that sort when I reappeared here, and for a long time. You also completely neglect the context this was done. I know this is the origin of your madness (allegorically here). It gives you this special rational by which you feel justified for your bullying. And Barry, of course, has been obsessed with attacking me since even before I got here, as I found out *after* I got here (not to mention repeatedly lying about how I purportedly have followed him from forum to forum for the sole purpose of attacking him). There is no doubt that you are obsessed with him, and in my mind there is also no doubt that this obsession is poisoning the whole atmosphere of this forum or any other you were both present. Everyone could observe this for years. I have observed it and wondered about it for years at a time, when we were on usually good terms. Even though we agreed on a great number of subjects in the past, and usually had a mutual appreciation, I soon started to wonder about two things: One, why you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive way. As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. What the article Barry posted was describing had nothing to do with anything that was going on or ever *has* gone on on FFL. Barry knows that, navashok knows that. Commenting negatively on something someone said in a post on an Internet forum is not stalking by any honest definition. If it were, almost all of us here would be stalkers, Barry and navashok most definitely included. The motivation for calling this stalking is very simple: It's an attempt at revenge by Barry and nashoka on those who make negative comments on their posts because they are unable to refute the comments, and when they instigate arguments in an attempt to do so, they are unable to win. They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. Neither of them will even try to address what I just said, because they know it's accurate. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. On the other hand, I think you empathise with those that are regarded as victims of various situations and people. That is a legitimate emotion and I have no quarrel with that. In looking at some of your posts, you seem to tend to use the word pretty much the way Barry uses it, though I think Barry simply does not empathise much or at all by comparison. You used the word victimized almost as frequently as Barry, but (as I did not read through all of those) also got the impression you did not apply the word to yourself, except in one instance: 'Says Curtis, disingenously. He knows I've explicitly rejected the victim notion where Robin was concerned. It was the rest of us who were victimized in being deprived of Robin's contributions'. [Ack! you misspelled the word 'disingenuously' in that sentence.] So I would tend to disagree with your characterisation of Barry as feeling a victim, as being victimised. He often refers to you as having a victim mentality. However you normally do not seem to give that impression. If I would venture a guess, the concept of victimisation is more important to you than it is to Barry. But as you know, you regard me as having the least perception of social nuance of anyone on this forum, so you should speak for yourself on this point. [Note: Due to some of my past history, even though a substantial portion of my life has been in the United States, I tend to spell using the British idiom rather than American (when I remember which is which, that is), but as I am making exact quotations above and below, I retain the original spelling.] === Barry's Original Posts Using the Word 'VICTIMIZED' These are all the posts where Barry used the word rather than just cut and pasted from another source, or in which the word was used when he quoted someone else, or used by someone whose post, or his own original post, was quoted in a reply to such post. I have capitalised the word and put spaces between the letters so it is easily visible in text-only mode, and will not appear in subsequent searches in case someone wants to contradict my information here. turquoiseb Post #332309 Jan 12, 2013 Recent research has shown that there is a one-to-one link between people displaying neurotic behavior and their risk of developing PTSD. Neurotic behavior is defined as a type of personality behavior in which people experience high degrees of anxiety in response to everyday events, and thus tend to overreact to those ordinary events. That seems to me to be almost a definition of the long-term cultic TMer, at least in my experience. How is *cultivating* this behavioral pattern supposed to help those already V I C T I M I Z E D by it? turquoiseb Post #306001 Mar 9, 2012 To attempt to get women to focus on their own victimhood, and live in a constant state of resentment and anger towards those who supposedly V I C T I M I Z E D them is not, in my opinion, a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting you (something they would do anyway), while not allow- ing anything they say to affect you at all. Drives them crazy. :-) The other thing it is important to know about stalkers is what the end point or goal of their game plan is. That is, put very simply, to get you to respond to them one-to-one so that in their diseased minds they can have a Robin-like confrontation with you. It *doesn't matter* what you say when replying to them. They already creamed their pants the moment you replied. So don't. It's meaner. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting you (something they would do anyway), while not allow- ing anything they say to affect you at all. Drives them crazy. :-) The other thing it is important to know about stalkers is what the end point or goal of their game plan is. That is, put very simply, to get you to respond to them one-to-one so that in their diseased minds they can have a Robin-like confrontation with you. It *doesn't matter* what you say when replying to them. They already creamed their pants the moment you replied. So don't. It's meaner. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting you (something they would do anyway), while not allow- ing anything they say to affect you at all. Drives them crazy. :-) The other thing it is important to know about stalkers is what the end point or goal of their game plan is. That is, put very simply, to get you to respond to them one-to-one so that in their diseased minds they can have a Robin-like confrontation with you. It *doesn't matter* what you say when replying to them. They already creamed their pants the moment you replied. So don't. It's meaner. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting you (something they would do anyway), while not allow- ing anything they say to affect you at all. Drives them crazy. :-) The other thing it is important to know about stalkers is what the end point or goal of their game plan is. That is, put very simply, to get you to respond to them one-to-one so that in their diseased minds they can have a Robin-like confrontation with you. It *doesn't matter* what you say when replying to them. They already creamed their pants the moment you replied. So don't. It's meaner. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL LOL..Yes dear Obba Barry seriously needs a woman to set him straight. But seriously - if he does end up emailing you let the sharing be one way - from you, to him - don't want you to be traumatized :-). On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM, obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting you (something they would do anyway), while not allow- ing anything they say to affect you at all. Drives them crazy. :-) The other thing it is important to know about stalkers is what the end point or goal of their game plan is. That is, put very simply, to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Thank you, Ravi! I almost gave up my internet virginity to Barry! Could destabilize any future bro's here, for something else! Woah. Whew. Coo. Maybe Barry can wear the red one piece long johns with the ass trap open or some picture such as.. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL LOL..Yes dear Obba Barry seriously needs a woman to set him straight. But seriously - if he does end up emailing you let the sharing be one way - from you, to him - don't want you to be traumatized :-). On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM, obbajeeba wrote: ** Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Thank you, Ravi! I almost gave up my internet virginity to Barry! Could destabilize any future bro's here, for something else! Woah. Whew. Coo. Maybe Barry can wear the red one piece long johns with the ass trap open or some picture such as.. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL LOL..Yes dear Obba Barry seriously needs a woman to set him straight. But seriously - if he does end up emailing you let the sharing be one way - from you, to him - don't want you to be traumatized :-). On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM, obbajeeba wrote: ** Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
If he had the lipstick on, wouldn't the roles be reversed, wrt the dog? I dunno -- Once you threw cross dressing and/or gender bending into the mix, it became weirder than a david lynch movie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting you (something they would do anyway), while not allow- ing anything they say to affect you at all. Drives them crazy. :-) The other thing it is important to know about stalkers is what the end point or goal of their game plan is. That is, put very simply, to get you to respond to them one-to-one so that in their diseased
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Lipstick does not remove a dick. Unless the bitch licks with a strap on? (last I read, Barry appears to still be a man, regardless the shade he glamors his lips with.) LOL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: If he had the lipstick on, wouldn't the roles be reversed, wrt the dog? I dunno -- Once you threw cross dressing and/or gender bending into the mix, it became weirder than a david lynch movie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41 for the word 'victimize'. As I have a limited time, I chose the word 'victimized' and read every paragraph where he used the word in an original post. This provides a reasonable sample. In not one case does he refer to himself as having been victimized. I really do not think he thinks of himself that way. He does not. Thinking of the people one stalks AS victims is something that stalkers do. Their fantasies revolve around how strongly they are affecting the people they hate. In my considered opinion, the best thing one can do when faced with an Internet stalker is to allow them to fantasize about how strongly they are affecting
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: snip So I would tend to disagree with your characterisation of Barry as feeling a victim, as being victimised. Well, of course you would. And of course he would never use the term victim to refer to himself. I could have told you that before you spent all that time painstakingly extracting quotes from the archives and carefully inserting spaces between letters. News flash: It's entirely possible to portray oneself as a victim without ever using the word victim. In this case, stalkee is a likely synonym. So is target. I doubt he *feels* victimized either, because he made up the whole story about my stalking him in the first place, way back in 2005, in an attempt to discredit me just after I joined FFL. Ironically, making up stories about their targets is one of the characteristic behaviors of stalkers. This is just one of innumerable stories Barry has made up about me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Obba, Any man able to fog a mirror would know only a city as great as Manhattan could contain a woman of your qualities; TB is still upset about getting caught mood making while he was doing PUJA, if he had any class, he'd offer to buy you a new pair of shoes: http://pinterest.com/priscill/outrageous-shoes/ “Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind, And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.” -A Midsummer Night's Dream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX2wybAIAHU From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:41:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Lipstick does not remove a dick. Unless the bitch licks with a strap on? (last I read, Barry appears to still be a man, regardless the shade he glamors his lips with.) LOL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: If he had the lipstick on, wouldn't the roles be reversed, wrt the dog? I dunno -- Once you threw cross dressing and/or gender bending into the mix, it became weirder than a david lynch movie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-act-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin. LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for! LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks they claim are victimizing them. I am not so sure about that. I searched for the word victim and victimized in Barry's posts to see how he applied the word to himself, and he does not seem to have used the word in reference to himself. There were some 400+ references to the word 'victim' and some 41
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
Mr. Price, Oooow. Bait and hook me! Fog is my favorite color! I like the Purple, purple, purple stiletto books, size 11. Plum heels, size 11 too. Concord grape stretch suede boots, size 11. Roberto Cavalli, half boot, same size. ..and any other open toe meant to be worn airborne, please.. Would put me at six feet tall with those! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: Obba, Any man able to fog a mirror would know only a city as great as Manhattan could contain a woman of your qualities; TB is still upset about getting caught mood making while he was doing PUJA, if he had any class, he'd offer to buy you a new pair of shoes: http://pinterest.com/priscill/outrageous-shoes/ âLove looks not with the eyes, but with the mind, And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.â -A Midsummer Night's Dream. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX2wybAIAHU From: obbajeeba To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 4:41:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while Lipstick does not remove a dick. Unless the bitch licks with a strap on? (last I read, Barry appears to still be a man, regardless the shade he glamors his lips with.) LOL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote: If he had the lipstick on, wouldn't the roles be reversed, wrt the dog? I dunno -- Once you threw cross dressing and/or gender bending into the mix, it became weirder than a david lynch movie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote: Turq, In a sexy way, I thought you were pretty smart, cute, etc. Now, it is like I caught you putting lipstick on and fucking the dog. hahaha. Ex-Patiot http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-the-ex-patriot-a\ ct-is-a-creepy-law/257368/ Number two: I do not live in Fairfield. Never have, never will. Number three: The Jobs  or employers you mentioned. I would never apply for, and if I was hired, it would be from headhunters begging me to come and work for their clients. :) Social security will not exist by the time I get to have it. Dear, you could send more private emails to me and we can share pictures, then you won't say nothin.  LOL Peace handsome -Obba --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote: Barry, I mean, Turq. No one cyberstalks on FFL. It is fair exchange of knowledge and ignorance. Knowledge, by which you ignore and play accusation games. Judy is not a cyberstalker. You would fall in a minor sort of that category by trying to claim any statements on this board are attempting to derail a person's cyber history, for future employer's eyes. hahaha. Pointing fingers all day long, month after month, year after year, yawn, would bore any employer. Any employer, who would base hiring on any of these posts would be someone, no one should work for!  LOL. What grant department did they earn their business dollars LOL. Any entrepreneur who develops their own company without outside governmental aid, would see right past all the bullshit. Any others, are not worthy the tax dollar wasted supporting their authority? lol. I understand now why you live in Fairfield. You would never be able to survive in the real world. In recent studies, 80% of all employers surveyed said that they perform Internet background searches on all potential employees, examining their posts on Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. Many government jobs *require* that such a search be performed. Turq, one day there may be a requirement, to collect your social security, you have to be in living within the 50 US States, if you post on the internet on forums, in case we are all funding terrorists living abroad as ex patriots :) Just saying, dear. Love you. OXO Unlike you, I will never need to rely on American Social Security. Nor, hopefully, ever need to live in your third world bankrupt nation again. :-) BTW, the word is expatriate, not ex patriot. I have never been a patriot, and would sooner die than be considered one. If I had to choose between betraying my friend or my country, I hope I'd have the guts to betray my country. - E.M. Forster --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius  wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend  wrote: They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves by doing so--especially since they themselves
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Posted without comment, but the bolding is mine. This is why Vaj and Curtis and other wise individuals no longer deal with certain people on this forum. As far as I can tell Vaj and Curtis aren't deal[ing] with ANYONE on this forum. Barry must be addressing only the newbies here. Everyone else knows why Vaj isn't here (he got caught, thanks to Barry's stupidity, in a big fat lie he told offline), and Curtis pops in and out at intervals (and when he does pop in for a visit, he most certainly does deal with the folks Barry's attempting to smear). Anyone who wants proof of either of these facts, let me know and I'll refer you to the posts in question.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: with immense gratitude to the one who often reveals a window or door where heretofore I could see only a picture of a wall (-: thank you also for offerings about placebo and to Judy for the rich article on same nighty night and sweet dreams
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
I feel the same about merudanda. P.S. Ann, I love this. The nighttime fairies are so great; the twinkly stars. Will you read me a bedtime story? Pleeaase? From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: with immense gratitude to the one who often reveals a window or door where heretofore I could see only a picture of a wall (-: thank you also for offerings about placebo and to Judy for the rich article on same nighty night and sweet dreams
[FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: I feel the same about merudanda.  P.S. Ann, I love this.  The nighttime fairies are so great; the twinkly stars.  Will you read me a bedtime story? Pleeaase?  Yes I will Emily. And I am partial to Betty Boop so when I stumbled upon this little gem I had to post if for Share who seems to want to be the mother to us all. I'll take it. There is nothing better than to be tucked into bed, you forehead stroked, the covers gently smoothed and tucked around you and then the final kiss of the day by someone who you know loves you. My mother did this every night when I was a child and it went a very long way to making me the person I am today. To feel loved, wanted and adored as a child makes me extremely grateful to her and to the creator who allowed her to love me. Geez, what just happened? I started waxing all nostalgic about my mom and it all started out as a sort of joke with Betty and the twinkling stars and Share. From: Ann To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Best article on cyberstalking I've read in quite some while  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: with immense gratitude to the one who often reveals a window or door where heretofore I could see only a picture of a wall (-: thank you also for offerings about placebo and to Judy for the rich article on same nighty night and sweet dreams Â
