[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other. I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a city. The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up, he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys. Ding! Dear raunchydog, I have to read my bad reviews from The Netherlands (and, apparently from elsewhere too, since that scathing critic insists that quietly others in the audience are also boredor find the performance of one of the actors sexually ambiguous). I have to admit, then, to receive an ovation like this one is encouraging, and more than just a consolation. I suppose Socrates did not philosophize for the applause, but I am no Socrates, but a human being who, after receiving the harshest of judgments, feels soothed and happyand almost vindicatedby all that you say here. Not only this:I can't resist making this point: my critics must forgive mebut I find the manner of your expressing your appreciation for the Robin-Curtis dialogues (contentious as they are) more entertaining and refreshing than how my primary critic has managed to persuade me of his disgust and revulsion [Curtis says his friend would rather sit on a hot Hibachi than read one of those Curtis-Robin conversations.]. AndI need to score a point herethe fact that you can be inspired to create an original and piquant post like this suggests there might be more reason to have a favourable view of those dialogues than to have an unfavourable one. Which is whyto follow this principle to its endChartres Cathedral looks more impressive than the Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea. The Virgin Mary inspires a somewhat different quality of architecture than does Karl Marx. (And you see I am punching away at Curtis even here: since notwithstanding the inspirational absence of the Mother of Godsince Monte CassinoI am yet standing in the tradition of Chartresas the singular theist; while Curtis shares the sentiments of the builders in Pyongyang, who, we must presume, worship the good Herr Marx. Not that the architecture of his prose is in any way inferior to my own: I think it probably the reverse.) Your description of the two boxers is not just witty but even insightful. Busker Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons. Great fun reading this, raunchydog. And I thank you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Dear Steve, I receive your thanks with much appreciation. As you will have guessed, I am putting all of myself into those postso, in a sense, if you don't like the posts, you probably won't like me. To get a review like this oneright after the delightful piece by raunchydogmakes Canada seem all the livelier. No, it means something that there are persons who actually read through those long postsand insist the process is worth it. This just might even add a few years to my life, after that expatriate Holland guy threw his shoe at me. George was more surprised, however, than I was. And I take notice of those words: Intriguing and enlightening. And I must say I am more inclined to go along with this adjudication than the one from Amsterdam. You see, more of the feeling of the person that you are comes through in this than the real feeling of Holland guy comes through his anti-Robin postshis true feelings come to the fore in his loyalty to Curtismy dialectic opponent. Thanks, Steve. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Ditto on that. Sending my thanks to both of them for an intriguing and enlightening discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a city. The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up, he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys. Ding!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Jesus Judy. Please accept my apology for all the snarky bullshit in my previous post. That's OK, the post of mine I assume you were responding to was pretty snarky too. In any case, yours hasn't shown up on the Web. That was one of the nicest posts I have ever read and I take it to heart. Thanks. You're welcome. If only there were more of that sort of thing here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
And don't forget the time when Robin first came to the list back in June and Barry (and Vaj) tried to get Robin to be on his side by warning Robin about me and others. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280143 Aah, how times have changed. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 22, 2011 4:18:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Careful Judy, Barry is getting very, very jealous over this ongoing development, especially after Barry went after Robin with a vengeance, and now Barry's Blue Crush, Curtis, is having quite an enjoyable discussion with Robin. You know, Barry may be right that Curtis is a saint. But it isn't because Curtis has a good time talking to the people Barry hates, it's because he is able to tolerate *Barry*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
To date, like MMY, Jim has NOT demonstrated anything to back up his claims that he (and other claimants to the throne of enlightenmentitudeness) is special. He seems to me to be the most ordinary of human beings, someone who at one point in his life grew tired of being a nobody and figured out that if he just made a bunch of claims to gullible people, a certain percentage of them would treat him as special, just because he claimed to be. This is my money quote from Barry. perhaps I'll have it framed and pass it down to my grand-kids. LOL. Yes, I am somebody now! And the thousands I have graced with the news of my self realization are lined up at my door with donations and garlands of flowers. That's them knocking now, better go! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: And don't forget the time when Robin first came to the list back in June and Barry (and Vaj) tried to get Robin to be on his side by warning Robin about me and others. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280143 Aah, how times have changed. From: authfriend jstein@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 22, 2011 4:18:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Careful Judy, Barry is getting very, very jealous over this ongoing development, especially after Barry went after Robin with a vengeance, and now Barry's Blue Crush, Curtis, is having quite an enjoyable discussion with Robin. You know, Barry may be right that Curtis is a saint. But it isn't because Curtis has a good time talking to the people Barry hates, it's because he is able to tolerate *Barry*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Rauchy, after a kind of weird posting day on FFL I read your post right before bed. Thanks so much for putting a smile on my face when I could use one. And thanks to Steve for chiming in on a positive note. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other. I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a city. The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up, he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys. Ding!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other. I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a city. The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up, he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys. Ding! Dear raunchydog, I have to read my bad reviews from The Netherlands (and, apparently from elsewhere too, since that scathing critic insists that quietly others in the audience are also boredor find the performance of one of the actors sexually ambiguous). I have to admit, then, to receive an ovation like this one is encouraging, and more than just a consolation. I suppose Socrates did not philosophize for the applause, but I am no Socrates, but a human being who, after receiving the harshest of judgments, feels soothed and happyand almost vindicatedby all that you say here. Not only this:I can't resist making this point: my critics must forgive mebut I find the manner of your expressing your appreciation for the Robin-Curtis dialogues (contentious as they are) more entertaining and refreshing than how my primary critic has managed to persuade me of his disgust and revulsion [Curtis says his friend would rather sit on a hot Hibachi than read one of those Curtis-Robin conversations.]. AndI need to score a point herethe fact that you can be inspired to create an original and piquant post like this suggests there might be more reason to have a favourable view of those dialogues than to have an unfavourable one. Which is whyto follow this principle to its endChartres Cathedral looks more impressive than the Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea. The Virgin Mary inspires a somewhat different quality of architecture than does Karl Marx. (And you see I am punching away at Curtis even here: since notwithstanding the inspirational absence of the Mother of Godsince Monte CassinoI am yet standing in the tradition of Chartresas the singular theist; while Curtis shares the sentiments of the builders in Pyongyang, who, we must presume, worship the good Herr Marx. Not that the architecture of his prose is in any way inferior to my own: I think it probably the reverse.) Your description of the two boxers is not just witty but even insightful. Busker Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons. Great fun reading this, raunchydog. And I thank you. Ahh...Chartres, I've been there. A gentlemanly British fellow gave tours in 2004. I don't know if he's still there. Chartres has a fascinating history. Our guide told us Chartres is a place of pilgrimage because of the relic, Sancta Camisa, believed to be the tunic worn by the Blessed Virgin Mary at the time of Christ's birth. I found out this morning, It Ain't Necessarily So http://youtu.be/Mkgt263juzM ...damn that Wikipedia. That Commie Curtis may be a non-believer, but I can assure you he's far more interested in Pootang than Pyongyang. I thought you might enjoy pictures of Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres. The only shot I regret not getting was of the labyrinth. https://picasaweb.google.com/106545400900838340106/Chartres?authuser=0feat=directlink http://tinyurl.com/3wmfm7q By the way if Benedict of Nursia had been paying more attention to the principles of Sthapatya Veda, he wouldn't have built Monte Cassino on a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, but what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would answer for myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get past the first paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted to fathom. In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of my mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there? I am sure there is, as you and others testify. But each long densely packed paragraph that I attempt, my (perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks Oh Lord, where is the 'there' there. I feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild goose chase -- and abort the mission. Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, playing with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is the totally and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. Twisted,flayed, stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any familiar meaningfulness, after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited mind, mind you, not a generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give up, I want to go home Right Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this intense cacaphony of dense mind states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind immediately. I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more broadly his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding value in the exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be honest, at times I can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be a rabbit hole, in his long discourses with a few other sparing partners. But in whole, I enjoy his insights and style. That said, and I ask sincerely, can one or all of you provide some some cliff notes, a cartoon version, a list of key points, an annotated version (like needed to read James Joyce or Sarte) of what themes, ideas, insights that you find of value in these dialogues. (This is not a loaded question.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Ditto on that. Sending my thanks to both of them for an intriguing and enlightening discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a city. The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up, he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys. Ding!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Why doubt your impression Tart? If there was something of value for you in our conversation you would have already found it and tossed it back to us in your own clever style. A Cliff notes summary would kill the value of the dialogue for me,which is the ride, not the destination. Here you go: Robin believes that God existed and communicated his relationship to man through the birth of Jesus and the Catholic church with Thomas Aquinas being the go to guy for the details of that relationship. Curtis does not believe that there is adequate evidence for this claim or how one might be able to distinguish this God idea as the right one out of all the thousands man has proposed. Robin believes that God changed his relationship to man in the 40' with the bombing of that monastery and is no longer answering his phone. Curtis finds this even more of a stretch than the first claim. Robin believes that there are significant issues with the theory of evolution (although he generally accepts it) and that it is improperly being used as a justification for materialistic reductionism in science. Curtis says that the theory of evolution gives him a boner hard enough to drive in nails if a hammer was not available. (These are MY Cliff notes so there is gunna be at least one boner reference, OK?) Robin believes that Curtis lacks the ability to fully take on someone else's POV but instead runs his own routine over the person as if their POV didn't exist. Curtis believes that his powers of understanding other people's POVs are so far beyond the creator of the universe, that God himself appears like a provincial yokal with a native New Yorker having just arrived at Grand Central Station. God as rube: Where all them TV stars live, I come here to see em. NYC native. It is customary for you to bring a watch as a gift when visiting our TV stars. (Opens coat revealing selection) Here are the approved watches available at a discount to make sure you are well received at the star's homes. God (what a dipshit!) Well OK then if you say so. I'd better buy a bunch cuz Ma has her heart set on seeing a whole slew of them stars. And scene. I think that about covers it, I hope Robin doesn't feel misrepresented. There was some pseudo gay banter that livened up the exchanges considerably, but if you aren't a fan of the filler, you wont enjoy those exchanges either. Don't sweat it Tart. There may only be some there there for a select few. And if it is only this select few who gains admittance into heaven for all of eternity, and if those who can't appreciate the lofty nature of these exchanges spend eternity in a place with the climate of Iraq in the Summer (but because of the fires it is a dry heat so DC is still worse than hell in August) then so be it. I'll send you some postcards (written on asbestos) to entertain you from time to time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, but what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would answer for myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get past the first paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted to fathom. In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of my mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there? I am sure there is, as you and others testify. But each long densely packed paragraph that I attempt, my (perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks Oh Lord, where is the 'there' there. I feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild goose chase -- and abort the mission. Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, playing with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is the totally and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. Twisted,flayed, stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any familiar meaningfulness, after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited mind, mind you, not a generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give up, I want to go home Right Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this intense cacaphony of dense mind states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind immediately. I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more broadly his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding value in the exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be honest, at times I can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be a rabbit hole, in his long discourses with a few other sparing partners. But in whole, I enjoy his insights and style. That said, and I ask sincerely, can one or all of you provide some some cliff notes, a cartoon version, a list of key points, an annotated version (like needed to read James Joyce or Sarte) of what themes, ideas, insights that you find of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Good one. So really, what ideas of substance have you guys really been spending 4000 pages on? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Why doubt your impression Tart? If there was something of value for you in our conversation you would have already found it and tossed it back to us in your own clever style. A Cliff notes summary would kill the value of the dialogue for me,which is the ride, not the destination. Here you go: Robin believes that God existed and communicated his relationship to man through the birth of Jesus and the Catholic church with Thomas Aquinas being the go to guy for the details of that relationship. Curtis does not believe that there is adequate evidence for this claim or how one might be able to distinguish this God idea as the right one out of all the thousands man has proposed. Robin believes that God changed his relationship to man in the 40' with the bombing of that monastery and is no longer answering his phone. Curtis finds this even more of a stretch than the first claim. Robin believes that there are significant issues with the theory of evolution (although he generally accepts it) and that it is improperly being used as a justification for materialistic reductionism in science. Curtis says that the theory of evolution gives him a boner hard enough to drive in nails if a hammer was not available. (These are MY Cliff notes so there is gunna be at least one boner reference, OK?) Robin believes that Curtis lacks the ability to fully take on someone else's POV but instead runs his own routine over the person as if their POV didn't exist. Curtis believes that his powers of understanding other people's POVs are so far beyond the creator of the universe, that God himself appears like a provincial yokal with a native New Yorker having just arrived at Grand Central Station. God as rube: Where all them TV stars live, I come here to see em. NYC native. It is customary for you to bring a watch as a gift when visiting our TV stars. (Opens coat revealing selection) Here are the approved watches available at a discount to make sure you are well received at the star's homes. God (what a dipshit!) Well OK then if you say so. I'd better buy a bunch cuz Ma has her heart set on seeing a whole slew of them stars. And scene. I think that about covers it, I hope Robin doesn't feel misrepresented. There was some pseudo gay banter that livened up the exchanges considerably, but if you aren't a fan of the filler, you wont enjoy those exchanges either. Don't sweat it Tart. There may only be some there there for a select few. And if it is only this select few who gains admittance into heaven for all of eternity, and if those who can't appreciate the lofty nature of these exchanges spend eternity in a place with the climate of Iraq in the Summer (but because of the fires it is a dry heat so DC is still worse than hell in August) then so be it. I'll send you some postcards (written on asbestos) to entertain you from time to time. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, but what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would answer for myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get past the first paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted to fathom. In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of my mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there? I am sure there is, as you and others testify. But each long densely packed paragraph that I attempt, my (perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks Oh Lord, where is the 'there' there. I feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild goose chase -- and abort the mission. Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, playing with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is the totally and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. Twisted,flayed, stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any familiar meaningfulness, after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited mind, mind you, not a generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give up, I want to go home Right Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this intense cacaphony of dense mind states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind immediately. I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more broadly his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding value in the exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be honest, at times I can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be a rabbit hole, in his long discourses with a few other sparing partners. But in
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: which is the ride, not the destination. So its about style over substance? (cheap shot I know,but in my warped mind, a chuckling one.) Don't sweat it Tart. There may only be some there there for a select few. And if it is only this select few who gains admittance into heaven for all of eternity, With 72 virgins? (which I think may be oversold. I mean at least some of them I would think are virgins for a reason, Get that disgusting thing away from me. ) Or does the secular version of heaven have 108 virgins and 1008 like totally perfected, experienced sexual beings. (which means the majority are gay, of course. Sort of, in a vague way, like white folk don't have rhythm thing.) And if those who can't appreciate the lofty nature of these exchanges spend eternity in a place with the climate of Iraq in the Summer (but because of the fires it is a dry heat so DC is still worse than hell in August) then so be it. I can relate, having spent a summer sleeping in the no AC attic on top of the DC center. (Don't get excited about the juxtaposition of AC / DC, it was just random.) That was the same summer as the Watergate break-in, but, um, I have no recollection, and um, to the best of my ability, I do not remember any Mr. Gordon Liddy. (Also that summer TM made the front page of the WSJ, I spit out my coffee, um I mean herbal tea, at that greasy spoon around the cornor when I saw that.) I'll send you some postcards (written on asbestos) to entertain you from time to time. I will look forward to it -- if it makes it through the brain barrier so to speak. The mergence of Infinite Emptiness with Blazing Radiance, the eternal Buddha / Shiva Mind, doesn't easily receive postcards. It's this crazy rule the PO has: infinite, unbounded, non-localized is hard to deliver to (no wonder some go postal when they are tasked with finding that address.) (By the way, play some Getz / Gilberto / Jobim on your ipod connected mega speakers for those 72 virgins. It is guaranteed to make true believers out of every last one of them.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, but what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would answer for myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get past the first paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted to fathom. In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of my mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there? I am sure there is, as you and others testify. But each long densely packed paragraph that I attempt, my (perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks Oh Lord, where is the 'there' there. I feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild goose chase -- and abort the mission. Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, playing with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is the totally and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. Twisted,flayed, stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any familiar meaningfulness, after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited mind, mind you, not a generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give up, I want to go home Right Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this intense cacaphony of dense mind states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind immediately. I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more broadly his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding value in the exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be honest, at times I can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be a rabbit hole, in his long discourses with a few other sparing partners. But in whole, I enjoy his insights and style. That said, and I ask sincerely, can one or all of you provide some some cliff notes, a cartoon version, a list of key points, an annotated version (like needed to read James Joyce or Sarte) of what themes, ideas, insights that you find of value in these dialogues. (This is not a loaded question.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Ditto on that. Sending my thanks to both of them for an intriguing and enlightening discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Why doubt your impression Tart? If there was something of value for you in our conversation you would have already found it and tossed it back to us in your own clever style. A Cliff notes summary would kill the value of the dialogue for me,which is the ride, not the destination. For me it's the ride not the destination, sums it up perfectly. Here you go: Robin believes that God existed and communicated his relationship to man through the birth of Jesus and the Catholic church with Thomas Aquinas being the go to guy for the details of that relationship. Curtis does not believe that there is adequate evidence for this claim or how one might be able to distinguish this God idea as the right one out of all the thousands man has proposed. Robin believes that God changed his relationship to man in the 40' with the bombing of that monastery and is no longer answering his phone. Curtis finds this even more of a stretch than the first claim. Robin believes that there are significant issues with the theory of evolution (although he generally accepts it) and that it is improperly being used as a justification for materialistic reductionism in science. Curtis says that the theory of evolution gives him a boner hard enough to drive in nails if a hammer was not available. (These are MY Cliff notes so there is gunna be at least one boner reference, OK?) Robin believes that Curtis lacks the ability to fully take on someone else's POV but instead runs his own routine over the person as if their POV didn't exist. Curtis believes that his powers of understanding other people's POVs are so far beyond the creator of the universe, that God himself appears like a provincial yokal with a native New Yorker having just arrived at Grand Central Station. God as rube: Where all them TV stars live, I come here to see em. NYC native. It is customary for you to bring a watch as a gift when visiting our TV stars. (Opens coat revealing selection) Here are the approved watches available at a discount to make sure you are well received at the star's homes. God (what a dipshit!) Well OK then if you say so. I'd better buy a bunch cuz Ma has her heart set on seeing a whole slew of them stars. And scene. I think that about covers it, I hope Robin doesn't feel misrepresented. There was some pseudo gay banter that livened up the exchanges considerably, but if you aren't a fan of the filler, you wont enjoy those exchanges either. Don't sweat it Tart. There may only be some there there for a select few. And if it is only this select few who gains admittance into heaven for all of eternity, and if those who can't appreciate the lofty nature of these exchanges spend eternity in a place with the climate of Iraq in the Summer (but because of the fires it is a dry heat so DC is still worse than hell in August) then so be it. I'll send you some postcards (written on asbestos) to entertain you from time to time. Thanks for the summary. I'd like to see Robin's POV in as few words, but that's not how he rolls. Love you guys. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: Not said with any agenda, snarkiness or irony, rather a sincere question, but what do you, raunchy and judy obtain from these dialogues. I would answer for myself, but to be honest, after repeated attempts, I cannot get past the first paragraph of the half dozen or so exchanges I have attempted to fathom. In reading any new author or exchange, I, at least in the back recesses of my mind, am asking, is there any 'there' there? I am sure there is, as you and others testify. But each long densely packed paragraph that I attempt, my (perhaps lazy) mind rebels and asks Oh Lord, where is the 'there' there. I feel like I am at the beginning of an intellectual wild goose chase -- and abort the mission. Sometimes I think they are advanced zen or dochzen masters in disguise, playing with us, taunting us, and the sole purpose of their dialogues is the totally and completely still the readers mind. That has happened to me. Twisted,flayed, stretched and twisted, parched in a desert dry of any familiar meaningfulness, after a paragraph my mind (and this is my limited mind, mind you, not a generalized observation, holy shit, I totally give up, I want to go home Right Now and rest in the vast void, beyond this intense cacaphony of dense mind states. Abort ALL systems, Abort mind immediately. I have faith in Curtis' intellectual skills and background (and more broadly his artistic/intuitive sensitivities) in that if he is finding value in the exchanges, there must be some there there. Though to be honest, at times I can't follow him too far down, what appears to me to be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Dear Curtis, Brilliant and just summation. Thank you. Reading this had the effect of reliving the entire correspondence between us: both at FFL and offline. I was apprehensive at first, thinking you would be tempted to debunk the whole thingyou know:the Jr High Thing; but, thank God, you were true to the sheer joy you confessed was your experience in posting with Robin. You are one crazy man, Curtis. No one has ever caught up to you. And what you are about in writing posts like this one, is beyond fathomingexcept that you like to play against yourself. I must assume, from what you have said, that our correspondence, then, has nothing in it of what you take with you to sing the blues. This must be the case. As I doubt you would trifle with something as existentially sacred (for you) as that. I resent profoundly your ridiculous and mischievous caricature of meand even of yourself, although it is clear, were I reading this, and knew nothing about either Robin or Curtis, I would find myself siding, obviously, with the Curtis guy. You have drawn the crudest cartoon of our conversation, even as you will say, in your response to this, Hey, Robin! I was only fulfilling the Cliff Notes request of tartbrain. What did you expect me to do? If I can poke fun at myself in this act, why are you so serious and uptight that you can't take some pleasure in what I have pulled off? Robin, you are too much of a fucking Puritan or something: for Christ sake: lighten up! I was just having some merry fun here. No harm done, big guy. You're out of control, Curtis. But that's not translatable in ways that anyone but you could understand. I take back nothing of what I have said to you over the past eight months; I only am adding some elements which make of you something more complex and profound than I even thought you were when you just elicited love and awesome enjoyment from deep inside of me. Why not stop the game, Curtis Baby. You are brilliant and hilarious and strong and wise. What the fuck is going on with your mocking, taunting, teasing, bullying, sabotaging, manipulating, invading, overpowering? Curtis: I have no fucking idea what you are talking about, Robin. Why don't you go back to your Virgin Mary and your screwed up mystical theatre and get a life. I summarized our dialogues at FFLand my estimation of what our offline correspondence meantand I did not feel I impugned its integrity in any way whatsoever: Hey, Robin: Remember irony? You use it all the time. You're just a bit slow and ponderous this morning. Get some of that Curtis caffein into you; then you'll be ready to rock and roll with me. I love you, Robin Baby. You move everywhere and in every direction in every moment. No one has ever pinned you down, Curtis. And do I admit to being bested by you? Well, of course I do.At least by one definition: I don't understand your agenda. And I don't think anyone doesalthough most everyone here at FFL will be sure that Robin has overshot the mark here. Fine. I am talking about where you really are at when it comes to going through death. Something like that. I think you a bullshitter, Curtis, but a bullshitter who covers himself with truth, with morality, with dignity, with the most ferocious integrity I have ever known. And do I still love you? You bet. But I will not give any quarter. And we shall see whether your POVand your secret and lethal modus operandifinally does away with meat least here at FFL. I have no desire to continue to post at FFLexcept that I will get stronger, and that I can get tested. You've done a pretty goddamn good job of providing this function since the very beginning, But is it ever heating up now. Hi, Curtis, my man. You are still here. That's good. I don't think you have the faintest idea of what I am all about. But know one thing: I don't and won't play with my final sincerity. No way. You do it all the time. Still, when all is said and done, you just might be right, and I in comparison at leastmore wrong. I mean about everything. The Zimmerman Telegram has been finally shown to me. It demonstrates either pure dishonesty and mendacity on Barry's part; or, if I am take him at his word, the same with regard to yourself. Germany telling Mexico to make war on the United Statesbecause, the accusation is that the US has been lying to Mexico. Your comments in response to that e-mail that Bob Price confronted me with, indicate either 1. total ignorance about what Barry sent to Bob Price; or else 2, cunning obfuscation and reality distortion. No matter what I have said here, Curtis. I still think you about the most marvellous character I have met. I think you a perfect (but very very subtle) asshole for writing as you have to tartbrain. Nevertheless I understand this is how you play fast and loose with reality. As if, in making love to the woman you adore, you get up and say: Well, that beats cutting the lawn, doesn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Robin, I wish you had given your own summary. I thought mine was remarkably balanced. I could have stacked the deck so much higher. If you try it you might appreciate how many punches I pulled. I can't ever bully you because there is no power differential. In true mean girl fashion, Bob has sent the email to you but no one sent it to me. But that doesn't really matter because I re-read my original correspondence to Barry in July when I was trying to figure you out. It was slanted toward Barry but nothing for me to be ashamed of concerning you. I find the whole deal distasteful in intention. Including that awful Bobbie! Did you SEE the I am a slut skirt she wore today! OMG it was so rank. Why doesn't she go to that place that inseminates my mares at the riding school, hook her up to the stirrups and say Give me your best stallion boys, I'm ready for the high hard one! I mean as if she could ever get any boy at this academy with her non Lancome eyeliner (K-mart cosmetics!) and her non Dolce Gabbana EVERYTHING! She wouldn't know a DG top if you tied it around her neck with a Jon Bennett garret and choked her with it! Anyhooo guess who thinks someone else is whatever? I don't want to gossip but it turns out that the two big buddies are not such big buddies after all! Time to give back the separated heart necklaces they shove in our faces and have a cat fight! Anyway, you didn't hear this from me... I just threw up on my mouth a little, sorry. My agenda? Expressing myself freely in the context of understanding where someone else who has the same agenda is coming from. And using the discussion as an outlet for some comedic bits that inhabit my brain. In the end hopefully everyone goes home with a laugh and feeling understood. (I get it that I have failed with you on the second part, but oh well, it wasn't from lack of effort on my part.) I don't believe bullshitter is appropriate. I have been far more earnest and transparent than that here. You allowed me to reveal who I am, perhaps more than anyone here. I am not covering myself with virtues, I am showing honestly that I am flawed to the core. And revealing my belief that everyone is in the same boat, we really are just talk'n here no matter how seriously we take our own POV. (And I take mine seriously.) I have really enjoyed the challenge of our interactions and your positive enthusiasm for them. It was just a shapshot in time on our POVs but, imperfect as it was, at least we put in the time and effort. The fact that anyone else enjoyed reading them at all is a wonder and makes me happy in a different way from the joy of expression. Thanks for listening to my music and your kind words. I am in the process of writing my 3rd CD right now and have my first song of the 6 originals I will include as usual. I am gunna read less into your Michael Jackson reference than I did your Gaga reference. Even banging yourself is ALWAYS better than cutting the lawn. (I am assuming this was a reference to the painful experience of getting a Brazilian. So I've heard. Seriously, that is the only way I would know. Oh come on, I saw Steve-O get one on Jackass for God's sake!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Curtis, Brilliant and just summation. Thank you. Reading this had the effect of reliving the entire correspondence between us: both at FFL and offline. I was apprehensive at first, thinking you would be tempted to debunk the whole thingyou know:the Jr High Thing; but, thank God, you were true to the sheer joy you confessed was your experience in posting with Robin. You are one crazy man, Curtis. No one has ever caught up to you. And what you are about in writing posts like this one, is beyond fathomingexcept that you like to play against yourself. I must assume, from what you have said, that our correspondence, then, has nothing in it of what you take with you to sing the blues. This must be the case. As I doubt you would trifle with something as existentially sacred (for you) as that. I resent profoundly your ridiculous and mischievous caricature of meand even of yourself, although it is clear, were I reading this, and knew nothing about either Robin or Curtis, I would find myself siding, obviously, with the Curtis guy. You have drawn the crudest cartoon of our conversation, even as you will say, in your response to this, Hey, Robin! I was only fulfilling the Cliff Notes request of tartbrain. What did you expect me to do? If I can poke fun at myself in this act, why are you so serious and uptight that you can't take some pleasure in what I have pulled off? Robin, you are too much of a fucking Puritan or something: for Christ sake: lighten up! I was just having some merry fun here. No harm done, big guy. You're out of control, Curtis. But that's not translatable in ways that anyone but you could
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Curtis, I assumed you had access to the e-mail. It was made known to me by way of confronting me as a liar. In other words, Bob Price was challenging me to deny what was in that e-mail from Barry: since, if the e-mail were true, it made a shambles of my integrity. So I gave Bob Price an unqualified denial that what was in that e-mail was veracious. I am not certain to what extent he immediately believed me; but, judging by his recent posts at FFL, it seems he reposed confidence in me and not in the truth of what Barry sent him. I urge you to solicit Bob on this; so you can read for yourself what Barry has said you told himabout me. This is an open and shut case. There is no ambiguity here. If Barry falsely used you to try to deter Bob from further attacks on him (Barry), then it is despicable, but humanly understandable. Barry became desperate I guess, because Bob, who once lauded Barry, seemed now to be turning on Barry. As if Bob Price had transferred allegiances. I don't know how significant this Zimmerman Telegram is in the long run, and of course I have no say in the matter of what Bob chooses to do with it. But I will say this: Bob was determined to out me if I was a liar, and if I had not had the opportunity to deny the contents of that e-mail, my reputation would have been severely compromised. Because, were it true, it means I was fucking around big time. And could not be trusted. From all that you have said you have said about me in your correspondence with Barry, I doubt there is any sense of betrayal here whatsoever. You have just given Barry your experience as it developed over time. However, for Barry to traduce this trust, and somehow use you as the unimpeachable source of a fact about me that makes of me a liar, well that is serious business indeed. I doubt Bob Price would generally divulge the content of private correspondence between him and Barry. However, if the matter touched my personal honourand I was, by virtue of that missive, seen to be a hypocrite and a dissemblerthen of course, since Bob Price has taken favourable notice of our recent posts, he would think very differently of me. Perhaps if you read said e-mail, it can clear up this whole thing. I believe Bob Price to be, despite what you say here, a honourable man. I feel he is determined to play fair in this whole matter. Although of course once he decided to accept my testimony that Barry's e-mail was a lie, he was offended by Barry'swhat I must believe to bedesperate deceitfulness. As for the rest of what you cover in your response here, I will now reread it and see if there is anything for me to say. Maybe this whole thing is for me to find out that Barry is a beautiful guy, and this is just the painful way I am going to eventually find this out. The e-mail he sent to Bob Price suggests that Barry had indeed in the past exercised some influence over Bob Price, and that now, when he found Bob Price was taking my side in this dispute, he was furious and even even a little unhinged. The e-mail was designed to expose me as a scoundrel. Cliff Notes won't do it for me. We and our correspondence are Cliff-Notes proof. This eight month conversation (if I can call it that) is the most boisterous, vigorous, intense, fearless, and no holds barred conversation I have ever hadover an extended period of time. And if I were a very young boy, and I got a hold of these posts that constitute this running dialogue, I would be entranced; yes, I would certainly be. And I would want to know the principals. You are much more seriously invested in this whole matter of Robin and Curtis than you would ever let on to poor Barryor anyone. I sense this, Curtis. We are more than intrigued with each other. Something good is going to come out of this. I promise you. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Robin, I wish you had given your own summary. I thought mine was remarkably balanced. I could have stacked the deck so much higher. If you try it you might appreciate how many punches I pulled. I can't ever bully you because there is no power differential. In true mean girl fashion, Bob has sent the email to you but no one sent it to me. But that doesn't really matter because I re-read my original correspondence to Barry in July when I was trying to figure you out. It was slanted toward Barry but nothing for me to be ashamed of concerning you. I find the whole deal distasteful in intention. Including that awful Bobbie! Did you SEE the I am a slut skirt she wore today! OMG it was so rank. Why doesn't she go to that place that inseminates my mares at the riding school, hook her up to the stirrups and say Give me your best stallion boys, I'm ready for the high hard one! I mean as if she could ever get any boy at this academy with her non Lancome eyeliner (K-mart cosmetics!) and her non Dolce Gabbana
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: That Commie Curtis may be a non-believer, but I can assure you he's far more interested in Pootang than Pyongyang. I'm stopping right here, and savoring this for a minute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: That said, and I ask sincerely, can one or all of you provide some some cliff notes, a cartoon version, a list of key points, an annotated version (like needed to read James Joyce or Sarte) of what themes, ideas, insights that you find of value in these dialogues. (This is not a loaded question.) Tart, I definitely relate to what you're saying. For one thing these particular exchanges are usually no more than three or four paragraphs. Second they are less about philosophy and more about relating to one another. Sort of like when a speaker talks about something personal rather than something theorical. Suddenly everybody perks up. The Barry part of it doesn't much interest me. I am enjoying the dynamic of the dialogue, if you will excuse the buzzword.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys. Dear Barry Wright: What pray tell were you going to reveal at FFL beyond this (what you have written above) which would deter Bob Price ever again posting anything resembling The Loon Tale? If you have said what you say here, then everything you havesince sending that e-mail to Bob Pricesaid in explanation of that e-mail seems weaker and less specific than what you say here. And yet your e-mail to Bob Price (ZT) implies some further and devastating revelation (image Curtis has of Robin dressing as a woman) which will confirm the insinuation that Robin is gay. It isn't then the drama queen ideawhich you contend is your intent in your follow-up explanation for sending the ZT; it is the drag queen idea. One is metaphorical; the other literal and real. How can a mere metaphor (as you explained was all you meant in your e-mail to Bob Price) be used as a deterrent to Bob Price further hurting you with his posts about you? Drag queens trying to pick up straight guys: this is something entirely other than being accused of acting like a 'drama queen'. The implication is clear: I am trying to pick up Curtis. Your e-mail to Bob Price is an attempt to authenticatein some material waythe characterization of me that constitutes this post. I am gay. Or at least there is a strong basis to suspect that I am gay. Now, I ask you, Barry, to deny the obvious meaning I have put upon this postand its relevance to and congruity with the threatening e-mail you sent to Bob Price. You are a coward and a liar, Barry. Robin
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cScJZqKpMq4 From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2011 10:00:11 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys. Dear Barry Wright: What pray tell were you going to reveal at FFL beyond this (what you have written above) which would deter Bob Price ever again posting anything resembling The Loon Tale? If you have said what you say here, then everything you have—since sending that e-mail to Bob Price—said in explanation of that e-mail seems weaker and less specific than what you say here. And yet your e-mail to Bob Price (ZT) implies some further and devastating revelation (image Curtis has of Robin dressing as a woman) which will confirm the insinuation that Robin is gay. It isn't then the drama queen idea—which you contend is your intent in your follow-up explanation for sending the ZT; it is the drag queen idea. One is metaphorical; the other literal and real. How can a mere metaphor (as you explained was all you meant in your e-mail to Bob Price) be used as a deterrent to Bob Price further hurting you with his posts about you? Drag queens trying to pick up straight guys: this is something entirely other than being accused of acting like a 'drama queen'. The implication is clear: I am trying to pick up Curtis. Your e-mail to Bob Price is an attempt to authenticate—in some material way—the characterization of me that constitutes this post. I am gay. Or at least there is a strong basis to suspect that I am gay. Now, I ask you, Barry, to deny the obvious meaning I have put upon this post—and its relevance to and congruity with the threatening e-mail you sent to Bob Price. You are a coward and a liar, Barry. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: snip And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: I was chiding him for equating my interest in long discussions with a pathology. I was in no way chiding him for being unable to appreciate our dialogue. Um, OK. You chided him for saying nasty things about you because he couldn't get beyond his personal preferences, i.e., was unable to appreciate your dialogue. ME: I'll just keep putting the snipped line out as long as you keep misrepresenting this conversation. Me clarifying to verify that her intentions are dishonest in this exchange: Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. He didn't have to accuse me of pathology because my exchange with Robin was not his cup of tea. I don't care if now one buy Robin reads our exchanges but was requesting that he not use the exchanges that he doesn't prefer as evidence of me being neurotic. I get along fine with Bhairitu so I felt like my objection would be received how I meant it. But you knew all this. I guess we don't share the same ethical standards. Or would you like to make a case that you aren't too good at analyzing all this words stuff? So if he wasn't able to appreciate your dialogue, he should have kept his mouth shut, right? ME: I didn't appreciate his accusation. I was responding. Wait. What would it have looked like, I wonder, what would he have said, if he *could* get beyond his personal preferences? What might he have said in that case, instead of equating your interest in long discussions with a pathology? I get it now. He might have said you were a saint-- the Mother Teresa of the Internet, for example-- while equating *Robin's* interest in long discussions with a pathology, one for which you had great compassion, to provide these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. As long as it's Robin who is said to have an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that [self-]importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), and you're feigning interest in what he says out of your saintly commitment to selfless service, that's fine with you. ME: Robin is defending himself with Barry just fine. Are you now advocating that I now enter Robin's battle with Barry like you wanted me to do with your own? Cuz he isn't a good worder, and can't pull it together for himself perhaps? That's what getting beyond personal preferences might look like, as far as you're concerned. Right? ME: Hi Sour Plum. Haven't seen you lately. I've misjudged you, Curtis. I thought that by chiding Bhairitu, you were sending a subtle signal to Barry that he too ought to get beyond his personal preferences. I should have known better. I don't expect anyone to give a shit about our discussion. I would prefer that people didn't try to use it as evidence that I have an overstimulated intellect or too much vatta which he went on to describe as in modern terms as neurotic. Right. Fine for somebody to try to use your discussion with Robin as evidence that *Robin* is neurotic, as long as you're portrayed as so saintly as to admire the running sores of the lepers with whom you compassionately engage. ME: Oh the busy dealings of the Sour Plum. Not enough issues of her own to fix. So very busy is her body. ME:Oh here it is, out of context and so forlorn. The clarifying section that you have not responded to. I'm sure you will here... But of course you knew this which is why you selectively snipped the sentence before your quote when I made that clear: Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. My apologies. I genuinely did not understand the difference you perceived between what Barry said (dumping on Robin and exalting you) and what Bhairitu said (dumping on both of you). I still don't quite get, however, why the sentence I snipped should have conveyed that difference. ME: Neither Barry nor I believe I am a saint, it was parody poking fun, using me as a device. He was actually taking a shot at Robin which Robin handled nicely himself without the meddling of any of us. My response was to up the ante on satire in another post which made my
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other. I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a city. The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up, he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys. Ding!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Ditto on that. Sending my thanks to both of them for an intriguing and enlightening discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: I've been quietly lurking, reading most of Curtis and Robin's posts. It's a lot to wade through but it's worth the effort. Their conversation invites me to get in synch with their thought processes and experience the unfolding of their deeply felt, yet, uniquely intellectual approaches to reality. The brain power between them could light up a city. The only sport my Dad enjoyed watching on TV was boxing, so very early on I learned to cheer evenly matched opponents. Busker Boy Curtis in Boxer-Blue shorts vrs. Fancy Pants Robin in Cardinal Red pantaloons are evenly matched heavy weights. Jabs, hooks, one-two punches, he's up, he's down and so far it's a draw! Thanks for tickets to ring-side, guys. Ding!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, I think we can safely rule that possibility out! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine interest in understanding each other's process for approaching reality. Because it engages our complete philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. I am not making a case that this should be of interest to anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find something interesting in it. As such, he has become in a way the therapist to the stars, or at least those who are legends in their own minds and convinced that they *are* stars. Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self- obsession with I can understand why you're obsessed with that, tirade with humor. I admire his compassion and his patience in doing this; it is a skill that I lack. Since I honestly don't think that I've ever seen an original or creative idea emanate from ANY of the people I mentioned, it is very difficult for me to pretend that I have. It's much easier -- and a far better use of my time -- to wave my paw at them and say Bah than it is to get into their obsessions with them. Curtis feels otherwise, and thus provides these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. It's like he's the Mother Teresa of the Internet. Whereas some encounter a leper trying to show off his sores and turn away, Curtis says, Wow...that's really a good one. Just LOOK at the pus oozing from that one, and allows them to feel good about themselves, as if there were at least one person out there in cyberspace who feels that they're interesting enough to deal with. It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, and I commend him for it. I may not read it, even though I know that this may deprive me of glimpses of his awesome humor, but I think it's neat that he does it. The average post here is maybe 5-10 Kbs, this one alone is 125. While this might be his longest to date, it's hardly an aberration. I don't get it. Too bad MDG is no longer here to explain how and why someone would take the trouble, day after day, to write these endless monologues to a bunch of almost complete strangers. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: Oppsey, I meant, Who are you addressing this session to? Whoa, you can hear these thoughts OUTSIDE my head? Damn! I may need to tighten up on my reality sensors a tad. (The use of the term oppsey is a good indication that you might qualify.) (Just to clarify, it is $350 cash plus tip and I cannot emphasize enough that for this price it is clothes-on humiliation only with zero contact other than the occasional metal tipped cat-O-nine tails.) Not that I am insinuating that you have been very, very bad and that only the sternest of treatments will assist you in bringing you back into balance. You know like yoga always promised, but lacking the right punitive toys, never delivered! This response deserves to be in mangal and shani colors. It took some time to ponder on the idea. Sometimes mangal has the playful way of uh, uh, a toastmaster's nightmare where by, um, um is there anyway to do this on credit? I mean, treatment with application to create balance, if it actually works, should be able to bring the desire to fund a venture such as the above into reality by creating bliss and uh, um, yes, balance, as you mention. Oppsey says as oppsey does. : ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Both posts, wickedly funny obbajeeba! Just to clarify, are we only including in our discussion women's clothes worn on the outside? Just checking. I mean, anything worn against one's own skin but concealed from the unkind judgmental eyes of the world would be a secret between oneself and one's creator, who may or may not enjoy the secret knowledge that his devotee's inner expression is of say (just an offhand example pulled out of the air) a naughty upstairs maid (French) with a penchant for falling face forward onto the nearest bed when the master of the house passes by? But that would be an act of religious devotion, and not in any way something that we would collectively here ridiculed here. Right? I mean it's not as if I had strolled into a room wearing a nurse's outfit (on the outside), holding a phallus shaped syringe because it is time for your shot and I'm not fooling around this time because you haven't been following hospital rules and I wont tolerate any nonsense from you Mr. Worm,no funny business on my ward, and if I have to get out the cuff restraints to give you your medicine, I wont hesitate to enforce a bit of discipline and respect, you disgusting little creature who deserves to be stepped on with my stiletto heels right on the sin spot, you repulsive pig who doesn't deserve to lick the bottoms of my shoes again and again. That would be sooo gay and I can't even imagine anything like that ever happening in real life for say $350 a half hour session (no release) say at 8 pm next Thursday? Just to clarify, how exactly are you addressing the session to? Oppsey, I meant, Who are you addressing this session to? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: Their next vacation could be planned ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoSA8_guaqg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Their next vacation could be planned ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoSA8_guaqg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: Their next vacation could be planned ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoSA8_guaqg Wow. The times they really are a'changin'. I lived in Southern California in the late 60s, for most of that time as a long-haired hippie. Me and my ilk were prohibited from visiting Disneyland. You'd be turned away at the gate, because your hair was too long. Wisely, some enterprising vendor had set up a baseball cap franchise in the parking lot, so after tucking up our hair beneath one, we could go to another gate and ride Space Mountain alongside the Moral Majority. If you were caught inside the park with your freak flag flowing over your shoulders, you were admonished by guards to put your hat back on. At that time, however, gays who held hands or kissed openly were apprehended and escorted to the gate, and told to go forth and not multiply. Drag was right out. Disneyland was known for being far less gay-tolerant than even the rest of Orange County. Judging from the clip you posted and this article, times have changed: http://thedarklordkeisha.deviantart.com/journal/Top-10-Ambiguously-Gay-Disney-Characters-220118385 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Both posts, wickedly funny obbajeeba! Just to clarify, are we only including in our discussion women's clothes worn on the outside? Just checking. I mean, anything worn against one's own skin but concealed from the unkind judgmental eyes of the world would be a secret between oneself and one's creator, who may or may not enjoy the secret knowledge that his devotee's inner expression is of say (just an offhand example pulled out of the air) a naughty upstairs maid (French) with a penchant for falling face forward onto the nearest bed when the master of the house passes by? But that would be an act of religious devotion, and not in any way something that we would collectively here ridiculed here. Right? I mean it's not as if I had strolled into a room wearing a nurse's outfit (on the outside), holding a phallus shaped syringe because it is time for your shot and I'm not fooling around this time because you haven't been following hospital rules and I wont tolerate any nonsense from you Mr. Worm,no funny business on my ward, and if I have to get out the cuff restraints to give you your medicine, I wont hesitate to enforce a bit of discipline and respect, you disgusting little creature who deserves to be stepped on with my stiletto heels right on the sin spot, you repulsive pig who doesn't deserve to lick the bottoms of my shoes again and again. That would be sooo gay and I can't even imagine anything like that ever happening in real life for say $350 a half hour session (no release) say at 8 pm next Thursday? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: Their next vacation could be planned ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoSA8_guaqg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Both posts, wickedly funny obbajeeba! Just to clarify, are we only including in our discussion women's clothes worn on the outside? Just checking. I mean, anything worn against one's own skin but concealed from the unkind judgmental eyes of the world would be a secret between oneself and one's creator, who may or may not enjoy the secret knowledge that his devotee's inner expression is of say (just an offhand example pulled out of the air) a naughty upstairs maid (French) with a penchant for falling face forward onto the nearest bed when the master of the house passes by? But that would be an act of religious devotion, and not in any way something that we would collectively here ridiculed here. Right? I mean it's not as if I had strolled into a room wearing a nurse's outfit (on the outside), holding a phallus shaped syringe because it is time for your shot and I'm not fooling around this time because you haven't been following hospital rules and I wont tolerate any nonsense from you Mr. Worm,no funny business on my ward, and if I have to get out the cuff restraints to give you your medicine, I wont hesitate to enforce a bit of discipline and respect, you disgusting little creature who deserves to be stepped on with my stiletto heels right on the sin spot, you repulsive pig who doesn't deserve to lick the bottoms of my shoes again and again. That would be sooo gay and I can't even imagine anything like that ever happening in real life for say $350 a half hour session (no release) say at 8 pm next Thursday? Just to clarify, how exactly are you addressing the session to? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: Their next vacation could be planned ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoSA8_guaqg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Both posts, wickedly funny obbajeeba! Just to clarify, are we only including in our discussion women's clothes worn on the outside? Just checking. I mean, anything worn against one's own skin but concealed from the unkind judgmental eyes of the world would be a secret between oneself and one's creator, who may or may not enjoy the secret knowledge that his devotee's inner expression is of say (just an offhand example pulled out of the air) a naughty upstairs maid (French) with a penchant for falling face forward onto the nearest bed when the master of the house passes by? But that would be an act of religious devotion, and not in any way something that we would collectively here ridiculed here. Right? I mean it's not as if I had strolled into a room wearing a nurse's outfit (on the outside), holding a phallus shaped syringe because it is time for your shot and I'm not fooling around this time because you haven't been following hospital rules and I wont tolerate any nonsense from you Mr. Worm,no funny business on my ward, and if I have to get out the cuff restraints to give you your medicine, I wont hesitate to enforce a bit of discipline and respect, you disgusting little creature who deserves to be stepped on with my stiletto heels right on the sin spot, you repulsive pig who doesn't deserve to lick the bottoms of my shoes again and again. That would be sooo gay and I can't even imagine anything like that ever happening in real life for say $350 a half hour session (no release) say at 8 pm next Thursday? Just to clarify, how exactly are you addressing the session to? Oppsey, I meant, Who are you addressing this session to? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: Their next vacation could be planned ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoSA8_guaqg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@... wrote: Oppsey, I meant, Who are you addressing this session to? Whoa, you can hear these thoughts OUTSIDE my head? Damn! I may need to tighten up on my reality sensors a tad. (The use of the term oppsey is a good indication that you might qualify.) (Just to clarify, it is $350 cash plus tip and I cannot emphasize enough that for this price it is clothes-on humiliation only with zero contact other than the occasional metal tipped cat-O-nine tails.) Not that I am insinuating that you have been very, very bad and that only the sternest of treatments will assist you in bringing you back into balance. You know like yoga always promised, but lacking the right punitive toys, never delivered! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Both posts, wickedly funny obbajeeba! Just to clarify, are we only including in our discussion women's clothes worn on the outside? Just checking. I mean, anything worn against one's own skin but concealed from the unkind judgmental eyes of the world would be a secret between oneself and one's creator, who may or may not enjoy the secret knowledge that his devotee's inner expression is of say (just an offhand example pulled out of the air) a naughty upstairs maid (French) with a penchant for falling face forward onto the nearest bed when the master of the house passes by? But that would be an act of religious devotion, and not in any way something that we would collectively here ridiculed here. Right? I mean it's not as if I had strolled into a room wearing a nurse's outfit (on the outside), holding a phallus shaped syringe because it is time for your shot and I'm not fooling around this time because you haven't been following hospital rules and I wont tolerate any nonsense from you Mr. Worm,no funny business on my ward, and if I have to get out the cuff restraints to give you your medicine, I wont hesitate to enforce a bit of discipline and respect, you disgusting little creature who deserves to be stepped on with my stiletto heels right on the sin spot, you repulsive pig who doesn't deserve to lick the bottoms of my shoes again and again. That would be sooo gay and I can't even imagine anything like that ever happening in real life for say $350 a half hour session (no release) say at 8 pm next Thursday? Just to clarify, how exactly are you addressing the session to? Oppsey, I meant, Who are you addressing this session to? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: Their next vacation could be planned ahead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoSA8_guaqg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba no_reply@ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksvm7fovhJQ Yes. Great clip from a great movie. Perfect. [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/aed860908a5a012ee3c400163e41dd5b] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Just gotta ask. Is there anyone else here who thinks that Robin dresses up in women's clothing before writing these kinds of posts to Curtis? After a quick skim, the impression I'm getting is just WAY too similar to posts written by drag queens trying to pick up straight guys.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Judy, A wonderful post for me to read, Judy. Your favourable review of the Curtis-Robin Conversation means something. And I do not feel, in the slightest, in the way you describe your experience that you are trying to make Curtis and I feel good about our postsyou know, as a counter-response to some of our negative reviews. Thank you for this most interesting analysis. I find it easy to be utterly sincere with Curtis. I think we both let ourselves be influenced by one another, even as our final perspectives probably remain as far apart as they were since the very beginning of our conversation. Intelligence is a good thing. You have it in abundance. That is, the right kind of intelligence. As in discernment. If you had given our dialogue a negative review, I would have taken this as seriously as I take what you have written here. Because in the case of yourself, you provide evidence of the experience and process by which you come to your judgments. Your writing always seems to me to be honestly felt, and consistently perspicuous. I am glad that Curtis so misrepresented your experience that you decided you needed to correct him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Folks, SAVE A COPY OF YOUR POSTS to Notepad or something before you send them, at least the ones that aren't easily redone...Yahoo is eating posts like it's starving. Not only did Curtis's snarky post disappear, my response to this one did too, as did my first send of the one Curtis is responding to here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Jesus Judy. Please accept my apology for all the snarky bullshit in my previous post. It never showed up. But the post of mine I gather you were responding to was pretty snarky as well, so you'd be justified in reposting the snarky one if you chose. That was one of the nicest posts I have ever read and I take it to heart. Thanks. You're welcome. Just wish there were more conversations here like the one you and Robin are having. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
I have not lost any posts yet due to Yahoo, but I do not post that often. I usually lose a post by inadvertently closing down my web browser, having interrupted to do something else. If I have a long post, I usually work in a text editor, and then copy and paste when I am done. If I want to put a picture in the post, then I have to work in an HTML editor, and pre-load the pictures to the forum first so I can get their web address there, put those addresses in the post and then copy and paste the HTML into the forum's rich-text editor. The rich text editor seems quirky. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Folks, SAVE A COPY OF YOUR POSTS to Notepad or something before you send them, at least the ones that aren't easily redone...Yahoo is eating posts like it's starving. Not only did Curtis's snarky post disappear, my response to this one did too, as did my first send of the one Curtis is responding to here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Jesus Judy. Please accept my apology for all the snarky bullshit in my previous post. It never showed up. But the post of mine I gather you were responding to was pretty snarky as well, so you'd be justified in reposting the snarky one if you chose. That was one of the nicest posts I have ever read and I take it to heart. Thanks. You're welcome. Just wish there were more conversations here like the one you and Robin are having. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: I have not lost any posts yet due to Yahoo, but I do not post that often. I usually lose a post by inadvertently closing down my web browser, having interrupted to do something else. If I have a long post, I usually work in a text editor, and then copy and paste when I am done. If I want to put a picture in the post, then I have to work in an HTML editor, and pre-load the pictures to the forum first so I can get their web address there, put those addresses in the post and then copy and paste the HTML into the forum's rich-text editor. The rich text editor seems quirky. You know that if you're using Yahoo's Rich Text Editor on the Web site, you can do a standard copy-and-paste of a graphic that lives elsewhere on the Web into the post, right? And you don't have to write the text in an HTML editor and then paste it in if you're using the Rich Text Editor. You can compose it in a text editor like Notepad and paste it in, or you can input the text directly into the post window. You only really need to use a separate HTML editor if you want to do fancy stuff without using the Rich Text Editor's tools. (Don't know what the situation is if you get the posts via email instead of reading and responding via the Web interface.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Folks, SAVE A COPY OF YOUR POSTS to Notepad or something before you send them, at least the ones that aren't easily redone...Yahoo is eating posts like it's starving. Not only did Curtis's snarky post disappear, my response to this one did too, as did my first send of the one Curtis is responding to here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Jesus Judy. Please accept my apology for all the snarky bullshit in my previous post. It never showed up. But the post of mine I gather you were responding to was pretty snarky as well, so you'd be justified in reposting the snarky one if you chose. That was one of the nicest posts I have ever read and I take it to heart. Thanks. You're welcome. Just wish there were more conversations here like the one you and Robin are having. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: I have not lost any posts yet due to Yahoo, but I do not post that often. I usually lose a post by inadvertently closing down my web browser, having interrupted to do something else. If I have a long post, I usually work in a text editor, and then copy and paste when I am done. If I want to put a picture in the post, then I have to work in an HTML editor, and pre-load the pictures to the forum first so I can get their web address there, put those addresses in the post and then copy and paste the HTML into the forum's rich-text editor. The rich text editor seems quirky. You know that if you're using Yahoo's Rich Text Editor on the Web site, you can do a standard copy-and-paste of a graphic that lives elsewhere on the Web into the post, right? And you don't have to write the text in an HTML editor and then paste it in if you're using the Rich Text Editor. You can compose it in a text editor like Notepad and paste it in, or you can input the text directly into the post window. You only really need to use a separate HTML editor if you want to do fancy stuff without using the Rich Text Editor's tools. I did not know that. Live and Learn. (Don't know what the situation is if you get the posts via email instead of reading and responding via the Web interface.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Folks, SAVE A COPY OF YOUR POSTS to Notepad or something before you send them, at least the ones that aren't easily redone...Yahoo is eating posts like it's starving. Not only did Curtis's snarky post disappear, my response to this one did too, as did my first send of the one Curtis is responding to here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Jesus Judy. Please accept my apology for all the snarky bullshit in my previous post. It never showed up. But the post of mine I gather you were responding to was pretty snarky as well, so you'd be justified in reposting the snarky one if you chose. That was one of the nicest posts I have ever read and I take it to heart. Thanks. You're welcome. Just wish there were more conversations here like the one you and Robin are having. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: snip And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: I was chiding him for equating my interest in long discussions with a pathology. I was in no way chiding him for being unable to appreciate our dialogue. Um, OK. You chided him for saying nasty things about you because he couldn't get beyond his personal preferences, i.e., was unable to appreciate your dialogue. So if he wasn't able to appreciate your dialogue, he should have kept his mouth shut, right? Wait. What would it have looked like, I wonder, what would he have said, if he *could* get beyond his personal preferences? What might he have said in that case, instead of equating your interest in long discussions with a pathology? I get it now. He might have said you were a saint-- the Mother Teresa of the Internet, for example-- while equating *Robin's* interest in long discussions with a pathology, one for which you had great compassion, to provide these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. As long as it's Robin who is said to have an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that [self-]importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), and you're feigning interest in what he says out of your saintly commitment to selfless service, that's fine with you. That's what getting beyond personal preferences might look like, as far as you're concerned. Right? I've misjudged you, Curtis. I thought that by chiding Bhairitu, you were sending a subtle signal to Barry that he too ought to get beyond his personal preferences. I should have known better. I don't expect anyone to give a shit about our discussion. I would prefer that people didn't try to use it as evidence that I have an overstimulated intellect or too much vatta which he went on to describe as in modern terms as neurotic. Right. Fine for somebody to try to use your discussion with Robin as evidence that *Robin* is neurotic, as long as you're portrayed as so saintly as to admire the running sores of the lepers with whom you compassionately engage. But of course you knew this which is why you selectively snipped the sentence before your quote when I made that clear: Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. My apologies. I genuinely did not understand the difference you perceived between what Barry said (dumping on Robin and exalting you) and what Bhairitu said (dumping on both of you). I still don't quite get, however, why the sentence I snipped should have conveyed that difference. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. He [Barry] is not maliciously bearing false witness of course Yes, he is. Why should today be different from any other day? Then why were you indulging in it if this is such a big deal for you? I wasn't. As I said, I really did think your phrase attempt to make it into a pathology was intended to apply to what Barry said as well as what Bhairitu said. I should have realized, on the basis of long observation, that it would never occur to you to object to somebody saying something nasty and untrue about someone else as long as they say only nice things about you. Especially, of course, if it's Barry doing the saying. Silly me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/22/2011 08:44 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabluescurtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriendjstein@ wrote: snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebrano_reply@ wrote: snip And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: I was chiding him for equating my interest in long discussions with a pathology. I was in no way chiding him for being unable to appreciate our dialogue. Um, OK. You chided him for saying nasty things about you because he couldn't get beyond his personal preferences, i.e., was unable to appreciate your dialogue. So if he wasn't able to appreciate your dialogue, he should have kept his mouth shut, right? Wait. What would it have looked like, I wonder, what would he have said, if he *could* get beyond his personal preferences? What might he have said in that case, instead of equating your interest in long discussions with a pathology? I get it now. He might have said you were a saint-- the Mother Teresa of the Internet, for example-- while equating *Robin's* interest in long discussions with a pathology, one for which you had great compassion, to provide these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. As long as it's Robin who is said to have an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that [self-]importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), and you're feigning interest in what he says out of your saintly commitment to selfless service, that's fine with you. That's what getting beyond personal preferences might look like, as far as you're concerned. Right? I've misjudged you, Curtis. I thought that by chiding Bhairitu, you were sending a subtle signal to Barry that he too ought to get beyond his personal preferences. I should have known better. I don't expect anyone to give a shit about our discussion. I would prefer that people didn't try to use it as evidence that I have an overstimulated intellect or too much vatta which he went on to describe as in modern terms as neurotic. Right. Fine for somebody to try to use your discussion with Robin as evidence that *Robin* is neurotic, as long as you're portrayed as so saintly as to admire the running sores of the lepers with whom you compassionately engage. But of course you knew this which is why you selectively snipped the sentence before your quote when I made that clear: Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. My apologies. I genuinely did not understand the difference you perceived between what Barry said (dumping on Robin and exalting you) and what Bhairitu said (dumping on both of you). I still don't quite get, however, why the sentence I snipped should have conveyed that difference. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. He [Barry] is not maliciously bearing false witness of course Yes, he is. Why should today be different from any other day? Then why were you indulging in it if this is such a big deal for you? I wasn't. As I said, I really did think your phrase attempt to make it into a pathology was intended to apply to what Barry said as well as what Bhairitu said. I should have realized, on the basis of long observation, that it would never occur to you to object to somebody saying something nasty and untrue about someone else as long as they say only nice things about you. Especially, of course, if it's Barry doing the saying. Silly me. Who says I didn't appreciate Curtis and Robin's ramblings? I appreciated them as what seemed like long ramblings of blind men describing an elephant. My interest was more why would Robin wax on for pages over something if he wasn't vata imbalanced? Curtis is a little more succinct writer. On a political forum I post on a couple of guys have turned a thread or two into their own personal message exchange. The last upgrade took away private messaging where they might have carried on. Most of us ignore the thread but do wonder why they spend so much time and energy on it. In ayurveda, people who are kapha are often of few words because writing takes energy (think Lawson). Pitta people are usually much more succinct and to the point and write more than the kapha person. The vata person has a roar of ideas going through their heads and writes too much and is seldom grounded enough to edit what they
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Hey Bhairitu, What I write here is pre-shitty first draft material. I am just thinking it through riffing off of a post. It is more process writing than what I consider actual writing. More of a written conversation. I usually but not always take one quick scan to catch the most obvious typos. It must be the same for Robin who couldn't possibly have time to write this much and then edit it all down. And given that he changes his views throughout as I do, I think we are on the same groove of letting it flow to discover how we are thinking about the topic. That is the value of the place for me, it gets me flowing. Writing writing is what I do in my professional life and involves the kind of editing that respects the reader's time. I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. But I tend to have friends who like to express themselves and in Robin's case quantity doesn't influence quality for the purpose of conversation. I don't think any of this represents what we would consider to be writing. You and I communicate differently and I also appreciate that style. It is one of the coolest challenges of the place to try to match style and have conversations here. It shouldn't be a wonder why Robin and I spend time and energy on a stimulating conversations here anymore than eavesdropping on people having an animated rap session in a pub. We are having fun. Simple as that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 10/22/2011 08:44 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltabluescurtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriendjstein@ wrote: snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebrano_reply@ wrote: snip And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: I was chiding him for equating my interest in long discussions with a pathology. I was in no way chiding him for being unable to appreciate our dialogue. Um, OK. You chided him for saying nasty things about you because he couldn't get beyond his personal preferences, i.e., was unable to appreciate your dialogue. So if he wasn't able to appreciate your dialogue, he should have kept his mouth shut, right? Wait. What would it have looked like, I wonder, what would he have said, if he *could* get beyond his personal preferences? What might he have said in that case, instead of equating your interest in long discussions with a pathology? I get it now. He might have said you were a saint-- the Mother Teresa of the Internet, for example-- while equating *Robin's* interest in long discussions with a pathology, one for which you had great compassion, to provide these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. As long as it's Robin who is said to have an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that [self-]importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), and you're feigning interest in what he says out of your saintly commitment to selfless service, that's fine with you. That's what getting beyond personal preferences might look like, as far as you're concerned. Right? I've misjudged you, Curtis. I thought that by chiding Bhairitu, you were sending a subtle signal to Barry that he too ought to get beyond his personal preferences. I should have known better. I don't expect anyone to give a shit about our discussion. I would prefer that people didn't try to use it as evidence that I have an overstimulated intellect or too much vatta which he went on to describe as in modern terms as neurotic. Right. Fine for somebody to try to use your discussion with Robin as evidence that *Robin* is neurotic, as long as you're portrayed as so saintly as to admire the running sores of the lepers with whom you compassionately engage. But of course you knew this which is why you selectively snipped the sentence before your quote when I made that clear: Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. My apologies. I genuinely did not understand the difference you perceived between what Barry said (dumping on Robin and exalting you) and what Bhairitu said (dumping on both of you). I still don't quite get, however, why the sentence I snipped should have conveyed that difference. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Hey Bhairitu, What I write here is pre-shitty first draft material. I am just thinking it through riffing off of a post. It is more process writing than what I consider actual writing. More of a written conversation. I usually but not always take one quick scan to catch the most obvious typos. Ditto. WHAT, on this forum, would require more?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: Dear Bhairitu, Then I asked Robin in another post if he fancied himself an 'archarya' to which he never responded which tells me a lot in and of itself. It should tell you nothing, Bhairtu: I did not even know what the term meant. And as for my Vata-Kapha-Pitta proportions, well, once I separated myself from Maharishi and TM, I separated myself from anything to do with ayurvedawhich, thank Krishna, had not entered into the TM context when I went out on my own. So, then, Bhairitu, my ignoring your post signified nothing more than my thinking that someone who would assume I knew what an archarya was, and moreover would write as if Vata, Kapha, and Pitta must have been incorporated into not just the vocabulary of my life, but constituted something to do with how I look upon physical and mental healthsuch a person was perhaps not someone who would even like to hear my answer. I don't intend to judge the worth of ayurveda; I only know that my intimate and profound experiences physiologically and mentally with the East, more particularly, with the Veda, makes anything like thisin terms of my immediate existential reflexesanathema. I will, for the rest of my life, do without the influence or contribution of ayurveda, just as I will live out my life in the chosen absence of anything New Age and spiritual. I am only interested in first person ontology. I mean, ultimately. [And it all starts with the idea of God's omnisubjectivityand that quote from Hopkins that Pal-Gap appreciated.] I consider, then, Bhairitu, the Eastern idea of the Self, Atman, the Absolute, Enlightenment, pure consciousness, Buddhahoodand the notion of the perfection of impersonal consciousnessto be an angelic hoax. Not that I doubt the sincerity of the various Buddhists, TMers, Hindus, Taoists, New Age spiritualists that I meet in the course of my life. I don't hold to the idea of Ultimate Truth, much less final 'Liberation'. And I have written too many words on this forum describing in some detail the why of this extreme prejudice in me. What perhaps (as well as the demands of my own life, and the ascertaining of the intrinsic worth of a given post pointed in my direction) made me skip over the faint moral obligation I felt to respond to your post was this assumed idea that these notions of archarya, Vata, Kapha, Pitta were part of the bloodstream of every human being who has gone through psychedelics and then the Eastern gods (most especially TM and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). Do you understand what I am saying, then, Bhairitu? I don't doubt your intelligence and your wisdom; I only find it surprisingly naive and insensitive of you (a kind of failure of objectivity about the real world) to draw the conclusion that these ayurvedic categories necessarily correspond to anything ultimately true and real in how God created the human being. And as it [ayurveda] pertains to the evaluation and analysis of the functioning of a human beinghis or her personality. I mean here in the West. How many persons on Park Avenue on a given day, if you interviewed them, would agree that ayurveda occupied the same place in their understanding of *how to analyze writing style* as they do for you? The universities that offer courses in creative writing, are there *any* which have realized their ignorance about how to assess the predilections of their students writing according to the emphasis of Vata, Kapha, Pitta? I am listening to Suzanne by Leonard Cohen as I sit in Starbucks here in Toronto. And my conclusion is: Ayurvea explains nothing about what is happening to me as I listen to this song. I realize there are persons on FFL with very different religious and spiritual persuasions; what I find disappointing and cause for regret is there are persons who can't stand outside of their beliefs, or the world of spiritual belief in which they exist, in order to see the world that exists independently of that inner world. For you to assign some significance as you have for my not answering your question about whether I think of myself an archarya or not, and then, inside the same context, indicate implicitly the objectively unquestioned status of ayurveda: well, this, Bhairitu, well, this *is* significant. You seem like a bright and interesting person, with lots to say. But I recommend that you consider this ayurveda business as an unproven truth in medicine. And if allopathic medicine assimilates ayurveda on the terms in which Maharishi and his followers believe it should (because its integrity has been 'cognized' by Vedic seers), then fine. I will give the matter another look. But for the time being, I would rather just talk to you one-on-one eschewing all mention of Vata, Kapha, and Pitta. Because I think these terms more or less ridiculous inside the mainstream of Western Civilizationmaybe not from a medical point of view;
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
(Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Careful Judy, Barry is getting very, very jealous over this ongoing development, especially after Barry went after Robin with a vengeance, and now Barry's Blue Crush, Curtis, is having quite an enjoyable discussion with Robin. Someone even said Barry has been seen around Amsterdam with a *dog collar* around his neck. Uh-oh... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Careful Judy, Barry is getting very, very jealous over this ongoing development, especially after Barry went after Robin with a vengeance, and now Barry's Blue Crush, Curtis, is having quite an enjoyable discussion with Robin. You know, Barry may be right that Curtis is a saint. But it isn't because Curtis has a good time talking to the people Barry hates, it's because he is able to tolerate *Barry*.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Thanks, but I wasn't asking your opinion on Ayurveda, just whether you fancied yourself an acharya and you answered that. ;-) Ayurveda is something that some of us have studied and I didn't study it under the auspices of TM. It is just biochemistry and nothing mystical about it. But I've noticed over the years that some folks here don't like it because a) it was part of TM and/or b) they had or know people who had bad experiences with it. It's a very deep field and something that indeed western medicine could benefit from. I'm constantly learning new things about it and comparing it with other modalities. So I would certainly not expect you to make any connection with Ayurveda if you haven't studied it especially with some song playing at Starbucks. I gave up on TM long ago as a dead end path. About 11 years ago I made the acquaintance of an Indian tantric who resides locally and he offered to initiate me into his tradition. The techniques I learned were very powerful and satisfied my interest in the tantric tradition and fulfilled what was lacking in the TM path which I describe as yoga lite. So I am often interested in what traditions people have learned or left, whatever. Take care. On 10/22/2011 03:04 PM, maskedzebra wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: Dear Bhairitu, Then I asked Robin in another post if he fancied himself an 'archarya' to which he never responded which tells me a lot in and of itself. It should tell you nothing, Bhairtu: I did not even know what the term meant. And as for my Vata-Kapha-Pitta proportions, well, once I separated myself from Maharishi and TM, I separated myself from anything to do with ayurveda—which, thank Krishna, had not entered into the TM context when I went out on my own. So, then, Bhairitu, my ignoring your post signified nothing more than my thinking that someone who would assume I knew what an archarya was, and moreover would write as if Vata, Kapha, and Pitta must have been incorporated into not just the vocabulary of my life, but constituted something to do with how I look upon physical and mental health—such a person was perhaps not someone who would even like to hear my answer. I don't intend to judge the worth of ayurveda; I only know that my intimate and profound experiences physiologically and mentally with the East, more particularly, with the Veda, makes anything like this—in terms of my immediate existential reflexes—anathema. I will, for the rest of my life, do without the influence or contribution of ayurveda, just as I will live out my life in the chosen absence of anything New Age and spiritual. I am only interested in first person ontology. I mean, ultimately. [And it all starts with the idea of God's omnisubjectivity—and that quote from Hopkins that Pal-Gap appreciated.] I consider, then, Bhairitu, the Eastern idea of the Self, Atman, the Absolute, Enlightenment, pure consciousness, Buddhahood—and the notion of the perfection of impersonal consciousness—to be an angelic hoax. Not that I doubt the sincerity of the various Buddhists, TMers, Hindus, Taoists, New Age spiritualists that I meet in the course of my life. I don't hold to the idea of Ultimate Truth, much less final 'Liberation'. And I have written too many words on this forum describing in some detail the why of this extreme prejudice in me. What perhaps (as well as the demands of my own life, and the ascertaining of the intrinsic worth of a given post pointed in my direction) made me skip over the faint moral obligation I felt to respond to your post was this assumed idea that these notions of archarya, Vata, Kapha, Pitta were part of the bloodstream of every human being who has gone through psychedelics and then the Eastern gods (most especially TM and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). Do you understand what I am saying, then, Bhairitu? I don't doubt your intelligence and your wisdom; I only find it surprisingly naive and insensitive of you (a kind of failure of objectivity about the real world) to draw the conclusion that these ayurvedic categories necessarily correspond to anything ultimately true and real in how God created the human being. And as it [ayurveda] pertains to the evaluation and analysis of the functioning of a human being—his or her personality. I mean here in the West. How many persons on Park Avenue on a given day, if you interviewed them, would agree that ayurveda occupied the same place in their understanding of *how to analyze writing style* as they do for you? The universities that offer courses in creative writing, are there *any* which have realized their ignorance about how to assess the predilections of their students writing according to the emphasis of Vata, Kapha, Pitta? I am listening to Suzanne by Leonard Cohen as I sit in Starbucks here in Toronto. And my conclusion is: Ayurvea explains nothing about
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Ha-Ha! I certainly grant Curtis sainthood on that basis, though I can see Curtis coming up with a lot of lame excuses to end the meeting if they ever meet in person, I know Barry...yeah, obsessed TBs and Maharishi...listen, I really have to go tune my guitar --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: Careful Judy, Barry is getting very, very jealous over this ongoing development, especially after Barry went after Robin with a vengeance, and now Barry's Blue Crush, Curtis, is having quite an enjoyable discussion with Robin. You know, Barry may be right that Curtis is a saint. But it isn't because Curtis has a good time talking to the people Barry hates, it's because he is able to tolerate *Barry*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Jesus Judy. Please accept my apology for all the snarky bullshit in my previous post. That was one of the nicest posts I have ever read and I take it to heart. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this post.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading through this personal conversation with Robin. I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find out. And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how the other guy is possibly going to produce a good comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the best we've seen here in a long while, because both of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually *engage* with each other.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
A few points about the Lad article. He is primarily writing about the sounds that the doshas have. His mantra for the general public is So-Hum which he discusses in the article. The article also confirms what I am saying. I know his students recommend Ram to pacify vata, Shring to pacify pitta and Hoong to pacify kapha. There is a difference between pacifying an imbalance and identify what sound is association with a dosha. David Frawley also has written in some of his books about the effects of agni mantras and how they need to be treated with care. One might also want to consider the ages in which each dosha is predominant and the TM entry level technique.Also many mantra techniques in ayurveda are meant to be practiced until balance is achieved or the constitution restored. I just find humorous that a bunch of people who practice a Saraswati mantra might wind up living in their heads. Very typically what any yogi might expect of such a practice too. :-D Sadly none of this stuff was taught to TM teachers (would have given them the tools to break off from the movement) but is often taught in other organizations. On 10/20/2011 09:01 AM, Bhairitu wrote: I've also studied with Dr. Lad. You just don't understand what I'm saying. On 10/20/2011 05:05 AM, shukra69 wrote: debate his teacher as you have it all backwards http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/292713 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: No, because agni will dry you out and give rise to vata. That is why the hot summer weather can make people more vata once fall rolls around. My source on this was from a course I took by Dr. Robert Svoboda. Would you like to debate him on it? On 10/19/2011 07:37 PM, shukra69 wrote: Vata is entirely COLD crackpot, Agni is not going to increase it. Not to imply that anything you are saying has any validity anyways. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
debate his teacher as you have it all backwards http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/292713 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: No, because agni will dry you out and give rise to vata. That is why the hot summer weather can make people more vata once fall rolls around. My source on this was from a course I took by Dr. Robert Svoboda. Would you like to debate him on it? On 10/19/2011 07:37 PM, shukra69 wrote: Vata is entirely COLD crackpot, Agni is not going to increase it. Not to imply that anything you are saying has any validity anyways. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Curtis has similarities to tartbrain too, Xeno is another - use intellectual arguments to cover their inability to moral ethical stands. I do not use intellectual argument to cover my inability to moral ethical stands. As far as I know, I do not have moral ethical stands beyond the hard wiring in the human species (which might be explained from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective). This might count as an inability or an unfortunate lack with some, but if these aspects of experience are truly absent, it is not necessary to cover them, they simply will not manifest.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
I've also studied with Dr. Lad. You just don't understand what I'm saying. On 10/20/2011 05:05 AM, shukra69 wrote: debate his teacher as you have it all backwards http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/292713 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: No, because agni will dry you out and give rise to vata. That is why the hot summer weather can make people more vata once fall rolls around. My source on this was from a course I took by Dr. Robert Svoboda. Would you like to debate him on it? On 10/19/2011 07:37 PM, shukra69 wrote: Vata is entirely COLD crackpot, Agni is not going to increase it. Not to imply that anything you are saying has any validity anyways. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/19/2011 08:04 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriendjstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@ wrote: snip What you quoted of mine formats just fine in Thunderbird. If your browser pane is too small on the web site it may not format properly but most people have newer widescreen monitors that have plenty of room to display lines. On my monitor, which is widescreen, two of the above lines are broken in the Reply window. Let's see what happens to them when my post appears. It can also be helpful to use a smaller font when viewing posts on the Web site. But Turq is about the only person who does archaic hard returns. Wrong. I do as well, and so does Willytex. Nobody should have to go out of their way to format for web forums. You're forgetting what happens when someone responds to a post via the Web site. The software adds hard returns to the end of every line (if there isn't one already) and two characters ([space]) to the beginning of every line. The result is that longer lines get broken instead of wrapping, and it gets worse the longer an exchange goes on. But the extra characters at the beginnings of lines make a conversation so much easier to follow; you always know who's written what by how many characters precede the lines. The early BBS readers were so much better at this. And boy, if we could all just remember to SNIP stuff we aren't responding to, reading posts would be so much more pleasant. That's 50 for me and out until the weekend. I do not use hard returns (usually) in my replies to posts. Yahoo's software adds the HTML break element at the end of each line, using whatever value they are using to determine line length. In the email digests, which I get, but seldom look at, all those break elements remain for the material I am responding too, but do not appear in my reply, the line breaks of the most recent reply are determined by the width of the window within the page that yahoo sends in those digests, and the window itself does not appear if browser scripting is turned off. The Rich-Text editor also seems to do something different, so there is no consistent way to get a consistent result, though using hard returns and keeping lines short probably is most successful. The only really successful thing is to reformat all the messages each time you send them, and that nobody probably has time to do. And this is just using Yahoo's interfaces. If you send an email through some other software, it probably will add another element of uncertainly to the process. In general, except for poetry, and a few other things, electronic text needs to reflow because window sizes on different computers and devices varies widely, from cell phones to wide cinema types of display. This is how ebooks are formatted for devices such as the Kindle, Nook, iPad, so they remain readable if people need different font sizes to be able to see (like us old folks). In other words, the tendency to want text to look a particular way is becoming a hindrance to making that text available on a wide range of equipment. Basically paragraph breaks need to be kept intact. Some software however will not reflow long lines, it just runs off the page to the right. I don't know of any other group or forum where people bother with hard line feeds anymore unless as you say you are trying to format something like poetry. The idea notion would probably bring great laughs from geeks on programming forums. And of course writing computer code is an area where you do use hard line feeds or breaks. Yahoo sends out two copies of each post in the email, one in plain text and another HTML formatted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
authfriend: On my monitor, which is widescreen, two of the above lines are broken in the Reply window. Let's see what happens to them when my post appears. It can also be helpful to use a smaller font when viewing posts on the Web site. But Turq is about the only person who does archaic hard returns. Wrong. I do as well, and so does Willytex. I've been complaining about this for several years. All anyone has to do is use the Return key at to break the lines after 25 characters. Otherwise what displays is just a bunch of garbage. You other people need take a course in web netiquette because you are posting trash where you think you're being clever - it's a sure sign of a newbie! Nobody should have to go out of their way to format for web forums. Everyone should format before they post, it's just a common courtesy for newsgroup readers. You're forgetting what happens when someone responds to a post via the Web site. The software adds hard returns to the end of every line (if there isn't one already) and two characters ([space]) to the beginning of every line. The result is that longer lines get broken instead of wrapping, and it gets worse the longer an exchange goes on. But the extra characters at the beginnings of lines make a conversation so much easier to follow; you always know who's written what by how many characters precede the lines. The early BBS readers were so much better at this. And boy, if we could all just remember to SNIP stuff we aren't responding to, reading posts would be so much more pleasant. That's 50 for me and out until the weekend.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/20/2011 11:00 AM, richardwillytexwilliams wrote: authfriend: On my monitor, which is widescreen, two of the above lines are broken in the Reply window. Let's see what happens to them when my post appears. It can also be helpful to use a smaller font when viewing posts on the Web site. But Turq is about the only person who does archaic hard returns. Wrong. I do as well, and so does Willytex. I've been complaining about this for several years. All anyone has to do is use the Return key at to break the lines after 25 characters. Otherwise what displays is just a bunch of garbage. You other people need take a course in web netiquette because you are posting trash where you think you're being clever - it's a sure sign of a newbie! What resolution are you using? 320x240? :-D You're stuck in the dark ages, Willy. We don't use VIC-20s anymore. And stop sealing your messages with a wax seal. It will make your monitor messy. :-D
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Bhairitu: As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said... Hey, Buddy! Listen to Judy and take a hint: nobody wants to read and reply to anybody's word jumbles! these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine interest in understanding each other's process for approaching reality. Because it engages our complete philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. I am not making a case that this should be of interest to anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find something interesting in it. As such, he has become in a way the therapist to the stars, or at least those who are legends in their own minds and convinced that they *are* stars. Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self- obsession with I can understand why you're obsessed with that, tirade with humor. I admire his compassion and his patience in doing this; it is a skill that I lack. Since I honestly don't think that I've ever seen an original or creative idea emanate from ANY of the people I mentioned, it is very difficult for me to pretend that I have. It's much easier -- and a far better use of my time -- to wave my paw at them and say Bah than it is to get into their obsessions with them. Curtis feels otherwise, and thus provides these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. It's like he's the Mother Teresa of the Internet. Whereas some encounter a leper trying to show off his sores and turn away, Curtis says, Wow...that's really a good one. Just LOOK at the pus oozing from that one, and allows them to feel good about themselves, as if there were at least one person out there in cyberspace who feels that they're interesting enough to deal with. It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, and I commend him for it. I may not read it, even though I know that this may deprive me of glimpses of his awesome humor, but I think it's neat that he does it. The average post here is maybe 5-10 Kbs, this one alone is 125. While this might be his longest to date, it's hardly an aberration. I don't get it. Too bad MDG is no longer here to explain how and why someone would take the trouble, day after day, to write these endless monologues to a bunch of almost complete strangers. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
snip When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over-weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Whew...lotta words in this there sentence :) From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine interest in understanding each other's process for approaching reality. Because it engages our complete philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. I am not making a case that this should be of interest to anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find something interesting in it. As such, he has become in a way the therapist to the stars, or at least those who are legends in their own minds and convinced that they *are* stars. Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self- obsession with I can understand why you're obsessed with that, tirade with humor. I admire his compassion and his patience in doing this; it is a skill that I lack. Since I honestly don't think that I've ever seen an original or creative idea emanate from ANY of the people I mentioned, it is very difficult for me to pretend that I have. It's much easier -- and a far better use of my time -- to wave my paw at them and say Bah than it is to get into their obsessions with them. Curtis feels otherwise, and thus provides these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek. It's like he's the Mother Teresa of the Internet. Whereas some encounter a leper trying to show off his sores and turn away, Curtis says, Wow...that's really a good one. Just LOOK at the pus oozing from that one, and allows them to feel good about themselves, as if there were at least one person out there in cyberspace who feels that they're interesting enough to deal with. It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, and I commend him for it. I may not read it, even though I know that this may deprive me of glimpses of his awesome humor, but I think it's neat that he does it. The average post here is maybe 5-10 Kbs, this one alone is 125. While this might be his longest to date, it's hardly an aberration. I don't get it. Too bad MDG is no longer here to explain how and why someone would take the trouble, day after day, to write these endless monologues to a bunch of almost complete strangers
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@... wrote: snip When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over-weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Whew...lotta words in this there sentence :) LOL. True. There are several possible explanations for this. It's possible that while ranting about those who tend to become a tad...uh...long-winded, I was possessed by one of their spirits and channeled them, unable to help myself. Or it could be that I was using an example of long-windedness to make my point. Another possibility, one that I fully admit to stooping to from time to time, is that it could be a planted error, intended to draw fire from our resident compulsive editor, thus causing her to post out more quickly. Or (and this is probably closest to the truth), I was trying to type fast because one of my housemates wanted me to go to the market with them, and thus I skimped on my usual running self-edit process. Whatever the reason, mea culpa :-) I stand by the gist of my assessment, although not its form -- self importance, lack of creative and original thought, and the wisdom of the Dogbert approach to such people, and their writing. :-) From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine interest in understanding each other's process for approaching reality. Because it engages our complete philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. I am not making a case that this should be of interest to anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find something interesting in it. As such, he has become in a way the therapist to the stars, or at least those who are legends in their own minds and convinced that they *are* stars. Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self- obsession with I can understand why you're obsessed with that, tirade with humor. I admire his compassion and his patience in doing this; it is a skill that I lack. Since I honestly don't think that I've ever seen an original or creative idea emanate from ANY of the people I mentioned, it is very difficult for me to pretend that I have. It's much easier -- and a far better use of my
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Don't you ever take a day off from these endless self justifications, and just live with yourself? What a windbag. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans dmevans365@ wrote: snip When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over-weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Whew...lotta words in this there sentence :) LOL. True. There are several possible explanations for this. It's possible that while ranting about those who tend to become a tad...uh...long-winded, I was possessed by one of their spirits and channeled them, unable to help myself. Or it could be that I was using an example of long-windedness to make my point. Another possibility, one that I fully admit to stooping to from time to time, is that it could be a planted error, intended to draw fire from our resident compulsive editor, thus causing her to post out more quickly. Or (and this is probably closest to the truth), I was trying to type fast because one of my housemates wanted me to go to the market with them, and thus I skimped on my usual running self-edit process. Whatever the reason, mea culpa :-) I stand by the gist of my assessment, although not its form -- self importance, lack of creative and original thought, and the wisdom of the Dogbert approach to such people, and their writing. :-) From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine interest in understanding each other's process for approaching reality. Because it engages our complete philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. I am not making a case that this should be of interest to anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find something interesting in it. As such, he has become in a way the therapist to the stars, or at least those who are legends in their own minds and convinced that they *are* stars. Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self- obsession with I can understand why you're obsessed with that, tirade with humor. I admire his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Dear Barry Wright, If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others when they write to myself. So, I am declaring then, Barry, that everything you say in this post is false (I assume it is basically false as well with respect to the other persons who you categorize as being ministered to by the missionary charity of Curtis; but I don't profess to know this for a dead certainty). Let's put it this way, Barry: You are saying Curtis is writing to me for reasons which directly contradict what he formally professes are his reasons. Am I to believe you and believe him to be lying to me? I have conducted an offline correspondence with Curtis, and our interactions within this context would make of Curtis, should you be right in what you say actuates his writing to me, a psychopathic monster. I will simply say, Barry, you are as inherently wrong about your characterization of Curtis, as I am objectively right in my attribution of his motives in writing to me, viz, that he is utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart. And I let this declaration stand: unless Curtis gainsays what I have said hereor even qualifies it in any wayI will assume that I am right and you, terribly, perversely wrong. You have never once even attempted to make your case, and you haven't here either. Again, Barry, I challenge Curtis: if he refuses to issue any kind of statement in supporteven infinitesimallyof what you have said are his reasons for writing to me, I will assume, for the record, that you are, at least with respect to myself, egregiously wrong. And that Curtis knows you to be a false witness to his actions. If I had the very slightest doubt about all that I have said here, Barry, I would stop posting at FFL and personally thank you for performing a service that no one else has been able to perform for me: demonstrating that I am, when it really comes down to it, a neurotic human being who seeks the attention of others because of the shallowness of his soul. By the way, I refuse to let anyone compensate for me. Do you get this, Barry? Think about that. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the most interesting discussions I have engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine interest in understanding each other's process for approaching reality. Because it engages our complete philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. I am not making a case that this should be of interest to anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- weaning sense of their own self importance with an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, by waving my paw at them and saying Bah. Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. The fascinating thing from my point of view is that I was serious in complimenting Curtis for his compassion and his empathy in being willing to engage in dialogue with these people. My bet is that they're going to take what I wrote and try to make it all about them. That's exactly why I don't deal with them, and don't respect them, but DO respect Curtis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Re: [FairfieldLife] Conversation between Curtis Robin On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. Frankly I didn't realize he was even part of what appeared to be another one of Robin's gigantic monologues when I posted what I did. And for me it wouldn't matter much what great ideas Robin supposedly came up with if the only way he could get them across was to beat people over the head with sheer voluminosity, over and over again. Life is way too short. Dear Sal Sunshine, Let me make a confession to you, Sal: you will be shocked, but given the searching and honest appraisal you have given of my posts at FFL, I think, finally, you are the person to whom I must reveal this. Itthis disclosureis going to set me back some, but no matter; what is important is that I finally level with all the readers at FFL, especially yourself, Sal, who only hints at the deep and thoughtful philosophy within which you are determine to live your remaining days on this earth. Here it is, Sal: Iutterly against my willslipped into Unity again. This happened as a direct effect of one of those powerful confrontations of me by your friend in Europe. As you can imagine this was to say the least unexpected and even traumatic. But now I will have to make the best of it. So in order to create a followingfor when I announce I am once again enlightenedI have chosen the most worthy foe on FFL: Curtis. These insane drama-fests, I admit, never occur in life, only in literature. Or, if you like, bad literature. There should never been anything serious, dangerous, demanding posted at FFL. Life doesn't hurt; it's all sunshine after all. But you see, I am trying to, before the fact, convert Curtis. If I can get him on board such that he will become a disciple of mine (when the moment comes) I will get off to the best start of any Guru ever. Don't you think this to be true? Think of the influence he could exert upon Holland. I am trying to wear down the neurobiological basis of his existence, because that's all there is inside Curtis. The length and tedium and prolixity of my posts are in the service of this ambition of mine. So, then, with the advent of my announcement of being enlightened once again, I had to, sweet Sal, prepare the ground; you know, bore away (like Maharishi), only in my case, trying to beat people over the head with sheer voluminosity, over and over again. You have captured me perfectly there, Sal. It is a wonder to me no one else (but you and Barryand a few others) have found me out. You understand, though, how inconvenient this is, almost as if you already have had a presentiment about my Second Enlightenment (divine relapse), and are enabling the more susceptible and credulous among the FFL readers to be alert to the move I am on the verge of making: namely, seeing how many disciples I can immediately gather up into the fold from here at FFL. Now think about it, Sal: Are you prepared, given the extraordinary honour you have in being chosen to learn this momentous fact about me: that I am once again in Unity Consciousness (with all the benefits that derive from having fallen out of Unity for the past 24 years), to accord me some greater respect than you have so far in your carefully-considered putdowns? I am hoping so, Sal. I want to be bigger than Maharishi ever was. And it's all free. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. Frankly I didn't realize he was even part of what appeared to be another one of Robin's gigantic monologues when I posted what I did. And for me it wouldn't matter much what great ideas Robin supposedly came up with if the only way he could get them across was to beat people over the head with sheer voluminosity, over and over again. Life is way too short. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own insights and playful viewing of things. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Barry Wright, If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of ours. It seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which may be another way of getting at the term philosophies). Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others when they write to myself. And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way. So, I am declaring then, Barry, that everything you say in this post is false Everything? Absolutely everything? There is no grey, no nuance, no alternative views, no other possibilities? Its all black and white -- you are absolutely right and he is absolutely wrong, without qualification? (I assume it is basically false as well with respect to the other persons who you categorize as being ministered to by the missionary charity of Curtis; but I don't profess to know this for a dead certainty). Let's put it this way, Barry: You are saying Curtis is writing to me for reasons which directly contradict what he formally professes are his reasons. Not referencing Curtis per se, but is it a real stunner that sometimes people are not aware of the full basis and root of their motivations? Are you absolutely in tune with and understand to the depth of your own existence, clear on all of the myriad of motivations typically driving any actions or behaviors? And if you answer yes, how would you really know that. It seems all of us are blind to our delusions and blindspots -- else they would not be blind spots. If your premise is that you have absolutely no blind spots, well, that's fascinating. But again, how would you know? Am I to believe you and believe him to be lying to me? I have conducted an offline correspondence with Curtis, and our interactions within this context would make of Curtis, should you be right in what you say actuates his writing to me, a psychopathic monster. Girlfriends I am sure have called him worse. I will simply say, Barry, you are as inherently wrong about your characterization of Curtis, as I am objectively right in my attribution of his motives in writing to me, Me absolutely right, you absolutely wrong. That is an interesting pattern in your writing and expressed views (as it is in some others at times). viz, that he is utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart. All? No more room for uncovering deeper levels of mind and heart that he has not yet fathomed? Curtis is at the end of his road developmentally? And I let this declaration stand: unless Curtis gainsays what I have said hereor even qualifies it in any wayI will assume that I am right and you, terribly, perversely wrong. Black and white, day and night. (Though I suppose Day for Night might be closer to the truth. That is, for most people, not all things are as the appear to be. Most people accept this, humbly, and practically.) You have never once even attempted to make your case, and you haven't here either. Again, Barry, I challenge Curtis: Is Curtis so slow he needs to be challenged twice? if he refuses to issue any kind of statement in supporteven infinitesimally Even infinitesimally? Not room for even one photon of variance (or in Curtis's case, deviance -- the thrill and nuances of deviance appears to be something, as we all perhaps should enjoy, that Curtis thrives on. Quirky and dancing to the sound of his own drummer. of what you have said are his reasons for writing to me, I will assume, for the record, that you are, at least with respect to myself, egregiously wrong. Egregious. No room for any subtlety or nuance. And that Curtis knows you to be a false witness to his actions. String this savage up for bearing false witness. If I had the very slightest doubt Awesome that you have not here, and appear never to have, the slightest doubt. A mentor, quite bright, has said many times I don't know. Not in some casual way, but really I DONT KNOW!. That state of detachment for me can be liberating, if not unsettling at times. Some traditions (EmptyBill can elaborate) find that state of utter detachment from not knowing anything for sure is on the verge of wisdom. about all that I have said here, Barry, I would
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. The fascinating thing from my point of view is that I was serious in complimenting Curtis for his compassion and his empathy in being willing to engage in dialogue with these people. My bet is that they're going to take what I wrote and try to make it all about them. That's exactly why I don't deal with them, and don't respect them, but DO respect Curtis. RESPONSE: But Barry, don't you see the irony in all this? You have deprived Curtis of his cover: he has insinuated he is being honest and sincere with me; but in fact his motives (according to you) preclude the possibility of being interested whatsoever in anything I have to say. Now he *can't* write to me without my seeing through his condescension and patronization. You have exposed himDid he intend you to do this? It means, from now on, all his posts to me, and to those other persons, are invalidated as to their real intention, which, after all, is just to minister to the needy, the pitiable, the weak. Now that I know he is not taking me seriously, but is only engaged in a work of compassion and empathy I will not believe him in anything he says to me. I suppose this must be retroactively true as well. Did you get Curtis's permission unmask him, Barry? It seems you have now deprived Curtis of his bona fides to write to any of usand being the egoist that I am, this is especially damaging to my project of preparing people for my Second Enlightenment (vide my post to Sal). No, Barry, I am going to tell Curtis that his friend Barry has told us the truth about why he writes to me (and others here at FFL). You have saved me from what eventually would have been an embarrassment from which I doubt I could ever recover. So, no more posts to Curtis. I just hope Curtis does not get angry with you, Barry, for calling him a liar. Because that is just what he is. Damn you anyway, Curtis. You played me for a fool. And by the way, Barry: Thanks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com snip A mentor, quite bright, has said many times I don't know. Not in some casual way, but really I DONT KNOW!. That state of detachment for me can be liberating, if not unsettling at times. Some traditions (EmptyBill can elaborate) find that state of utter detachment from not knowing anything for sure is on the verge of wisdom. IMO, no one---I mean no one---on FFL, qualifies what he shares, as in---I Could be wrong or There might be another way to understand this, as Robin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWNja7skJ2Q Doubt is God's gift to those he loves (that might be all us---I DONT KNOW).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. At some point, it stopped being fun for me. I kicked back, looked at all of these discussions, and tried to assess whether either I or anyone I had them with had ever seemed to have learned anything from them, based on their subsequent behavior. I came up with zip. Bupkus. These days I'm more into throwing out ideas and seeing what the response to them is. I don't feel any pressing need to defend these ideas, or to debate them with others. I have no need to present my ideas as superior to others; my strong suspicion is that they are not. While I can understand the joys of debating the things one believes, I no longer see value in the practice.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Regardless of the amount of words Robin uses, he comes across to me as being open minded, honest, kind and *not* self important. I may disagree with him but he is a very lovable person :-) On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com wrote: tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com snip A mentor, quite bright, has said many times I don't know. Not in some casual way, but really I DONT KNOW!. That state of detachment for me can be liberating, if not unsettling at times. Some traditions (EmptyBill can elaborate) find that state of utter detachment from not knowing anything for sure is on the verge of wisdom. IMO, no one---I mean no one---on FFL, qualifies what he shares, as in---I Could be wrong or There might be another way to understand this, as Robin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWNja7skJ2Q Doubt is God's gift to those he loves (that might be all us---I DONT KNOW).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Curtis, should you be right in what you say actuates his writing to me, a psychopathic monster. But in my own defense I must say the toying with you in such a disingenuous way, taking the time to create a faux genuine persona, in an expression of my saintly-psyco-pathological personality is a big step up for me from picking up hitchhikers and stuffing them in suitcases to leave in truck stops all along the East Coast. (Did I say East Coast, I mean West Coast, yeah, that's the ticket, West Coast, NOT the East Coast see, not the East Coast.) Seriously, I mean it, NOT the East Coast. Damn I am gunna have to shell out some dough and get that delete key fixed, this is causing some real concern now. I am hereby categorically denying that any suitcases filled with humans found on the East Coast (Not that I know there are any at all) are mine. Wait, that doesn't cover it very well at all. Not the West Coast either. None of them (If there are any and I certainly don't know) are from me. And I didn't leave any in Mexico either. (Shit why did I bring Mexico into this mess!) Especially the blue American Tourister at the 17th mile marker on 95 North of Baltimore. That one (If there is one, and how could I know?) is NOT mine and I did not leave it, pealing out of the parking lot in a blue 1985 Riviera GT at 3:45 in the morning on Aug 15th. I am saying very clearly that this was NOT me. My 1985 blue Riviera GT was parked at home where I was in bed sleeping. My cat can vouch for this. Dear Barry Wright, If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others when they write to myself. So, I am declaring then, Barry, that everything you say in this post is false (I assume it is basically false as well with respect to the other persons who you categorize as being ministered to by the missionary charity of Curtis; but I don't profess to know this for a dead certainty). Let's put it this way, Barry: You are saying Curtis is writing to me for reasons which directly contradict what he formally professes are his reasons. Am I to believe you and believe him to be lying to me? I have conducted an offline correspondence with Curtis, and our interactions within this context would make of Curtis, should you be right in what you say actuates his writing to me, a psychopathic monster. I will simply say, Barry, you are as inherently wrong about your characterization of Curtis, as I am objectively right in my attribution of his motives in writing to me, viz, that he is utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart. And I let this declaration stand: unless Curtis gainsays what I have said hereor even qualifies it in any wayI will assume that I am right and you, terribly, perversely wrong. You have never once even attempted to make your case, and you haven't here either. Again, Barry, I challenge Curtis: if he refuses to issue any kind of statement in supporteven infinitesimallyof what you have said are his reasons for writing to me, I will assume, for the record, that you are, at least with respect to myself, egregiously wrong. And that Curtis knows you to be a false witness to his actions. If I had the very slightest doubt about all that I have said here, Barry, I would stop posting at FFL and personally thank you for performing a service that no one else has been able to perform for me: demonstrating that I am, when it really comes down to it, a neurotic human being who seeks the attention of others because of the shallowness of his soul. By the way, I refuse to let anyone compensate for me. Do you get this, Barry? Think about that. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: Maybe his email program is bored out of its mind by his mind-numbingly long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. Hey Sal, I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just sending out monologues to strangers here. This is one of the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/19/2011 09:00 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Re: [FairfieldLife] Conversation between Curtis Robin On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. Frankly I didn't realize he was even part of what appeared to be another one of Robin's gigantic monologues when I posted what I did. And for me it wouldn't matter much what great ideas Robin supposedly came up with if the only way he could get them across was to beat people over the head with sheer voluminosity, over and over again. Life is way too short. Dear Sal Sunshine, Let me make a confession to you, Sal: you will be shocked, but given the searching and honest appraisal you have given of my posts at FFL, I think, finally, you are the person to whom I must reveal this. It—this disclosure—is going to set me back some, but no matter; what is important is that I finally level with all the readers at FFL, especially yourself, Sal, who only hints at the deep and thoughtful philosophy within which you are determine to live your remaining days on this earth. Here it is, Sal: I—utterly against my will—slipped into Unity again. This happened as a direct effect of one of those powerful confrontations of me by your friend in Europe. As you can imagine this was to say the least unexpected and even traumatic. But now I will have to make the best of it. So in order to create a following—for when I announce I am once again enlightened—I have chosen the most worthy foe on FFL: Curtis. These insane drama-fests, I admit, never occur in life, only in literature. Or, if you like, bad literature. There should never been anything serious, dangerous, demanding posted at FFL. Life doesn't hurt; it's all sunshine after all. snip So Robin, are you an acharya? To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. And the ancient texts that invented the thoery you are proposing here are very long, I've read both the Charaka and Shushruta Samhitas. Lots of words, pages of them. Did Charak suffer from this malady you describe? And don't even try the angle that he was not wordy, the dude extolled the benefits of his quackery in glowing flowery terms like adjectives on parade. Did you know that mentally ill people might be possessed not only by a demon, but by a god? In this case you need to do a puja to the god rather than an exorcism. My only problem is that they recommend crocodile semen as medicine but fail to describe the process for how to collect it? I'm thinking you need to dress up as on of those sexy crocs you see in Disney movies with the tutu and the long eyelashes. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. You sure got a fancy name for being judgmental son. Robin and I are writing about what interests us using as many words as it takes. I don't have to read into your preference to hit delete to mean that there is something wrong with you. You are trying to sell your preference as if we have a problem. I wonder what mantra causes that? FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software. On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
So in order to create a followingfor when I announce I am once again enlightenedI have chosen the most worthy foe on FFL: Curtis... Bhairitu: So Robin, are you an acharya? The term 'acharya' means teacher in Hindi, so yes, Robin seems to have been made a TM Teacher by Maharishi. Robin's name used to be on the TMO appoved list, but I can't find a 'Bhairitu' listed. Can you provide any evidence that you are a TM Teacher? Thanks. From what I've read on FFL, there are a number of TM Teachers on this list: Barry Wright once had his photo included on TMO literature; Billy provided a photo of himself shaking hands with Charlie Lutes; Curtis used to be a TMO Cordinator, according to a press interview; Buck lives in Fairfield and Rick obviously used to the a TM Teacher with a dome pass. But, I've seem zero evidence that Joe or Vaj were ever anything but bullshiters. Before I put your name in the informants pile, let us know if you are an acharya. Apparently I'm the only TMer that meditates inside a Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/19/2011 12:22 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. And the ancient texts that invented the thoery you are proposing here are very long, I've read both the Charaka and Shushruta Samhitas. Lots of words, pages of them. Did Charak suffer from this malady you describe? And don't even try the angle that he was not wordy, the dude extolled the benefits of his quackery in glowing flowery terms like adjectives on parade. Did you know that mentally ill people might be possessed not only by a demon, but by a god? In this case you need to do a puja to the god rather than an exorcism. My only problem is that they recommend crocodile semen as medicine but fail to describe the process for how to collect it? I'm thinking you need to dress up as on of those sexy crocs you see in Disney movies with the tutu and the long eyelashes. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. You sure got a fancy name for being judgmental son. Robin and I are writing about what interests us using as many words as it takes. I don't have to read into your preference to hit delete to mean that there is something wrong with you. You are trying to sell your preference as if we have a problem. I wonder what mantra causes that? I was responding to Sal and Turq's comments on the drama fests so I guess you have to include them too. A more western term for vata imbalance would be neurosis. You tend to be more readable that Robin though. In the non-meditator world long winded posts are regarded as written by crazy people unless you are reading articles by professional writers who are so good that before you know it you've read several pages. That's kind of like not noticing a 2 hour movies took that long. Some film makers are good at doing that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Yep, I agree. Robin is full of heart and kindness, even though I can't always summon the patience to read what he writes. Part of it are the religious references. Leave religion in the dust where it belongs - let's cut to the chase. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: Regardless of the amount of words Robin uses, he comes across to me as being open minded, honest, kind and *not* self important. I may disagree with him but he is a very lovable person :-) On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com snip A mentor, quite bright, has said many times I don't know. Not in some casual way, but really I DONT KNOW!. That state of detachment for me can be liberating, if not unsettling at times. Some traditions (EmptyBill can elaborate) find that state of utter detachment from not knowing anything for sure is on the verge of wisdom. IMO, no one---I mean no one---on FFL, qualifies what he shares, as in---I Could be wrong or There might be another way to understand this, as Robin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWNja7skJ2Q Doubt is God's gift to those he loves (that might be all us---I DONT KNOW).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/19/2011 12:41 PM, richardwillytexwilliams wrote: So in order to create a following—for when I announce I am once again enlightened—I have chosen the most worthy foe on FFL: Curtis... Bhairitu: So Robin, are you an acharya? The term 'acharya' means teacher in Hindi, so yes, Robin seems to have been made a TM Teacher by Maharishi. TM teachers, of which I am one, are certainly NOT archaryas. There is some doubt in circles that even MMY ever achieved acharya level. I am not an archarya in the Kali Sadhaka tradition. I am only a Sidh tantric and have yet to even achieve tantric shastri. The titles may change a little from tradition to tradition. Someone on another forum once informed that Kashmiri Shaivism has a set of levels too. An archarya has the license to make new teachers. As Sidh tantric in my tradition I can teach meditation, give shaktipat and do some tantric cures and rituals. But I cannot initiate new tantrics. That requires the acharya level. To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. And the ancient texts that invented the thoery you are proposing here are very long, I've read both the Charaka and Shushruta Samhitas. Lots of words, pages of them. Did Charak suffer from this malady you describe? And don't even try the angle that he was not wordy, the dude extolled the benefits of his quackery in glowing flowery terms like adjectives on parade. Did you know that mentally ill people might be possessed not only by a demon, but by a god? In this case you need to do a puja to the god rather than an exorcism. My only problem is that they recommend crocodile semen as medicine but fail to describe the process for how to collect it? I'm thinking you need to dress up as on of those sexy crocs you see in Disney movies with the tutu and the long eyelashes. Curtis, How can we judge something without understanding the time, place, context and the people that were being addressed to? May be crocodile semen was a metaphor, a joke perhaps that you were out of your fucking mind that there could be a medicine for that ailment and others around had a big belly laugh. Your distrust of anything and everything Eastern borders on paranoia sometimes, may be a lot happened during your time in the TM cult that perhaps explains it but it is one of the things that bothers me personally, coming as it from a person who otherwise comes across as being very open-minded and intelligent. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. You sure got a fancy name for being judgmental son. Robin and I are writing about what interests us using as many words as it takes. I don't have to read into your preference to hit delete to mean that there is something wrong with you. You are trying to sell your preference as if we have a problem. I wonder what mantra causes that? FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software. On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
So Robin, are you an acharya? The term 'acharya' means teacher in Hindi, so yes, Robin seems to have been made a TM Teacher by Maharishi. Bhairitu: TM teachers, of which I am one, are certainly NOT archaryas. That's great, but I was never made a 'TM Teacher' by Maharishi. That's because I was a Zen Master years before I even met up with MMY. I can teach meditation to anyone I want to, as long as I don't call it 'TM'. So, that makes me at least a level seven siddhacharya and I can do rituals too. Go ahead - ask me a spiritual question. There is some doubt in circles that even MMY ever achieved acharya level. I am not an archarya in the Kali Sadhaka tradition. I am only a Sidh tantric and have yet to even achieve tantric shastri. The titles may change a little from tradition to tradition. Someone on another forum once informed that Kashmiri Shaivism has a set of levels too. An archarya has the license to make new teachers. As Sidh tantric in my tradition I can teach meditation, give shaktipat and do some tantric cures and rituals. But I cannot initiate new tantrics. That requires the acharya level.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Ravi: Curtis, How can we judge something without understanding the time, place, context and the people that were being addressed to? ME: I do, it was an ancient system of medicine that was the best they could do then. Now we can do better. Not perfect. But better. They didn't understand the circulation of blood then. They thought the heart functioned as we now understand our brain functions. We straightened that out. That is progress in understanding. R: May be crocodile semen was a metaphor, a joke perhaps that you were out of your fucking mind that there could be a medicine for that ailment and others around had a big belly laugh. ME: Read the book, it is literal. Your challenge should have been, maybe there really is something in he big Croc's love juice that we haven't tested. Then you would have had me dead to rights! Ravi: Your distrust of anything and everything Eastern borders on paranoia sometimes, ME: Would it help to know that any medical advice from that era from any country is treated with the same level of skepticism? To their credit they got the usefulness of leaches and maggots right, they just used them wrong. I really can't apologize for believing in human progress in the field of medicine. Ravi: may be a lot happened during your time in the TM cult that perhaps explains it ME: No it is just understanding how knowledge grows in science. It is not an indictment to them for not knowing what we know now. And I am open to the idea that there is much undiscovered in ancient systems of medicine once we test them today. I am just not into taking them at face value as if they knew much more then than we do now. Ravi: but it is one of the things that bothers me personally, coming as it from a person who otherwise comes across as being very open-minded and intelligent. ME: Sorry for the first part and thanks for the second part. If it is any consolation I just made the best idly and uttapam from scratch you have ever had using a sourdough culture from Africa to make them sour perfectly. I think I could convince you that I am not an Indian culture hater in one meal, I promise you. The deal in the movement is that they elevated Indian culture to being the one most in tune with nature's laws and took their scriptures, even the medical ones as God revealed truth. Rejecting that view doesn't mean that I can't enjoy and appreciate them on another level. And remember, I am the one who took the time to seriously read them. I hope you do someday and get back to me with your impressions of the value of applying the knowledge today. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Yogi raviyogi@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. And the ancient texts that invented the thoery you are proposing here are very long, I've read both the Charaka and Shushruta Samhitas. Lots of words, pages of them. Did Charak suffer from this malady you describe? And don't even try the angle that he was not wordy, the dude extolled the benefits of his quackery in glowing flowery terms like adjectives on parade. Did you know that mentally ill people might be possessed not only by a demon, but by a god? In this case you need to do a puja to the god rather than an exorcism. My only problem is that they recommend crocodile semen as medicine but fail to describe the process for how to collect it? I'm thinking you need to dress up as on of those sexy crocs you see in Disney movies with the tutu and the long eyelashes. Curtis, How can we judge something without understanding the time, place, context and the people that were being addressed to? May be crocodile semen was a metaphor, a joke perhaps that you were out of your fucking mind that there could be a medicine for that ailment and others around had a big belly laugh. Your distrust of anything and everything Eastern borders on paranoia sometimes, may be a lot happened during your time in the TM cult that perhaps explains it but it is one of the things that bothers me personally, coming as it from a person who otherwise comes across as being very open-minded and intelligent. I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: ...I utterly against my will slipped into Unity again. This happened as a direct effect of one of those powerful confrontations of me by your friend in Europe. As you can imagine this was to say the least unexpected and even traumatic. But now I will have to make the best of it. Tell us about this. What did you experience? Why is it traumatic? What is the point of saying 'I will have to make the best of it' when what you say you are experiencing is the only thing that is and can be? If it is not, how can it be unity?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Ravi: Curtis, How can we judge something without understanding the time, place, context and the people that were being addressed to? ME: I do, it was an ancient system of medicine that was the best they could do then. Now we can do better. Not perfect. But better. They didn't understand the circulation of blood then. They thought the heart functioned as we now understand our brain functions. We straightened that out. That is progress in understanding. The important thing IME is to not under-appreciate what these texts are describing. So for example they may describe the solar eagle-Garuda in terms much like a radiant sun (or phoenix) - and their opposite, the serpent Nagas, as opposites. But until you realize that the Sanskrit word naga also means lead, only when you realize they are very precisely describing electromagnetic radiation and lead shielding, do you get that these ancients are describing, from samadhic inquiry into reality, something only relatively recently understood by science. There are many, many similar examples. For example how would an ancient yogi know that to make zinc bioavailable, it needs to be ingested in the presence of certain biochemicals? Well, somehow they did. Same with coral calcium. It's a long list. Plastic surgeons still pay homage to Sushruta as father of their art. Some say the oriental martial arts and acupuncture originate from kalarippayattu. Like I said, it's a long list. While I think it's a good thing to be skeptical after being burned by a phony guru, it's also important to remain open-minded enough to see the actual viable wisdom in the systems of learning they talked about. It's humbling when you realize: most of it's never been translated into western languages, and the stilted Brahmin belief in brahman has relegated much of it to the dust-bins of time.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Yes, a rather bizarre statement; as if everybody living in the Blue World could object somehow to Blueness. I don't get it. The real question of value imo relates to the historical clash (as Robin points out) between Hinduooism/Buddhism and Christianity; since the M-fields in some respects are irreconciable at least wrt to Fundie Christianity vs Gnosis (salvation is a result of belief/fiath in the former and transcending that in the latter). ... As to Gnostic Christianity, there are only a handful in this category so they presently of little consequence today. The Cathars are dead. ... What's the current Pope's greatest fear, (in his own words)? Buddhism! So go figure. ... What he means is anything relating to Buddhism and/or Hinduism but specifically relating to some historically conflicting mindsets: 1. The Person of Jesus vs Gnosis or Self-Knowledge 2. As a corollary to (1), the importance of the Crucifixion of Jesus as a Redeeming factor; since most of the early Gnostics downplayed or totally ignored the Crucifixion aspect.[Cf. The Gospel of Thomas] 3. Although one can have Gnosis in addition to Redemption through the Sacrificial Crucifixion of Jesus, historically that's not the way things worked out. 4. Pursuant to (1-3); Hindooism/Buddhism might tend to categorize the gruesome death of Jesus as merely bad karma; with no Redemption properties fitting into the equation. ... Then we come to the historical clash, in which Robin mentions the turning point in time - the bombing of Monte Cassino, etc. I would opt for the Roswell Incident as a more important turning point since radioactivity was spread around the desert by the Aliens, symbolic of the forthcoming decades-long Cold War with the threat of Nuclear annihiliation. ... Looking at the present and future, I will conclude (but argue for at a later date presenting evidence); that Christianity will be engulfed by Hindooism and Jesus will be globally recognized as another Hindoo God along with the Vedic and post-Vedic Gods; but not GOD. http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2008_4.html ... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: ...I utterly against my will slipped into Unity again. This happened as a direct effect of one of those powerful confrontations of me by your friend in Europe. As you can imagine this was to say the least unexpected and even traumatic. But now I will have to make the best of it. Tell us about this. What did you experience? Why is it traumatic? What is the point of saying 'I will have to make the best of it' when what you say you are experiencing is the only thing that is and can be? If it is not, how can it be unity?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Vaj wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Ravi: Curtis, How can we judge something without understanding the time, place, context and the people that were being addressed to? ME: I do, it was an ancient system of medicine that was the best they could do then. Now we can do better. Not perfect. But better. They didn't understand the circulation of blood then. They thought the heart functioned as we now understand our brain functions. We straightened that out. That is progress in understanding. The important thing IME is to not under-appreciate what these texts are describing. So for example they may describe the solar eagle-Garuda in terms much like a radiant sun (or phoenix) - and their opposite, the serpent Nagas, as opposites. But until you realize that the Sanskrit word naga also means lead, only when you realize they are very precisely describing electromagnetic radiation and lead shielding, do you get that these ancients are describing, from samadhic inquiry into reality, something only relatively recently understood by science. There are many, many similar examples. For example how would an ancient yogi know that to make zinc bioavailable, it needs to be ingested in the presence of certain biochemicals? Well, somehow they did. Same with coral calcium. It's a long list. Plastic surgeons still pay homage to Sushruta as father of their art. Some say the oriental martial arts and acupuncture originate from kalarippayattu. Like I said, it's a long list. While I think it's a good thing to be skeptical after being burned by a phony guru, it's also important to remain open-minded enough to see the actual viable wisdom in the systems of learning they talked about. It's humbling when you realize: most of it's never been translated into western languages, and the stilted Brahmin belief in brahman has relegated much of it to the dust-bins of time. Well, ain't it a shame That our short little memories Never seem to learn The message of history We keep makin' the same mistakes Over and over and over and over again And then we wonder why We're in the shape we're in Good ol' boys down at the bar Peanuts and politics They think they know it all They don't know much of nothing Even if one of them was to read the newspaper Cover-to-cover That ain't what's going on Journalism's dead and gone Frail grasp on the big picture Light fading and the fog is getting thicker It's a frail grasp on the big picture Dark ages You my love-drunk friend All that red wine and candlelight Soulful conversations That go on until the dawn How many times can you tell your story? How many hangovers can you endure Just to get some snuggling done? You're living in a hollow dream You don't have the slightest notion What long-term love is all about All your romantic liaisons Don't deal with eternal questions like Who left the cap off the freaking toothpaste? Whose turn to take the garbage out? Frail grasp on the big picture You keep on rubbin' that, you're gonna get a blister It's a frail grasp on the big picture I've seen it all before And we pray to our Lord Who we know is American He reigns from on high He speaks to us through middlemen And he shepherds his flock We sing out and we praise His name He supports us in war He presides over football games And the right will prevail All our troubles shall be resolved We have faith in the Lord Unless there's money or sex involved Frail grasp on the big picture Nobody's calling them for roughing up the pitcher It's a frail grasp on the big picture Heaven help us Frail grasp on the big picture All waiting for that miracle elixir Frail grasp on the big picture I don't wonder anymore Frail grasp on the big picture Somebody says, You brought her here so go ahead and kiss her Frail grasp on the big picture Frail grasp on the big picture Light fading and the fog is getting thicker It's a frail grasp on the big picture Frail grasp on the big picture Frail grasp on the big picture -Frail grasp on the big picture The Eagles Long Road Out of Eden
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own insights and playful viewing of things. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Barry Wright, MZ: If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. TB: Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of ours. It seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which may be another way of getting at the term philosophies). RC2: I understand you perfectly here. And of course I would rejoice in having my philosophy destroyedif I could experience it was being destroyed by something truer than itself. But to merely, abstractly, assume this perpetual contingency is a good thing to contemplate would mean that in holding to the validity of one's philosophy (it works for me) I am living it out with reservations, reservations which would inhibit my existential commitments to what is real. I think you misunderstand me here, as if I am saying: It will be the death of me if I am refuted. Not at all. I can both live and adhere to my philosophy as if it is ultimately real without thereby becoming defensive and irrational should it be challenged. You are drawing a conclusion out of what I say which is not in the least implied by the specific way in which I am writing hereand what I seek to convey. MZ: Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others when they write to myself. TB: And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way. RC2: How does a clinical psychologist attempt to talk to a patient who is paying him for psychotherapyor a psychoanalyst to an analysand? I am not making the claim that I *infallibly* understand (or read) the motives of others when they write to me; I am only saying, that in some subjective sense, I have the ability to go quite a ways in that direction, enough so, that I can use my perception of motive as part of the arsenal I bring to the debate. Now I believe I was wrong in some very subtle sense about Curtis, and you can see how I have made amends for this in my latest post (directed to him). There could be, except for God (who possesses what Linda Zagzebski refers to as Omnisubjectivity: the property of consciously grasping with perfect accuracy and completeness the first-person perspective of every conscious being. . . this property explains how an omniscient being is able to distinguish between first person and third person knowledge of the same fact, and it explains how an omniscient being is able to know what it is like for conscious creatures to have their distinctive sensations and emotions, minds, and attitudes.), no created person who could decode perfectly the subjective experience of another person. That is intrinsically a private matterand science will never (as a Mysterian, this is what I believe) find the neurophysiological correlates to qualia. First person ontology is that element within creation which, by the very nature of itself, asks something of us that goes beyond scienceCurtis's POV notwithstanding. But if there is a being in the universe (God) who does see and understand perfectly what goes on inside our first person ontology (which is never repeated in any other human being, past, present, or future), then it becomes possible to conceive, just as in a third person perspective, the *possibility* of participating in this knowledge that only God has. Participating here might mean (and I believe it does in my case) sensing the motives of others when they write to myself *to the extent to which, at least, my interpretation is valid. In some epistemologically valid way? Well, I suppose in some relative sense this actually is true, which is a different kind of process from what the psychotherapist is doing, or the psychiatrist. He is using psychology to penetrate to the meaning of an individual's psyche. I hold out the possibility that there is an intuitive realm of apperception that transcends this purely psychological dimension, and exists because of the fact there there is a knowingness going on somewhere which perfectly grasps the first person perspective of that very person with whom I am interactingI, as it were, draw upon this inspirationwith, I suppose, God's grace. But of course I am as likely to be wrong as the next person; and I
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Good question I would be curious too. But IME unity was traumatic to body, mind and ego. I have spoken of it before. In my case the body got transformed, more vaata (airy), lost weight, headaches/migraine, sensitive to cold/ heat. At the height of Unity mind and ego were impacted by delusions and psychosis. But it wad the way in which mind ego overcame the violent digestion ( phrase - courtesy of Vaj), digestion of the blissful, orgasmic energy by the body, mind and ego. On Oct 19, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: ...I utterly against my will slipped into Unity again. This happened as a direct effect of one of those powerful confrontations of me by your friend in Europe. As you can imagine this was to say the least unexpected and even traumatic. But now I will have to make the best of it. Tell us about this. What did you experience? Why is it traumatic? What is the point of saying 'I will have to make the best of it' when what you say you are experiencing is the only thing that is and can be? If it is not, how can it be unity?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Exquisite irony I am envious of. Beat Kaufman, I believe. At least in this instance. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: ...I utterly against my will slipped into Unity again. This happened as a direct effect of one of those powerful confrontations of me by your friend in Europe. As you can imagine this was to say the least unexpected and even traumatic. But now I will have to make the best of it. Tell us about this. What did you experience? Why is it traumatic? What is the point of saying 'I will have to make the best of it' when what you say you are experiencing is the only thing that is and can be? If it is not, how can it be unity?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Lots of good stuff in here - thank you all - It seems all of us are blind to our delusions and blindspots -- else they would not be blind spots. If your premise is that you have absolutely no blind spots, well, that's fascinating. But again, how would you know? Are you asking whether or not we can be aware of every influence and reaction we are having at any moment, both within us and outside us? If you are, then what does it matter? One thing is always, and will be, for certain, life never stops expanding, growing, changing - there is always more to take in and experience, no matter the circumstances. There will never be a point where we can ultimately define ourselves, except to go with something which never stops, while attempting to do things within it to give it permanency. The trick seems to be to find out how life grows and what we must do to enjoy it, whether or not that aligns with who we think we are. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own insights and playful viewing of things. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Dear Barry Wright, MZ: If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. TB: Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of ours. It seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which may be another way of getting at the term philosophies). RC2: I understand you perfectly here. And of course I would rejoice in having my philosophy destroyedif I could experience it was being destroyed by something truer than itself. But to merely, abstractly, assume this perpetual contingency is a good thing to contemplate would mean that in holding to the validity of one's philosophy (it works for me) I am living it out with reservations, reservations which would inhibit my existential commitments to what is real. I think you misunderstand me here, as if I am saying: It will be the death of me if I am refuted. Not at all. I can both live and adhere to my philosophy as if it is ultimately real without thereby becoming defensive and irrational should it be challenged. You are drawing a conclusion out of what I say which is not in the least implied by the specific way in which I am writing hereand what I seek to convey. MZ: Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others when they write to myself. TB: And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way. RC2: How does a clinical psychologist attempt to talk to a patient who is paying him for psychotherapyor a psychoanalyst to an analysand? I am not making the claim that I *infallibly* understand (or read) the motives of others when they write to me; I am only saying, that in some subjective sense, I have the ability to go quite a ways in that direction, enough so, that I can use my perception of motive as part of the arsenal I bring to the debate. Now I believe I was wrong in some very subtle sense about Curtis, and you can see how I have made amends for this in my latest post (directed to him). There could be, except for God (who possesses what Linda Zagzebski refers to as Omnisubjectivity: the property of consciously grasping with perfect accuracy and completeness the first-person perspective of every conscious being. . . this property explains how an omniscient being is able to distinguish between first person and third person knowledge of the same fact, and it explains how an omniscient being is able to know what it is like for conscious creatures to have their distinctive sensations and emotions, minds, and attitudes.), no created person who could decode perfectly the subjective experience of another person. That is intrinsically a private matterand science will never (as a Mysterian, this is what I believe) find the neurophysiological correlates to qualia. First person ontology is that element within creation which, by the very nature of itself, asks something of us that goes beyond scienceCurtis's POV notwithstanding. But if there is a being in the universe (God) who does see and understand perfectly what goes on inside our first person ontology (which is never repeated in any other human being, past, present, or
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Ravi: Curtis, How can we judge something without understanding the time, place, context and the people that were being addressed to? ME: I do, it was an ancient system of medicine that was the best they could do then. Now we can do better. Not perfect. But better. They didn't understand the circulation of blood then. They thought the heart functioned as we now understand our brain functions. We straightened that out. That is progress in understanding. The important thing IME is to not under-appreciate what these texts are describing. So for example they may describe the solar eagle-Garuda in terms much like a radiant sun (or phoenix) - and their opposite, the serpent Nagas, as opposites. But until you realize that the Sanskrit word naga also means lead, only when you realize they are very precisely describing electromagnetic radiation and lead shielding, do you get that these ancients are describing, from samadhic inquiry into reality, something only relatively recently understood by science. There are many, many similar examples. For example how would an ancient yogi know that to make zinc bioavailable, it needs to be ingested in the presence of certain biochemicals? Well, somehow they did. Same with coral calcium. It's a long list. Plastic surgeons still pay homage to Sushruta as father of their art. Some say the oriental martial arts and acupuncture originate from kalarippayattu. Like I said, it's a long list. ME: But we have confidence in their metaphoric reality from modern testing, not from taking them as divine revelation, right? If they can make a prediction that can be tested then you may have a better case for their value in medicine or science. I believe this is misplaced value and that it is the arts where they really shine. Vaj: While I think it's a good thing to be skeptical after being burned by a phony guru, ME: I am not skeptical about the claims made in ancient systems of medicine because of Maharishi. As far as I am concerned I wasn't burned by anyone. I enjoyed Maharishi's POV till the day I didn't accept it as real. I am not at all convinced that what he was serving me wasn't exactly what any of these guys offer. He got me as off as I needed to get to evaluate his claims. It is the premise I reject, not his authority as the real deal holy man. I haven't seen evidence that these enhanced state of consciousness are actually better. For me, it was not. Vaj: it's also important to remain open-minded enough to see the actual viable wisdom in the systems of learning they talked about. It's humbling when you realize: most of it's never been translated into western languages, and the stilted Brahmin belief in brahman has relegated much of it to the dust-bins of time. ME: We may not share the same definition of what constitutes an open mind. In my version, I read the books and see what they contain. Then I do my best to draw whatever conclusions I can. I am not humbled by Vedic literature or by the viable wisdom it may contain. It seems on a par with other ancient cultures who relied on sacrifices to appease gods. Mixed into the confusion are some interesting insights about human nature. How much of their medical POV will pan out, we don't know yet. Chimps chew on herbs to heal themselves, so there must be some accumulated wisdom. But it is mixed up with some pretty rank superstition that is flat out wrong or at best incompatible with society's modern outlook and knowledge base. I'll let the people who are its champions make their case for its value. People are not idiots in society, if it has real predictive power, it will get used.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: ME: But we have confidence in their metaphoric reality from modern testing, not from taking them as divine revelation, right? If they can make a prediction that can be tested then you may have a better case for their value in medicine or science. I believe this is misplaced value and that it is the arts where they really shine. Well, it depends how you define divine revelation. If by divine revelation you mean some brahmin guru said it, so it must be true, then no. If by divine revelation you mean someone had the unusual experience of collapsing the triad of knowing and simply and directly experienced a reality, which - WTF! - it worked...many of us replicated it and so we've followed since then, well then, yes. Vaj: While I think it's a good thing to be skeptical after being burned by a phony guru, ME: I am not skeptical about the claims made in ancient systems of medicine because of Maharishi. As far as I am concerned I wasn't burned by anyone. I enjoyed Maharishi's POV till the day I didn't accept it as real. I am not at all convinced that what he was serving me wasn't exactly what any of these guys offer. He got me as off as I needed to get to evaluate his claims. It is the premise I reject, not his authority as the real deal holy man. I haven't seen evidence that these enhanced state of consciousness are actually better. For me, it was not. Well that's fair. I would agree that the enhanced states of consciousness he served did not (unfortunately) end up being all that helpful - to us as individuals and to us as a supposedly helpful hive-mind. Vaj: it's also important to remain open-minded enough to see the actual viable wisdom in the systems of learning they talked about. It's humbling when you realize: most of it's never been translated into western languages, and the stilted Brahmin belief in brahman has relegated much of it to the dust-bins of time. ME: We may not share the same definition of what constitutes an open mind. In my version, I read the books and see what they contain. Then I do my best to draw whatever conclusions I can. I think a basic premise of tantric (and rarely) the Vedas is not that 'books contain wisdom'. Instead the premise is that the lineal tradition, as it was originally done, is the key. In effect, it was begging an external and an internal (or subjective) science. Those of us raised on external sciences might find this heresy. But those who took the time to follow-thru on an internal science might have found out different. Repeatability works…if you know how to repeat it in the first place. We were not burned by false promises of a slum dog rishi - and thus sent reeling in an opposing direction. It's now clear that he was not nor is not part of the tradition of repeatability. Sadly faux research (sadly) proves this. I am not humbled by Vedic literature or by the viable wisdom it may contain. It seems on a par with other ancient cultures who relied on sacrifices to appease gods. I think you're right here. Particularly on the level of Anglish translation. The real value is at the level of the original language - and even then, it's highly speculative as to what these verses actually mean. Even after reading thru Aurobindo's pro-Hindu stuff, it's WAY speculative. The tantras I find much more realistic and practical. I find the Brahmin-based appropriation of the Vedas as largely parallel to X-tian fundie appropriation of Anglish translation of Greek translations of the Aramaic words as being apropos for 2011 AD. The only Jihad is the Jihad against stupidity. This is (and there should be) no Holy War. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
I owe responses to several people, but I'm horrendously busy and won't get to them till the weekend. Meantime, couple of quick comments... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: snip You are abstracting the issue out of its instantiated concreteness. I'm appropriating this sentence, Robin. It's a thing of beauty. I'll try to remember to give you credit when I use it. And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. He [Barry] is not maliciously bearing false witness of course Yes, he is. Why should today be different from any other day?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: I owe responses to several people, but I'm horrendously busy and won't get to them till the weekend. Meantime, couple of quick comments... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: snip You are abstracting the issue out of its instantiated concreteness. I'm appropriating this sentence, Robin. It's a thing of beauty. I'll try to remember to give you credit when I use it. And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: I was chiding him for equating my interest in long discussions with a pathology. I was in no way chiding him for being unable to appreciate our dialogue. I don't expect anyone to give a shit about our discussion. I would prefer that people didn't try to use it as evidence that I have an overstimulated intellect or too much vatta which he went on to describe as in modern terms as neurotic. But of course you knew this which is why you selectively snipped the sentence before your quote when I made that clear: Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea. This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes you look like you can't get beyond your own personal preferences and understand that other people are interested in different things. He [Barry] is not maliciously bearing false witness of course Yes, he is. Why should today be different from any other day? Then why were you indulging in it if this is such a big deal for you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: snip What you quoted of mine formats just fine in Thunderbird. If your browser pane is too small on the web site it may not format properly but most people have newer widescreen monitors that have plenty of room to display lines. On my monitor, which is widescreen, two of the above lines are broken in the Reply window. Let's see what happens to them when my post appears. It can also be helpful to use a smaller font when viewing posts on the Web site. But Turq is about the only person who does archaic hard returns. Wrong. I do as well, and so does Willytex. Nobody should have to go out of their way to format for web forums. You're forgetting what happens when someone responds to a post via the Web site. The software adds hard returns to the end of every line (if there isn't one already) and two characters ([space]) to the beginning of every line. The result is that longer lines get broken instead of wrapping, and it gets worse the longer an exchange goes on. But the extra characters at the beginnings of lines make a conversation so much easier to follow; you always know who's written what by how many characters precede the lines. The early BBS readers were so much better at this. And boy, if we could all just remember to SNIP stuff we aren't responding to, reading posts would be so much more pleasant. That's 50 for me and out until the weekend.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
On 10/19/2011 06:27 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: snip Nobody should have to go out of their way to format for web forums. You're forgetting what happens when someone responds to a post via the Web site. The software adds hard returns to the end of every line (if there isn't one already) and two characters ([space]) to the beginning of every line. The result is that longer lines get broken instead of wrapping, and it gets worse the longer an exchange goes on. Totally unnecessary and bad coding on Yahoo's part. I wrote word wrap algorithms back in the mid-1980s. I also assigned it as a coding lesson for beginning programmers. With HTML you just need the paragraph tags. These days people are reading on smartphones which may have shorter than 72 characters per line. I noted this with Turq's post looking at FFL posts on my Android phone while at Starbucks. His post would display a line and then the rest of the line below. Everyone else's posts wrapped nicely to the screen. Don't think I read any of your posts though. But the extra characters at the beginnings of lines make a conversation so much easier to follow; you always know who's written what by how many characters precede the lines. The early BBS readers were so much better at this. It's vertical colored lines on Thunderbird but I believe you have set them to if you wax nostalgia. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. At some point, it stopped being fun for me. I kicked back, looked at all of these discussions, and tried to assess whether either I or anyone I had them with had ever seemed to have learned anything from them, based on their subsequent behavior. I came up with zip. Bupkus. These days I'm more into throwing out ideas and seeing what the response to them is. I don't feel any pressing need to defend these ideas, or to debate them with others. I have no need to present my ideas as superior to others; my strong suspicion is that they are not. While I can understand the joys of debating the things one believes, I no longer see value in the practice. Debating can be very tiring. After having certain experiences, I came on this forum. I think my first debate was with you, and it was enervating. There have been a few others. The only value I can see in this is, if one is cognizant enough, this process can wear away the belief system, can show if thought and experience are not matching up in the way one thought it did. If some aspect of the process brings discomfort, that discomfort shows where one is not integrated. In other words, if one does not lose something in the process, some lingering aspect of ego that is squirming under the barrage, it failed to do anything valuable. If one does have such a blind spot in the system, it is probably not possible to consistently frame a debate oneself that will highlight one's own weakness, there will be a tendency to shy away from that. So the process has to rely on someone else to take a shot at you, something that unexpectedly comes out of nowhere, and hits you where you fear to tread. And that is moment where one has to stay awake and experience what happens.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Vata is entirely COLD crackpot, Agni is not going to increase it. Not to imply that anything you are saying has any validity anyways. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
No, because agni will dry you out and give rise to vata. That is why the hot summer weather can make people more vata once fall rolls around. My source on this was from a course I took by Dr. Robert Svoboda. Would you like to debate him on it? On 10/19/2011 07:37 PM, shukra69 wrote: Vata is entirely COLD crackpot, Agni is not going to increase it. Not to imply that anything you are saying has any validity anyways. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitunoozguru@... wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:00 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshinesalsunshine@ wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 3:06 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not share his fascination with either the people he gets into long-winded discussions with, or with any of their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. I've never understood why Curtis gets into these insane drama-fests either. But I suppose it fulfills some need. I'm going to reply to this a second time, less flippantly this time, because I think your ques- tion is a good one, and I might have some insight into it. In my first forays onto TM-related spiritual chat groups, I entered into many, many, far too many long, insane drama-fests myself. *At the time*, it seemed like fun to me, a kind of intellectual sparring, a way to test one's ever-changing theories of How It All Works against other people. I used to get into equally-long and equally-tedious discussions with Judy, and with Lawson, and with others back on a.m.t. And, at the time, it was FUN. As my buddy on my TM Sidhis course said, these people have overstimulated intellects. Years later I found out why and that is because agni mantras like Saraswati mantras will over stimulate the intellect unless balancing measures are taken. People also become more vata practicing them and will tend to ramble when they write. I also detect that anyone that writes pages of text here is vata imbalanced. That is a typical trait and results in someone living in their own cerebral world. This is something I took from MMY's discussion on the intellect and observed with intellectuals I met since. FYI, just to remind you that hard coded line returns went out of style in the 1980s. Today's email clients word wrap fine. Your posts when viewed on a mobile email client don't wrap well not to mention how the FFL web interface may look on phones and tablets. Leave it up to the software.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Thank you for your thoughts. I realize that a quick early morning drive by from a stranger may lack a bit of context. Perhaps I can expand on that a bit. I was not arguing with you nor finding fault in your position. And not judging you, which was a concern in one of your responses. I was fascinated in what I perceived to be the dichotomous nature of your views, a la, this or that, no middle ground. However, my quick take was solely on your response to Turq. I do not have the context of your other writings. (To be honest, I have not read many of your posts, and this is a personal preference only, not an evaluative comment, because for me your writing style has a density level outside of the range of my efficient (or comfortable) intake of ideas and concepts.) Thus I am quite aware that I may have picked up a flavor that was not present. And confirmational bias can always slip in -- having an initial concept/framework, an initial hypothesis, and then seeing how subsequent perceptions support the hypothesis (out of whack to the fuller context.) That said, I was drawn into the flavor of your comments, and fascinated enough to respond (albeit in rapid, casual, non-edited, not well considered early morning way). And anything I saw in them, or anything for that matter, are first and foremost the projections of my own mind. I assume I was drawn to them, as I perceived it, the non-nunance, absoluteness of your statements, because such exists with me -- though frankly, not consciously (perhaps a personal blind spot). My style is to work with such takes of mine, explore them, come to understand them better, first and foremost to loosen up any such quirks within my self, to sensitize myself to the possibility that I do at times precisely what I am finding odd in others. (And to clarify, I am not evaluating you as odd, I am evaluating the oddness (after all its my perception) of my own mindstate. I try to do such in playful ways. (My quip about Curtis' gfs saying worse about him was a joke, which at least in my mind's eye I could see Curtis chuckling about, though my sensitivities may be way of base.) Sometimes such may come across quite focused and serious sounding, when not intended. Your comments, and I admit that I have not fully digested them, provide stimuli for more reflection and hopefully insight. If some strike me as interesting discussion, perhaps we can extend the dialogue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own insights and playful viewing of things. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: Dear Barry Wright, MZ: If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. TB: Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of ours. It seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which may be another way of getting at the term philosophies). RC2: I understand you perfectly here. And of course I would rejoice in having my philosophy destroyedif I could experience it was being destroyed by something truer than itself. But to merely, abstractly, assume this perpetual contingency is a good thing to contemplate would mean that in holding to the validity of one's philosophy (it works for me) I am living it out with reservations, reservations which would inhibit my existential commitments to what is real. I think you misunderstand me here, as if I am saying: It will be the death of me if I am refuted. Not at all. I can both live and adhere to my philosophy as if it is ultimately real without thereby becoming defensive and irrational should it be challenged. You are drawing a conclusion out of what I say which is not in the least implied by the specific way in which I am writing hereand what I seek to convey. MZ: Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others when they write to myself. TB: And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way. RC2: How does a clinical psychologist attempt to talk to a patient who is paying him for psychotherapyor a psychoanalyst to an analysand? I am not making the claim that I *infallibly* understand (or read) the motives of others when they write to me; I am only saying,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: snip What you quoted of mine formats just fine in Thunderbird. If your browser pane is too small on the web site it may not format properly but most people have newer widescreen monitors that have plenty of room to display lines. On my monitor, which is widescreen, two of the above lines are broken in the Reply window. Let's see what happens to them when my post appears. It can also be helpful to use a smaller font when viewing posts on the Web site. But Turq is about the only person who does archaic hard returns. Wrong. I do as well, and so does Willytex. Nobody should have to go out of their way to format for web forums. You're forgetting what happens when someone responds to a post via the Web site. The software adds hard returns to the end of every line (if there isn't one already) and two characters ([space]) to the beginning of every line. The result is that longer lines get broken instead of wrapping, and it gets worse the longer an exchange goes on. But the extra characters at the beginnings of lines make a conversation so much easier to follow; you always know who's written what by how many characters precede the lines. The early BBS readers were so much better at this. And boy, if we could all just remember to SNIP stuff we aren't responding to, reading posts would be so much more pleasant. That's 50 for me and out until the weekend. I do not use hard returns (usually) in my replies to posts. Yahoo's software adds the HTML break element at the end of each line, using whatever value they are using to determine line length. In the email digests, which I get, but seldom look at, all those break elements remain for the material I am responding too, but do not appear in my reply, the line breaks of the most recent reply are determined by the width of the window within the page that yahoo sends in those digests, and the window itself does not appear if browser scripting is turned off. The Rich-Text editor also seems to do something different, so there is no consistent way to get a consistent result, though using hard returns and keeping lines short probably is most successful. The only really successful thing is to reformat all the messages each time you send them, and that nobody probably has time to do. And this is just using Yahoo's interfaces. If you send an email through some other software, it probably will add another element of uncertainly to the process. In general, except for poetry, and a few other things, electronic text needs to reflow because window sizes on different computers and devices varies widely, from cell phones to wide cinema types of display. This is how ebooks are formatted for devices such as the Kindle, Nook, iPad, so they remain readable if people need different font sizes to be able to see (like us old folks). In other words, the tendency to want text to look a particular way is becoming a hindrance to making that text available on a wide range of equipment. Basically paragraph breaks need to be kept intact. Some software however will not reflow long lines, it just runs off the page to the right.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Ah yes, Sal you are always holding up the deep silent value of life. Bravo. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:57 PM, tartbrain wrote: Your comments, and I admit that I have not fully digested them, provide stimuli for more reflection and hopefully insight. If some strike me as interesting discussion, perhaps we can extend the dialogue. Yes, tart~~that's a great idea. You and Robin debate endlessly into the night, while the rest of us drift off into dreamland with this picture of you two dancing around in our heads, in place of the sugarplums. So many KBs, so little time. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin
Well I just read this, this is typical tart brain stuff. Anyway a little background - tartbrain is a really nice guy but he is really brain dead. Fearful of conflict, causes a lot of discomfort to take a moral ethical stand and so he comes with useless intellectual garbage - his retarded drive by's with malfunctioning water guns. He is totally clueless to Robin's irony, clueless to his sarcasm, clueless to the beautiful logical way in which you rip apart Barry's stupid comparison of Curtis to Mother Teresa and of Curtis's motives. Curtis has similarities to tartbrain too, Xeno is another - use intellectual arguments to cover their inability to moral ethical stands. But Curtis and Xeno have other good qualities, Curtis, smart, sensitive, creative - Xeno, extremely intelligent too. Unfortunately tartbrain is just a nice guy and a a big fan of pseudo spiritual icons of superficial changes - MLK, Gandhi, Dolly Lama - you name it. From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 3:34:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: Re: Conversation between Curtis Robin Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own insights and playful viewing of things. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Dear Barry Wright, MZ: If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. TB: Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of ours. It seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which may be another way of getting at the term philosophies). RC2: I understand you perfectly here. And of course I would rejoice in having my philosophy destroyed—if I could experience it was being destroyed by something truer than itself. But to merely, abstractly, assume this perpetual contingency is a good thing to contemplate would mean that in holding to the validity of one's philosophy (it works for me) I am living it out with reservations, reservations which would inhibit my existential commitments to what is real. I think you misunderstand me here, as if I am saying: It will be the death of me if I am refuted. Not at all. I can both live and adhere to my philosophy as if it is ultimately real without thereby becoming defensive and irrational should it be challenged. You are drawing a conclusion out of what I say which is not in the least implied by the specific way in which I am writing here—and what I seek to convey. MZ: Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others when they write to myself. TB: And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way. RC2: How does a clinical psychologist attempt to talk to a patient who is paying him for psychotherapy—or a psychoanalyst to an analysand? I am not making the claim that I *infallibly* understand (or read) the motives of others when they write to me; I am only saying, that in some subjective sense, I have the ability to go quite a ways in that direction, enough so, that I can use my perception of motive as part of the arsenal I bring to the debate. Now I believe I was wrong in some very subtle sense about Curtis, and you can see how I have made amends for this in my latest post (directed to him). There could be, except for God (who possesses what Linda Zagzebski refers to as Omnisubjectivity: the property of consciously grasping with perfect accuracy and completeness the first-person perspective of every conscious being. . . this property explains how an omniscient being is able to distinguish between first person and third person knowledge of the same fact, and it explains how an omniscient being is able to know what it is like for conscious creatures to have their distinctive sensations and emotions, minds, and attitudes.), no created person who could decode perfectly the subjective experience of another person. That is intrinsically a private matter—and science will never (as a Mysterian, this is what I believe) find the neurophysiological correlates to qualia. First person ontology is that element within creation which, by the very nature of itself, asks something of us that goes beyond science—Curtis's POV notwithstanding. But if there is a being in the universe (God) who does see and understand perfectly what goes
