[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Barry, you need either to spruce up your game considerably, or learn to lose gracefully. So all of this is about winning and losing in your opinion? Well, for you it's about losing, yes. When you don't tell the truth, you lose automatically. Nobody even has to think about winning. All it takes for you to lose is for somebody else to tell the truth. And *that* is why you're so upset and why you've used up half of your allotted posts for the week in one day? You wish I were upset. What's driving you bonkers is that you know I'm laughing at you for all the times you've fouled up in this discussion. How sad for you. Yes, let me run get my tiny violin. Thing is, I'm having to clean up several other folks' confusion based on all the misstatements you've made. (Notice that Barry has had to make his own count of my posts past the 20 in the last Post Count. He's been keeping track of my count obsessively every week for years.) [https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/1010430_4262\ 34084150685_1193759337_n.jpg] This is a pretty good one, applies perfectly, except it isn't about me winning, it's about you losing. Again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context authfriend: Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense, than issuing a blanket denial? He didn't issue a blanket denial. Steve, you really aren't going to get this if you haven't read the posts and don't remember what the situation was. Especially if you depend on what Barry says. You are forgetting that when Barry was a spiritual teacher, he punched his brother in the stomach just to make a metaphysical point. From what I've read, Barry thinks that' funny when he does it. LoL! As I've said, and others as well, it's not about the hitting, it's about the cover up, or the appearance of lying. And that is why I think the comparison to Clinton is perfect. If you believe that oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you say Bill Clinton was lying. But if you don't think oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you give him a pass. You hold your nose, but you give him a pass. The fact that Robin didn't own up to the whole picture from the start, for me shows a lack of integrity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? Not sure what you mean by examples. As you know, it refers to one specific situation, and the meaningful distinction is inherent in the two sentences anyway. You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Barry, you need either to spruce up your game considerably, or learn to lose gracefully. So all of this is about winning and losing in your opinion? authfriend: Well, for you it's about losing, yes. Yeah, you loser, brother-puncher! LoL! When you don't tell the truth, you lose automatically. Nobody even has to think about winning. All it takes for you to lose is for somebody else to tell the truth. And *that* is why you're so upset and why you've used up half of your allotted posts for the week in one day? You wish I were upset. What's driving you bonkers is that you know I'm laughing at you for all the times you've fouled up in this discussion. How sad for you. Yes, let me run get my tiny violin. Thing is, I'm having to clean up several other folks' confusion based on all the misstatements you've made. (Notice that Barry has had to make his own count of my posts past the 20 in the last Post Count. He's been keeping track of my count obsessively every week for years.) [https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/1010430_4262\ 34084150685_1193759337_n.jpg] This is a pretty good one, applies perfectly, except it isn't about me winning, it's about you losing. Again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
http://youtu.be/EI4mutjhwJI --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: One of my good friends in Santa Fe was a psychiatrist who had, over the course of his career, treated many individuals suffering from Naricissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). When I met him, he had already given up on psychiatric treatment, having been convinced over the course of 20+ years that the condition was untreatable. But knowing of my interest in the subject (caused by having studied with at least two NPD spiritual teachers), he was willing to talk with me about his experiences back when he *was* treating NPD, and some of the conclusions he had drawn from those experiences. One of these conclusions seems relevant to recent events on FFL, so I'll rap about it a little. The symptom he spoke of as the #1 tip-off that he was dealing with someone with NPD was what he called blame displacement. To explain a bit, NPD sufferers live in an illusory/delusory world inside their own heads; they rarely, if ever, interact with reality as it is seen by other people. Subjectivity rules for the NPD individual, and they tend to sincerely believe that how they see the world *equates* to how the world is. So it is often a SHOCK to them when someone calls them on their own antisocial or unethical behavior. According to my friend the shrink, their *first* impulse at that point is to DENY it. They cannot accept that the view of them being proposed by this other person could be correct, because it contradicts their own internal, subjective view of themselves. Their *second* impulse is to attempt to SHIFT THE BLAME for these contradictory views of themselves. They call the person criticizing them or their behavior liars, and furthermore (and this is the tip-off) claim that the critic *does not even believe what they are saying*, and that they are *consciously* lying about them in an attempt to get them. Now think back to recent discussions about what Robin did when Vaj pointed out that Robin had struck his students. First he DENIED it vociferously, lying through his teeth the whole time. But second, he attempted to SHIFT THE BLAME, and portray Vaj as the Bad Guy In This Scenario, claiming that *he* was lying, and claiming furthermore than Vaj even knew that he was lying. Classic NPD behavior. Next, think about Judy Stein, and her well-established patterns on this forum. When faced with a critic -- someone who calls her on her behavior in a way that contradicts her internal view of who she is and what she's doing -- her first impulse is to DENY the behavior. But her second is *almost always* to attempt to SHIFT THE BLAME and claim that the critic is not only lying, but *consciously* lying, and doesn't really believe the thing he or she is saying about her. Again, classic NPD behavior. We really DO believe the things we say about you, Judy. Your inability to comprehend or accept this is based on your own disability -- Narcissistic Peronsality Disorder -- not on some superior insight or intuition or seeing. You cannot accept that we *really* see you this way because it so strongly contradicts your view of yourself. This is called Narcissism. *Six and a half years* after you made your Mel Gibson, Christian bigot post, you *still* cannot bring yourself to say, OK, I did it. I commented on a film I'd never seen. You *still* have to equivocate, and pretend not only that it never happened, but that Barry is lying about it happening. It happened. The proof is here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126122 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126122 ), and it's incontrovertible. How do you explain your inability to admit it *except* as an indicator of Narcissistic Personality Disorder? We'll wait...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: One of my good friends in Santa Fe was a psychiatrist who had, over the course of his career, treated many individuals suffering from Naricissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). When I met him, he had already given up on psychiatric treatment, having been convinced over the course of 20+ years that the condition was untreatable. But knowing of my interest in the subject (caused by having studied with at least two NPD spiritual teachers), he was willing to talk with me about his experiences back when he *was* treating NPD, and some of the conclusions he had drawn from those experiences. One of these conclusions seems relevant to recent events on FFL, so I'll rap about it a little. The symptom he spoke of as the #1 tip-off that he was dealing with someone with NPD was what he called blame displacement. To explain a bit, NPD sufferers live in an illusory/delusory world inside their own heads; they rarely, if ever, interact with reality as it is seen by other people. Subjectivity rules for the NPD individual, and they tend to sincerely believe that how they see the world *equates* to how the world is. So it is often a SHOCK to them when someone calls them on their own antisocial or unethical behavior. According to my friend the shrink, their *first* impulse at that point is to DENY it. They cannot accept that the view of them being proposed by this other person could be correct, because it contradicts their own internal, subjective view of themselves. Their *second* impulse is to attempt to SHIFT THE BLAME for these contradictory views of themselves. They call the person criticizing them or their behavior liars, and furthermore (and this is the tip-off) claim that the critic *does not even believe what they are saying*, and that they are *consciously* lying about them in an attempt to get them. Now think back to recent discussions about what Robin did when Vaj pointed out (Barry means claimed.) that Robin had struck his students. First he DENIED it vociferously, lying through his teeth the whole time. He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. That's a fine distinction, but it's a valid one. But second, he attempted to SHIFT THE BLAME, and portray Vaj as the Bad Guy In This Scenario, claiming that *he* was lying, and claiming furthermore than Vaj even knew that he was lying. Classic NPD behavior. Unfortunately, Barry, nobody who has read Robin's many posts here taking full blame for his misdeeds 30-some years ago is going to fall for this. Robin has very consistently portrayed himself as the Bad Guy in That Scenario, including in his Open Letter. That he resists taking the blame for something of which he feels he isn't guilty doesn't make him a narcissist. That's just not the way it works. If he claimed Vaj was lying, it was because he was convinced Vaj was lying. Vaj lied *routinely* on FFL, as well as being exceptionally abusive. He lied about me many times. He even lied about Ann, privately to you, and you got into hot water with Ann when you believed him and repeated his lie on FFL. Next, think about Judy Stein, and her well-established patterns on this forum. When faced with a critic -- someone who calls her on her behavior in a way that contradicts her internal view of who she is and what she's doing -- her first impulse is to DENY the behavior. But her second is *almost always* to attempt to SHIFT THE BLAME and claim that the critic is not only lying, but *consciously* lying, and doesn't really believe the thing he or she is saying about her. Again, classic NPD behavior. We really DO believe the things we say about you, Judy. No, you don't, Barry. You don't even believe what you've just written (and appropriately so). Your inability to comprehend or accept this is based on your own disability -- Narcissistic Peronsality Disorder -- not on some superior insight or intuition or seeing. Plain old deductive reasoning. You cannot accept that we *really* see you this way because it so strongly contradicts your view of yourself. This is called Narcissism. It's called Barry Hates Judy and Will Say Anything He Can Think of to Get Her, even when he doesn't believe it himself. Barry, you're projecting. Pretty ironic that you try to project your own flaming narcissism onto others. (Is that the editorial or the royal we, by the way? Or maybe the MPD we? Curious minds want to know.) *Six and a half years* after you made your Mel Gibson, Christian bigot post, you *still* cannot bring yourself to say, OK, I did it. I commented on a film I'd never seen. You *still* have to equivocate, and pretend not only that it never happened, but that Barry is lying about it happening. It happened. The proof is here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126122
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? Not sure what you mean by examples. As you know, it refers to one specific situation, and the meaningful distinction is inherent in the two sentences anyway. You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense, than issuing a blanket denial? As I've said, and others as well, it's not about the hitting, it's about the cover up, or the appearance of lying. And that is why I think the comparison to Clinton is perfect. If you believe that oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you say Bill Clinton was lying. But if you don't think oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you give him a pass. You hold your nose, but you give him a pass. The fact that Robin didn't own up to the whole picture from the start, for me shows a lack of integrity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? Not sure what you mean by examples. As you know, it refers to one specific situation, and the meaningful distinction is inherent in the two sentences anyway. You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense, than issuing a blanket denial? He didn't issue a blanket denial. Steve, you really aren't going to get this if you haven't read the posts and don't remember what the situation was. Especially if you depend on what Barry says. As I've said, and others as well, it's not about the hitting, it's about the cover up, or the appearance of lying. And that is why I think the comparison to Clinton is perfect. If you believe that oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you say Bill Clinton was lying. But if you don't think oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you give him a pass. You hold your nose, but you give him a pass. The fact that Robin didn't own up to the whole picture from the start, for me shows a lack of integrity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? Not sure what you mean by examples. As you know, it refers to one specific situation, and the meaningful distinction is inherent in the two sentences anyway. You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Why not clarify it at the outset? Someone makes a rather serious charge, why not take the time at that moment to set the record straight. If, as he says, the truth was going to come out, address it in a pre-emptive fashion. He offers some rationale for why he did not do that, and leaves it to others to decide if this indicated integrity on his part, or a lack of integrity. From the open letter: When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable in having acted as I have. And this part, from an earlier part of the open letter, were his reasons for the striking. So why not just address the issue since it had been raised rather than giving, at least, the appearance of trying to conceal it. But he evidently had his reasons for letting it play out the way it did, so I will respect that. If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact defending or upholding the integrity of themselves in resisting the beneficent and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that person out of such an identification. And this took the form sometimes of striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were struck. I hardly think it was more than this. And this was not something that happened on a regular basis. It was in extremis. But we shall see if this testimony is contradicted by someone who was there. This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was an inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me in order to facilitate the process whereby a person could experience liberationeven momentarilyfrom their trance caused by their being identified with the particular fallen angel which had been chosen somehow to present this formidable and ultimate existential challenge to this person's soul, and their whole sense of who they really were. Now I have come, in having repudiated and deconstructed my enlightenment, to see that once I became enlightened on that mountain above Arosa, that my perception had been played such that I could only apprehend each human being in terms of this cosmic battle between good and evil. Now I am able to see each person absolutely on their own, without respect to 'the demonic'. And therefore I am sorry for all that I did which amounted to being determined by this hallucination. Which especially included on occasion trying to shock the person out of his or her identification with the fallen angel which was tormenting and deceiving them, even if they appeared oblivious to this truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
He did have his reasons, and he explains them in his letter. It's good of you to have read the letter and to respect his reasons; I can't imagine he'd ask any more of you than that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Why not clarify it at the outset? Someone makes a rather serious charge, why not take the time at that moment to set the record straight. If, as he says, the truth was going to come out, address it in a pre-emptive fashion. He offers some rationale for why he did not do that, and leaves it to others to decide if this indicated integrity on his part, or a lack of integrity. From the open letter: When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable in having acted as I have. And this part, from an earlier part of the open letter, were his reasons for the striking. So why not just address the issue since it had been raised rather than giving, at least, the appearance of trying to conceal it. But he evidently had his reasons for letting it play out the way it did, so I will respect that. If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact defending or upholding the integrity of themselves in resisting the beneficent and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that person out of such an identification. And this took the form sometimes of striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were struck. I hardly think it was more than this. And this was not something that happened on a regular basis. It was in extremis. But we shall see if this testimony is contradicted by someone who was there. This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was an inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me in order to facilitate the process whereby a person could experience liberationeven momentarilyfrom their trance caused by their being identified with the particular fallen angel which had been chosen somehow to present this formidable and ultimate existential challenge to this person's soul, and their whole sense of who they really were. Now I have come, in having repudiated and deconstructed my enlightenment, to see that once I became enlightened on that mountain above Arosa, that my perception had been played such that I could only apprehend each human being in terms of this cosmic battle between good and evil. Now I am able to see each person absolutely on their own, without respect to 'the demonic'. And therefore I am sorry for all that I did which amounted to being determined by this hallucination. Which especially included on occasion trying to shock the person out of his or her identification with the fallen angel which was tormenting and deceiving them, even if they appeared oblivious to this truth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Ahh, nothing like a little animation to the alleged story, here, boys and girls. Let's go deeper into the rabbit hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDxgvMHCDXA Stop, Steve! This whole thing is looking ridicules to us all and as you say, I am not Shakespeare, (Don't have a dick, like you say that I am infatuated with.) the draining of time and place on a subject to prove what? About someone not even posting here anymore...you must want to desire to see that person post again. I can't take it anymore! Stop! Steve! Stop! Please! Go after Nabby at least, because he will at least attempt to rebuttal and maybe even through in a really nice song or two from the way back machine. You sir, are picking on a man who is not present. If he were dead, than that is fair game too, to contemplate the what was, has been aspects. Become that nice person you were before. Be the husband, the father, the man with a life. Please don't let us down to think if we all had a life as grand as yours, we would be posting here on FFL? :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Why not clarify it at the outset? Someone makes a rather serious charge, why not take the time at that moment to set the record straight. If, as he says, the truth was going to come out, address it in a pre-emptive fashion. He offers some rationale for why he did not do that, and leaves it to others to decide if this indicated integrity on his part, or a lack of integrity. From the open letter: When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable in having acted as I have. And this part, from an earlier part of the open letter, were his reasons for the striking. So why not just address the issue since it had been raised rather than giving, at least, the appearance of trying to conceal it. But he evidently had his reasons for letting it play out the way it did, so I will respect that. If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact defending or upholding the integrity of themselves in resisting the beneficent and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that person out of such an identification. And this took the form sometimes of striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were struck. I hardly think it was more than this. And this was not something that happened on a regular basis. It was in extremis. But we shall see if this testimony is contradicted by someone who was there. This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was an inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me in order to facilitate the process whereby a person could experience liberationeven momentarilyfrom their trance caused by their being identified with the particular fallen angel which had been chosen somehow to present this formidable and ultimate existential challenge to this person's soul, and their whole sense of who they really were. Now I have come, in having repudiated and deconstructed my enlightenment, to see that once I became enlightened on that mountain above Arosa, that my perception had been played such that I could only apprehend each human being in terms of this cosmic battle between good and evil. Now I am able to see each person absolutely on their own, without respect to
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Good news. I've got a better understanding of the situation and am ready to move on. I'm sorry if the process didn't move along at your prescribed time table. Perhaps I can do better next time. P.S. If you ever come to St. Louis, I recommend you try the toasted raviolis. We seem to be the only place you can get them. Be sure to get some extra parmesan cheese and extra marinara sauce. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Ahh, nothing like a little animation to the alleged story, here, boys and girls. Let's go deeper into the rabbit hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDxgvMHCDXA Stop, Steve! This whole thing is looking ridicules to us all and as you say, I am not Shakespeare, (Don't have a dick, like you say that I am infatuated with.) the draining of time and place on a subject to prove what? About someone not even posting here anymore...you must want to desire to see that person post again. I can't take it anymore! Stop! Steve! Stop! Please! Go after Nabby at least, because he will at least attempt to rebuttal and maybe even through in a really nice song or two from the way back machine. You sir, are picking on a man who is not present. If he were dead, than that is fair game too, to contemplate the what was, has been aspects. Become that nice person you were before. Be the husband, the father, the man with a life. Please don't let us down to think if we all had a life as grand as yours, we would be posting here on FFL? :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Why not clarify it at the outset? Someone makes a rather serious charge, why not take the time at that moment to set the record straight. If, as he says, the truth was going to come out, address it in a pre-emptive fashion. He offers some rationale for why he did not do that, and leaves it to others to decide if this indicated integrity on his part, or a lack of integrity. From the open letter: When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable in having acted as I have. And this part, from an earlier part of the open letter, were his reasons for the striking. So why not just address the issue since it had been raised rather than giving, at least, the appearance of trying to conceal it. But he evidently had his reasons for letting it play out the way it did, so I will respect that. If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact defending or upholding the integrity of themselves in resisting the beneficent and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that person out of such an identification. And this took the form sometimes of striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were struck. I hardly think it was more than this. And this was not something that happened on a regular basis. It was in extremis. But we shall see if this testimony is contradicted by someone who was there. This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was an inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me in order to facilitate the process whereby a person could experience liberationeven momentarilyfrom their trance caused by their being identified with the particular fallen angel which had been
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Good to hear, Steve. I like you, your posts. I was only trying to annoyingly put attention on something that has way too much attention. If I was to post a bunch of crap that happened around my life on here, it would become the same. Controversial, entertaining, fun, stupid and eventually annoying. Toasted ravioli's I honestly did not check out that link. ha. Maybe I could make some from home? Glad to see you back in good spirits. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Good news. I've got a better understanding of the situation and am ready to move on. I'm sorry if the process didn't move along at your prescribed time table. Perhaps I can do better next time. P.S. If you ever come to St. Louis, I recommend you try the toasted raviolis. We seem to be the only place you can get them. Be sure to get some extra parmesan cheese and extra marinara sauce. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Ahh, nothing like a little animation to the alleged story, here, boys and girls. Let's go deeper into the rabbit hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDxgvMHCDXA Stop, Steve! This whole thing is looking ridicules to us all and as you say, I am not Shakespeare, (Don't have a dick, like you say that I am infatuated with.) the draining of time and place on a subject to prove what? About someone not even posting here anymore...you must want to desire to see that person post again. I can't take it anymore! Stop! Steve! Stop! Please! Go after Nabby at least, because he will at least attempt to rebuttal and maybe even through in a really nice song or two from the way back machine. You sir, are picking on a man who is not present. If he were dead, than that is fair game too, to contemplate the what was, has been aspects. Become that nice person you were before. Be the husband, the father, the man with a life. Please don't let us down to think if we all had a life as grand as yours, we would be posting here on FFL? :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Why not clarify it at the outset? Someone makes a rather serious charge, why not take the time at that moment to set the record straight. If, as he says, the truth was going to come out, address it in a pre-emptive fashion. He offers some rationale for why he did not do that, and leaves it to others to decide if this indicated integrity on his part, or a lack of integrity. From the open letter: When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable in having acted as I have. And this part, from an earlier part of the open letter, were his reasons for the striking. So why not just address the issue since it had been raised rather than giving, at least, the appearance of trying to conceal it. But he evidently had his reasons for letting it play out the way it did, so I will respect that. If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact defending or upholding the integrity of themselves in resisting the beneficent and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that person out of such an identification. And this
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Thanks. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Good to hear, Steve. I like you, your posts. I was only trying to annoyingly put attention on something that has way too much attention. If I was to post a bunch of crap that happened around my life on here, it would become the same. Controversial, entertaining, fun, stupid and eventually annoying. Toasted ravioli's I honestly did not check out that link. ha. Maybe I could make some from home? Glad to see you back in good spirits. :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Good news. I've got a better understanding of the situation and am ready to move on. I'm sorry if the process didn't move along at your prescribed time table. Perhaps I can do better next time. P.S. If you ever come to St. Louis, I recommend you try the toasted raviolis. We seem to be the only place you can get them. Be sure to get some extra parmesan cheese and extra marinara sauce. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Ahh, nothing like a little animation to the alleged story, here, boys and girls. Let's go deeper into the rabbit hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDxgvMHCDXA Stop, Steve! This whole thing is looking ridicules to us all and as you say, I am not Shakespeare, (Don't have a dick, like you say that I am infatuated with.) the draining of time and place on a subject to prove what? About someone not even posting here anymore...you must want to desire to see that person post again. I can't take it anymore! Stop! Steve! Stop! Please! Go after Nabby at least, because he will at least attempt to rebuttal and maybe even through in a really nice song or two from the way back machine. You sir, are picking on a man who is not present. If he were dead, than that is fair game too, to contemplate the what was, has been aspects. Become that nice person you were before. Be the husband, the father, the man with a life. Please don't let us down to think if we all had a life as grand as yours, we would be posting here on FFL? :) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Two reasons. One, he was accused of striking his students in a very specific context in which he believed he had not done so; and two--well, you'll need to read the Open Letter for that reason. Why not clarify it at the outset? Someone makes a rather serious charge, why not take the time at that moment to set the record straight. If, as he says, the truth was going to come out, address it in a pre-emptive fashion. He offers some rationale for why he did not do that, and leaves it to others to decide if this indicated integrity on his part, or a lack of integrity. From the open letter: When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable in having acted as I have. And this part, from an earlier part of the open letter, were his reasons for the striking. So why not just address the issue since it had been raised rather than giving, at least, the appearance of trying to conceal it. But he evidently had his reasons for letting it play out the way it did, so I will respect that. If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact defending or upholding the integrity of themselves in resisting the beneficent and merciful inspiration of my
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? Not sure what you mean by examples. As you know, it refers to one specific situation, and the meaningful distinction is inherent in the two sentences anyway. You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter. In other words, Go back and read what I wrote before, Dummy. Another way of saying, I HAVE SPOKEN. The matter is closed, because *I* have declared it closed. You get a lot of this from people suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder -- declaring their subjective experience reality, and expecting people to buy it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense, than issuing a blanket denial? Why didn't Judy say, right from the start, Yes, I commented on a film I had never seen. I did it because I already didn't like Mel Gibson, based on things I had read about him in the media, and thus I was pre- disposed to believe the author of the article I posted. In reality, of course, I know NOTHING about the movie in question, because I've never seen it. Years later, and she's STILL never been able to say that. It's just been equivocation and attempts to shift the blame and get Barry all the way down... As I've said, and others as well, it's not about the hitting, it's about the cover up, or the appearance of lying. And the concerted attempt to convince people here that he had changed. I and many others have never been convinced of this. His behavior on Fairfield Life was just as bullying and just as confrontational as everything we've heard of his past. His tantrums and long, solipsistic, NPD diatribes (up to five posts and thousands of words long) were exactly like his reported tantrums and diatribes back then. And the real bottom line is that his I'm going to take my ball and go home behavior were exactly like his behavior back then. When he couldn't stand the real- world criticism 25 years ago, he ran away and hid. When he couldn't stand the same kinds of criticisms on FFL, he did exactly the same thing. And that is why I think the comparison to Clinton is perfect. If you believe that oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you say Bill Clinton was lying. But if you don't think oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you give him a pass. You hold your nose, but you give him a pass. I think it's simpler than that, and less flattering to Judy. It's more like, If you *liked* Clinton, you display intellectual dishonesty and give him a pass. If you *liked* Robin, you display intellectual dishonesty and give him a pass. If you have a real *crush* on Robin, you continue to defend him any way you can, months or years after he ran away to hide again. The fact that Robin didn't own up to the whole picture from the start, for me shows a lack of integrity. Ditto with Judy and the Apocalypto incident. The fact that she STILL can't bring herself to admit having commented on a film she's never seen indicates something very WRONG in the way her mind works. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? Not sure what you mean by examples. As you know, it refers to one specific situation, and the meaningful distinction is inherent in the two sentences anyway. You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (snip) You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter. In other words, Go back and read what I wrote before, Dummy. Er, no, Barry, you screwed up again. Robin wrote Robin's Open Letter, not moi. Boy, you're really going through a bad time, ain'cha?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Barry, you need either to spruce up your game considerably, or learn to lose gracefully. You are *always* going to lose if you don't tell your story, whatever it may be, straightforwardly, because lying and distortion signal to everyone that you have no confidence in the case you're trying to make. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Why he didn't say, right from the start, yes I have struck my students, and here's the context Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense, than issuing a blanket denial? Why didn't Judy say, right from the start, Yes, I commented on a film I had never seen. I did it because I already didn't like Mel Gibson, based on things I had read about him in the media, and thus I was pre- disposed to believe the author of the article I posted. In reality, of course, I know NOTHING about the movie in question, because I've never seen it. Years later, and she's STILL never been able to say that. It's just been equivocation and attempts to shift the blame and get Barry all the way down... As I've said, and others as well, it's not about the hitting, it's about the cover up, or the appearance of lying. And the concerted attempt to convince people here that he had changed. I and many others have never been convinced of this. His behavior on Fairfield Life was just as bullying and just as confrontational as everything we've heard of his past. His tantrums and long, solipsistic, NPD diatribes (up to five posts and thousands of words long) were exactly like his reported tantrums and diatribes back then. And the real bottom line is that his I'm going to take my ball and go home behavior were exactly like his behavior back then. When he couldn't stand the real- world criticism 25 years ago, he ran away and hid. When he couldn't stand the same kinds of criticisms on FFL, he did exactly the same thing. And that is why I think the comparison to Clinton is perfect. If you believe that oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you say Bill Clinton was lying. But if you don't think oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you give him a pass. You hold your nose, but you give him a pass. I think it's simpler than that, and less flattering to Judy. It's more like, If you *liked* Clinton, you display intellectual dishonesty and give him a pass. If you *liked* Robin, you display intellectual dishonesty and give him a pass. If you have a real *crush* on Robin, you continue to defend him any way you can, months or years after he ran away to hide again. The fact that Robin didn't own up to the whole picture from the start, for me shows a lack of integrity. Ditto with Judy and the Apocalypto incident. The fact that she STILL can't bring herself to admit having commented on a film she's never seen indicates something very WRONG in the way her mind works. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: He didn't lie. As he said: I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? Not sure what you mean by examples. As you know, it refers to one specific situation, and the meaningful distinction is inherent in the two sentences anyway. You can read them in full context in the repost I just made of Robin's Open Letter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The #1 Symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Barry, you need either to spruce up your game considerably, or learn to lose gracefully. So all of this is about winning and losing in your opinion? And *that* is why you're so upset and why you've used up half of your allotted posts for the week in one day? How sad for you. [https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/1010430_4262\ 34084150685_1193759337_n.jpg]
