Robin, I can only say that if you had joined FFL 7 years
ago, you would have been toast and Ravi Yogi would have been
turned into marshmallow.
He admitted that he was just acting. He posted it himself.
So what the big deal? Ask Alex. He has all the records.
From: maskedzebra <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 7:37 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi
Chivukula
> Robin2: You have, then, answered Bob Price: for you have judged his post to be
devoid of substance or truth. His posts were not answered then because, try as
you might, you could not sense anything sincerely felt or intellectually
articulated that went to what was important. I think it is good to have made
this clarification: viz "He was being a dick to a stranger on the internet". Bob
Price's unanswered posts were, then, unworthy of a response. I would like, for
my own purposes, to know what set of criteria you morally or psychologically
apply to make this determination: As for example, you deemed my post something
to be answered, not Bob Price's.
>
> What is it about this post in particular which puts it in another category
from those two posts from Bob Price?
Curtis3: I just want to note that after being kinda clear about my lack of
interest in
this subject you have doubled down with a few paragraphs, including suggesting
that you post Bob's insults again to stick them in my face. And of course I
can't control what you write but is this really friendly? Is this how you react
to all your friend's preferences?
Robin4: I mist have misinterpreted those two posts. I took them to be a moral
and intellectual challenge; not just "Bob's little FU to all things Curtis". If
they had been what you have characterized them here in this post, *I would have
recognized this for myself*, and would have, had I been your friend, urged you
not to answer them. Because they were not worthy of being answered. I have no
bias one way or the other: I don't forge alliances in order to alter my own
moral responsibilities: If Tom Brady does something dirty, I don't, because I
root for the Patriots and like Brady as a person, given him a bye and judge him
differently from how I would judge James Harrison of the Steelers, who I don't
particularly like and think it is dirty player. When I read the first of those
two posts I refer to, I thought: Wow: Curtis can really show what he is made of
here by answering this putdown of himself.
When you just blew this off with some comment like: "That was the most
disgusting post I have read at FFL" (or words to this effect), I was appalled,
shocked, stupefied. Because I have noticed that whenever Judy criticizes you,
you come right back at her. But even in this case, you sometimes—at
suspiciously significant junctures in your dialogues with her—go silent, and
refuse to take a stand which would enable the reader of this feud to know you
have the confidence to stand up to Judy—not as an adversary, but in terms of
the form of her arguments against what you have written.
In order to comprehend how you can walk away from those two posts, Curtis, I
would have to have some kind of experience in reading those posts which would
make your decision understandable to me in terms of not being a dishonourable
act {which I deem it to be in the absence of an kind of reasonable
explanation]. You can of course, as you do here, define those posts as just
"Bob's little FU to all things Curtis"'; but this peremptory fiat does not make
of them what you say they are. There has to be some kind of agreement between
your judgment of those posts and what they really are independent of your
saying what they are. Should one interpret and define those posts according to
what you say they are here? Is that the last word? No, Curtis, you can choose
to rule them out of order, declaring there is nothing there worthy of taking
notice; but then the question comes in: Is Curtis's appraisal of Bob Price's
critical posts about him congruent with what in
fact is the objective nature of these Bob Price posts?
And if in this case you are correct, then the fault is all in me: since I took
those posts to merit, to demand, to require an answer. You don't even try to
defend your interpretation of them here as not deserving your attention: they
in their very nature did not warrant you taking any notice of them. But you
never explain why; you just arbitrarily legislate your own reality, and we are
all left with only one option: either we accept Curtis's characterizing of
these two posts of Bob Price, or we don't. But you never give any basis for us
to make this decision, so I think most of the readers at FFL, because of your
reputation, simply concur with you—You see, Curtis, they have never entered
into any process by which they could justify your decision not to respond to
those posts. And they still haven't, even as Steve is certain that you have
scored big time.
I find this an abdication of your moral responsibility, and if you don't see
this, then that is in itself an extraordinary indictment of you.
I am still waiting to hear an argument that makes sense of this, Curtis.
Evidently, being Curtis, you don't have to explain or justify your judgments of
people, of posts: if you say it is so, then it is so. I don't find myself
following in lock-step with this. I read Bob Price's posts, and sure, I am
taken aback at their audacity, their harshness; but I keep reading to the end,
and I come out of the experience with the unavoidable conclusion: There is much
substance in this; Curtis will have to address this. But you walk away
muttering that Bob Price has said nothing about you which merits any kind of
response. Well, Curtis, for that to be the case, it must mean that both these
posts could be read by a third party—perhaps someone who knows neither you nor
Bob Price—and deemed to be unworthy of being taken seriously. Do you believe
this is the case, Curtis? If those two posts were dug up and reposted here, do
you think you could justify having taken the position that you have?
No, Curtis, you just don't get where your own predilections and self-asserted
prerogatives run up against reality, and where reality has some say in the
extent to which you are justified in asserting those predilection and
prerogatives and then imposing them on us—and therefore on reality. There is a
very important point here: Curtis has essentially told all of us readers at FFL
that Bob Price's two posts are irrelevant and even frivolous: they do not go to
any critical issues with regard to Curtis. I Curtis will make this decision on
your behalf, and then you can simply be spared any further difficulty in
reconciling what I Curtis has decided these posts are with whatever might have
been your (the reader's) first experience of what they were. I doubt that
anyone but your most loyal supporters would have immediately had the same take
on these two posts as you are telling us was your take on them, Curtis.
On the contrary: You did not—this is my conclusion at least—choose to answer
either of those posts because you *couldn't* answer them. Now that is my
position, Curtis, and for you to get me off of that position you will have to
construct some kind of argument; not legislate what I have said out of
existence. Does my analysis here simply invalidate itself like Bob Price's
posts did?
Curtis3: I have to ask myself why? Even in casual acquaintance situations if a
person
mentions a preference like this it would be respected. If I was sitting next to
someone at a lunch counter and said I would not like a sticky bun, but thanks
for offering it, the usual reaction is not to grab an icing dripping treat and
shove it into my face.
Robin4: Bob Price was calling you out for being disingenuous and manipulative:
of course you would prefer that he not do this—and you would prefer that no one
remind you about this. But the issue, Curtis, is not your preference that these
posts never be discussed again because you don't like the sensation they cause
inside of you when they are mentioned (sticky buns); the issue is to what
extent those two posts addressed you in some authentically real and pertinent
way. You have sidestepped this issue altogether. This is incredible to me that
you don't see this. Take what I have written so far in this post: If you write
that you don't like what I have said and you don't want anyone to bring up what
Robin has written, does that therefore constitute—your saying this—a moral
ground upon which to stand that supersedes in its importance the arguments I
have made so far in this post? Apparently for you this is the case, Curtis, for
I find nothing
different in principle here from what you have chosen to say is the way
reality must behave according to how you have fielded those unpleasant and
vexing posts.
I don't think you get this at all, Curtis; this is your blind spot. And it
represents an impediment to a real friendship. Which is why it is being
discussed now. If I felt you were just deceitfully and dishonestly rigging
things in a way which you knew was wrong, and you therefore had a guilty
conscience, that would be one thing; but I actually believe you think you are
right. This is what astounds me. Because, if you really were consciously
culpable in this regard, you would not make the argument you make here, which,
as you can see form how I have deconstructed it, is no argument at all.
Curtis3: So what is it that makes you so hell bent on shoving my face in Bob's
little FU
to all things Curtis?
Robin4: Only one thing, Curtis: truth, reality, justice. I admit to being
shocked by Bob Price's first post—which you found "disgusting". But I never
conceived of the possibility that you would not reply to him, and defend
yourself. You never, to repeat, explained the existential basis of walking away
from this challenge to your integrity. I was not "shoving [your] face in Bob's
little FU": if Bob Price's post had been just that: "a little FU" I would have
recognized this and would have urged you, had you asked me, not to respond. I
have only raised the matter of these posts because in the manner in which you
have refused to address them, you give evidence of their validity. Get it,
Curtis?
>Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Curtis and Bubbles: Our Moral
Compass (was...Ravi; the hypocrite slayer)
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price
><bobpriced@...> wrote:
>
>
>Golly Curtis,
>
>
>You're slipping, the same rubber arrow, two days in a row
>(emotional punching bag), what are you getting *Bubbles*
>for Christmas: "Geraldine loves diamonds".
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgHpvcg0o8
>
>
>***Have to run, I have an appointment for the nails.
>
>
>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price
>><bobpriced@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLb213lak5s
>>
>>
>>Curtis,
>>
>>
>>So nice (I hope you don't mind being called nice; I can't
>>think of a *word* that better captures your posting voice)
>> to have you back posting on FFL, unless your post to RAVI
>>was just a drive by, we were completely adrift without the
>>steadying hand of your moral compass; I do have one
>>housekeeping item though, before we proceed; you and
>>BUBBLES owe me $3.18; that said, I'll let it ride---I now
>>have $3.18 that says yours Bubbles, and/or one of your
>>ciphers, fingerprints, are all over the email that Rick
>>received, complaining about Ravi's choice of *words*.
>>
>>
>>Do I have this right; you figure Ravi's colorful and
>>entertaining communications should be stopped, at any
>>cost, but anything Bubbles says is AOK in your book; is it
>>me, or is this a rerun? And it's completely all right, in
>>your book, to mock people behind their backs, as long as
>>we don't allow Ravi to do it to their faces----even when
>>he was so
>>obviously provoked. If nothing else, you've proven what a
>>number of us have suspected, for sometime now; that unlike
>>Ravi, you're not cool---as in completely un-cool.
>>
>>
>>In fact, lets not pussy (OMG, does that mean what I think
>>it means) foot around, you're actually a bit of a twerp,
>>aren't you, and I doubt I'm the first to say so; I
>>certainty wouldn't call you a hypocrite, you don't need
>>any help with that handle, and I know I have to be very
>>careful with my choice of *words* around you; we know how
>>some *words* set you off (we'd hate to have to post out
>>again): "The Most Disgusting thing I ever read on
>>FFL....".
>>
>>
>>But I would be remiss if I didn't point out your shameless
>>attempt at reconstruction by attempting to assassinate
>>Ravi's character, while giving your Bubbles a free pass.
>>Anybody with a brain knows you've been gunning for Ravi
>>because he never bought into your class president shtick.
>>And, of course, you've never forgiven him for not taking
>>your religious worship of your *POV* very seriously: My
>>God, he called you a Buddhist, no less.
>>
>>
>>I used to get a good chuckle at how easy it was to get
>>you, Bubbles, and your ciphers, to line up single file, to
>>avoid wasting ammo; I've now decided---watching the work
>>of a real master like Ravi, I need to get over myself: A
>>bright flash, a loud ka-boom, building's shake and stay
>>standing (without so much as a broken window), and every
>>hypocrite on FFL is sent to kingdom-come by the neutron
>>bomb, formally know as Raja Ravi Yogi, the hunter-outster
>>of the sociopathically dull---in all shapes and sizes.
>>
>>
>>I know you're the kind of guy that makes your mind up
>>about *everything*, before entering into a conversation
>>about *anything*, so you must be wondering who the hell
>>Bubbles is. Well, let me tell you how hard it's been
>>trying to find just the right handle for your buddy---I've
>>lost count of the number we've tried; that fit, but not
>>perfectly; till KB and the Vajette handed it to me as they
>>continue "to do the same thing over and over and expect
>>different results"; the break through came a couple of
>>days ago when his KB-ness threatened to stop posting on
>>FFL (as if he had somewhere else to go) and we discovered
>>that what both he and the Vajette seemed to be saying:
>>
>>
>>"I think it's very important to know when to stop".
>>
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpDgRzzTE-I&feature=related
>>
>>
>>PS: Please let me know if you consider any of this
>>bullying; I'm still pondering that KOAN you shared with us
>>that bullying was impossible on FFL, but, at the same
>>time, I was obviously bullying MZ, quite the paradox that
>>one. BTW, how is your relationship with MZ going these
>>days, your dialogues are missed. The *nice* thing
>>about the handle
>>*Bubbles* is it pretty much fits all the hypocrites Ravi
>>outs on a regular basis; most of them without even aiming,
>>the man is truly a wonder. And thank goodness, since
>>binary makes granite look mushy, your attempt to slander
>>Ravi, and your response to Judy---pointing out your
>>spelling mistake, and your "Most disgusting..." post to me
>>will forever weld you to your *Bubbles*, and your behavior
>>of choice (starts with an h and ends with an y).
>>
>>
>>PPS: Bubbles, be careful about twisting your neck into a
>>pretzel pretending you don't spend your life reading
>>everything posted on FFL; the chiropractor was right,
>>you're not exactly a spring chicken. I hadn't realized how
>>much Willy was upsetting you with those photos of Rama,
>>those Dutch people are pretty tolerant, why don't you try
>>telling the waitress what's upsetting you so much.
>>>--- On Thu, 5/20/10, Alex Stanley
>>><j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com> wrote:Subject:
>>>[FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi Guru's mad delusional behavior
>>>revealed.Date: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 2:20 PM
>>>
>>>Here's his latest public communication, posted a couple
>>>hours ago:
>>>https://twitter.com/chivukularavi/status/14379172642
>>>
>>>
>>>"Regardless of what I say the pimps at Fairfield life
>>>cant realize Krishna is a master of confusion, deception.
>>>cream of the top, get it !!"
>>>
>>>
>>>--- On Thu, 5/20/10, Ravi Chivukula
>>><chivukula.r...@gmail.com> wrote:Subject: [FairfieldLife]
>>>Ravi Guru's mad delusional behavior revealed.To:
>>>FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, amma...@yahoogroups.com c:
>>>"Lisa Kistler" <lisa.kistl...@gmail.com>, "Shashi Khosla"
>>><shashikho...@gmail.com>, "Ananth Chivukula"
>>><naga_c2...@yahoo.com>, "Anu Sunkara" <ano...@gmail.com>,
>>>"KVSN Moorthy" <kvsnmoor...@gmail.com>, "Satya Moorthy"
>>><vsnmkond...@yahoo.co.in>, "Madhu Tangirala"
>>><tangirala_ma...@yahoo.com>,
>>>ordinarysparrow@gmail.comDate: Thursday, May 20, 2010,
>>>1:45 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>In fact he fed on every woman he met during this period -
>>>Nov - thru - Apr, whenever I felt sexual It flooded by
>>>crown.....till I have nothing left anymore...
>>>
>>>
>>>He invites her to a session of yogic sex. Enter Amma part
>>>2, Ravi Guru's semen has been all sucked into supreme
>>>energy, his sex is just pure sucking of energy – Kali
>>>bhava.
>>>
>>>
>>>He had regular sex with his beloved for hours sucking
>>>energy along spine to crown. He made sure the beloved
>>>knew that, sucked his dick, all possible angles, perks,
>>>perks...He loved discussing it so he can gain more
>>>energy,
>>>
>>>
>>>Ravi is the real man , he has acknowledged, atoned for
>>>all his sins of sleeping with prostitutes and other woman
>>>who are not my Radha..
>>>
>>>
>>>FairfieldLife can easily take my Tamasic energy they are
>>>fucking battle hardened perverts.... I'm glad I didn't
>>>carried over by all that Saatwic BS that my beloved
>>>wanted..I played along.
