[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
And still no pat on the head? No passing of the torch from the previously enlightened to the currently enlightened? Robin please take pity on this poor soul. This is the second time since your post that Jim has begged you for just a moment of your time to help him reinforce his sence of special identity. A little collegial high fiving from the perspective of another one,who has risen so far above the rest of us. ( In their own minds.). Even though you have renounced your formal title, please have some compassion on those who still need the velvet robes of specialnessintudinment. We both know why this can never happen don't we? I get it, mums the word. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or lack thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long term usefulness of integrity. Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what personal integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate gratification is tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in life. If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature, and seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a dictionary. So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if integrity is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because it is socially acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around in men's clothing these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play. That is why they act, and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness caused by ego tripping. Thy 'Emperor' has no clothes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane, comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written, deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-) It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate. I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas, having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the posts of the latter two. As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is progressive. What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get away with it, either because they don't care, or because they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice. (Corruption = impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Still smarting, arn'cha, Curtis? Por baby. I think you could use a little renewal yourself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: And still no pat on the head? No passing of the torch from the previously enlightened to the currently enlightened? Robin please take pity on this poor soul. This is the second time since your post that Jim has begged you for just a moment of your time to help him reinforce his sence of special identity. A little collegial high fiving from the perspective of another one,who has risen so far above the rest of us. ( In their own minds.). Even though you have renounced your formal title, please have some compassion on those who still need the velvet robes of specialnessintudinment. We both know why this can never happen don't we? I get it, mums the word. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or lack thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long term usefulness of integrity. Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what personal integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate gratification is tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in life. If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature, and seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a dictionary. So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if integrity is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because it is socially acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around in men's clothing these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play. That is why they act, and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness caused by ego tripping. Thy 'Emperor' has no clothes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane, comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written, deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-) It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate. I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas, having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the posts of the latter two. As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is progressive. What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get away with it, either because they don't care, or because they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice. (Corruption = impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
If I am not mistaken - Curtis refers to those, his rant, as incoherent tirades. On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:51 AM, authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: ** Still smarting, arn'cha, Curtis? Por baby. I think you could use a little renewal yourself. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: And still no pat on the head? No passing of the torch from the previously enlightened to the currently enlightened? Robin please take pity on this poor soul. This is the second time since your post that Jim has begged you for just a moment of your time to help him reinforce his sence of special identity. A little collegial high fiving from the perspective of another one,who has risen so far above the rest of us. ( In their own minds.). Even though you have renounced your formal title, please have some compassion on those who still need the velvet robes of specialnessintudinment. We both know why this can never happen don't we? I get it, mums the word. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or lack thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long term usefulness of integrity. Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what personal integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate gratification is tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in life. If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature, and seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a dictionary. So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if integrity is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because it is socially acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around in men's clothing these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play. That is why they act, and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness caused by ego tripping. Thy 'Emperor' has no clothes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane, comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written, deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-) It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate. I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas, having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the posts of the latter two. As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is progressive. What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get away with it, either because they don't care, or because they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice. (Corruption = impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane, comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written, deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-) It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate. I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas, having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the posts of the latter two. As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is progressive. What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get away with it, either because they don't care, or because they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice. (Corruption = impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or lack thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long term usefulness of integrity. Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what personal integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate gratification is tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in life. If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature, and seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a dictionary. So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if integrity is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because it is socially acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around in men's clothing these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play. That is why they act, and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness caused by ego tripping. Thy 'Emperor' has no clothes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane, comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written, deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-) It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate. I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas, having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the posts of the latter two. As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is progressive. What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get away with it, either because they don't care, or because they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice. (Corruption = impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: snip Even better, since I've recently learned how to hack iPhone utilities, one could provide him a built-in onscreen keyboard on the iPhone that lacked the letter I. My bet is that he wouldn't be able to complete a single post. :-) :-) :-) snip If you want to make a keyboard for Robin, leaving out the combinations 'space' 'm' 'e' 'space' and 'space' 'm' 'y' 'space' might also be helpful, otherwise he might go Tonto on us. Robin without the letter I? That's Rob'n. Then program the text-compactor into his editor, and let Bhairitu make it into a video-clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HZPMuj6-o
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: snip Even better, since I've recently learned how to hack iPhone utilities, one could provide him a built-in onscreen keyboard on the iPhone that lacked the letter I. My bet is that he wouldn't be able to complete a single post. :-) :-) :-) This quoted part of your message was written by Barry. snip If you want to make a keyboard for Robin, leaving out the combinations 'space' 'm' 'e' 'space' and 'space' 'm' 'y' 'space' might also be helpful, otherwise he might go Tonto on us. Robin without the letter I? That's Rob'n. Then program the text-compactor into his editor, and let Bhairitu make it into a video-clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HZPMuj6-o
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Robin will you PLEZE pat Ravi on the head. He is dying for your approval, and will not let up on these incoherent tirades till you make him a deputy in crazy town or something. Give him a badge or deputize him, so he can be a happy little Barney Fife for your Andy. (Sorry for the Amero-centric references but the audience I am playing to knows them.) Thanks for the kind (and right on) words, Curtis, and for nailing this situation. The only thing I'd say is that I don't think you go far enough. It's not just Robin that Ravi is desperate for a pat the head from, or just Ravi that is motivated by that. It's the whole lot of them, who seem to get off these days ONLY on being stroked (yes, in that sense, too) by the other members of the Cultist Clique, especially the person they're ALL playing to, who isn't even here this week. I don't know about you, but to me it makes the place even more boring than usual.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Since sacrilege is still possible (after the death of God) I must believe the Holy Trinity became someone else. You do make me religious, Curtis; violently and beautifully so. I love the intensification of the meaning of everything when I read a post like this one. It makes it seem as if each moment still counts for something. I just want to believe in truth as much as you do--since you make use of it more creatively than I can. I love the sweet cunning of your mind, Curtis. When you stumble, I will listen to Christ suddenly become confused. I'm pretty sure that obsession is bad for the soul. I'd worry about that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Awesome work - snipping out everything irrelevant and letting the pristine, purity of you guys's impartial, disinterested POV's shine through. Good job Barry !!! On Mar 24, 2013, at 11:04 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Robin will you PLEZE pat Ravi on the head. He is dying for your approval, and will not let up on these incoherent tirades till you make him a deputy in crazy town or something. Give him a badge or deputize him, so he can be a happy little Barney Fife for your Andy. (Sorry for the Amero-centric references but the audience I am playing to knows them.) Thanks for the kind (and right on) words, Curtis, and for nailing this situation. The only thing I'd say is that I don't think you go far enough. It's not just Robin that Ravi is desperate for a pat the head from, or just Ravi that is motivated by that. It's the whole lot of them, who seem to get off these days ONLY on being stroked (yes, in that sense, too) by the other members of the Cultist Clique, especially the person they're ALL playing to, who isn't even here this week. I don't know about you, but to me it makes the place even more boring than usual.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:50 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: That you could somehow come out of this perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry, azgrey, that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his integrity. Yes I see now. If I exchange the approval of the pack that includes Barry and inexplicably, Azgrey, for the pack that includes Ravi and Judy and Robin, I can be appreciated for my integrity in crazy town. But with Judy as Aunt Bea and you as the hapless Barny Fife and Robin as Andy the sheriff, isn't the only other good part Otis the Drunk? I really don't want to be that obsequious hand wringing barber guy. Cute. What do you say - a disinterested, impartial POV or an incoherent tirade :-). I am never disinterested Ravi. You know that. Nor would I claim Impartiality, that is a myth. Tirade? If I wanted that much drama I would muster something better than this. Andy of Mayberry nonsense. Don't you think? This is your whole shtick here - so sorry doesn't cut it, that you don't posture yourself as disinterested and impartial. You are contradicting everything you have written ever and repeated again the last two days - master of deception under your His Holiness persona. Perhaps something contemporary would help my puzzled mind understand your brilliance and wisdom? You always have created some hope Curtis - regardless of what Judy, Robin and I myself have said in the past. I am always open to see if there's another Curtis that would show up. That you could somehow come out of this perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry, azgrey, that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his integrity. No luck - the same old routine, same old moves that you have repeated the last couple of days in response to Robin's post. Sad. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ ...wrote: Funny Curtis - same old bullshit moves, regardless of your clever comments your fucking moves don't work on me - OK? No longer am I another one of the robotic POV's on FFL that you could impartially observe and choose to accept or reject and finetune your POV huh? Give me a fucking break and try your moves on some of the suckers around here. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:32 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ** Intellectual re-compounding. You are FFL's Zelig. Like a Philippine lounge singer you ALMOST sound like Celine Dione. Really, almost. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: I like this Curtis - the fact that you don't try to disassemble my post using your patented context shifting moves and with just one fell swoop dismiss my post as an incoherent tirade makes me happy. Good job Ravi - you have hit the mark :-). Ravi don't shoot no blanks. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:14 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ** Robin will you PLEZE pat Ravi on the head. He is dying for your approval, and will not let up on these incoherent tirades till you make him a deputy in crazy town or something. Give him a badge or deputize him, so he can be a happy little Barney Fife for your Andy. (Sorry for the Amero-centric references but the audience I am playing to knows them.) \ --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Oh Curtis - I have to say this is a really beautiful slick presentation which will make the Steves and Shares of this list break into a spontaneous applause. However remember the old adage - you can't deceive everyone every time. The magic you weave with your tricks, sleight of hand deceptions is a sight to behold. You start off with leveling the play field on FFL for your pal Barry - all the voices on FFL are equaled to a robotic set of POV's devoid of any personal subjectivity of individual posters, devoid of any biases of posters creeping into
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: You always have created some hope Curtis - regardless of what Judy, Robin and I myself have said in the past. I am always open to see if there's another Curtis that would show up. That you could somehow come out of this perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry, azgrey, that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his integrity. You are forgetting that Curtis is (insisting he's) an ARTIST Ravi, he's a free soul, no need for him to show any consistency :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: You always have created some hope Curtis - regardless of what Judy, Robin and I myself have said in the past. I am always open to see if there's another Curtis that would show up. That you could somehow come out of this perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry, azgrey, that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his integrity. You are forgetting that Curtis is (insisting he's) an ARTIST Ravi, he's a free soul, no need for him to show any consistency :-) /me just remembered why he missed fairfieldlife so much: exchanges like this... L
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
HeyJim, I saw Argo with wife and daughter. Wife enjoyed it so much she wanted to see it again. I enjoyed it enough. I couldn't help but reflect on all the embellishments, (that's Hollywood, so no problem), and the buzz that Hollywood loves nothing more than a movie about itself, hence the Best Pic Award. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: OK - In other memory news of mine, I saw Argo, and loved it - great all 'round pic and amazing story. Also finally saw Tower Heist which is a fun one. And Baby Mama, also enjoyable. Just watched this week's The Amazing Race, which was different this time, because during the last show, one of the monuments featured in Hanoi was a wrecked B-52, shot down during the American War in Vietnam. This show was preceded by an apology regarding US vets, alluding to the earlier footage. I figure we were trying to kill them, to continue the momentum of imperialism inherited from the French, and they defended themselves, on their soil. What is the problem? Your thoughts? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something that I don't see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony identities around here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry, but is in reality, just that, a masquerade. I enjoy making such distinctions on here, and directly. It is intentionally disruptive. Not for its own sake, but to allow other contributions here also. Seems to be working.:-) Wel, by all means, carry on, if you feel that it is working! That's not quite my take, but who am I. I was just pointing out that you've pretty much been on restricted diet for a couple weeks now, and maybe you want to try to add a little variety. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of underscores what those in the other camp' have to say about you. Not that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one could easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to respond in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say, so and so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is where I think you are. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you: I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young republican debutante, or something. You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm at the first sign of challenge. For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image persists. Tea? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. Love, Your Doctor Dumbass --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
To: Awoe, as Buck in Dome calls her Dear Missy Ann, I beg of you, please refrain from such undiluted praise of the writing of my client Share F. Long. I'll have you know that I have worked long and hard, steeped in the adoration I bestow on all my clients, attempting to promote her to Hollywood's A list of actresses. If you continue with such lavish blandishments of her forays into this other avenue of artistic endeavor, she may give in to temptation and forego her acting career in favor or favour of this more literary pursuit. Think Carrie Fisher. OTOH, dear lady, I believe you yourself could have a wonderful career here in Hollywood offering workshops in the Art of the Left Handed Compliment. Or the Art of the Backhanded Compliment. I could have my people do some research on those 2 different brandings and see which might work better. As much as I love Tinseltown, I do realize my fellow City of Angels inhabitants can be a bit jaded about such. And I do realize tee hee that my dear Missy Share might be the first in line to take your workshop. Your humble servant, Wilbur Farnsworpy Tigglewud III PS If we ever become closer please feel free to call me as my friends do: Tiggy 3. But please, no monogrammed ascots, riding crops or poop scoopers for me. Someday I will explain all. From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only, The post Share made the other day from her agent declining Share's bit part in the MJ remake of The Lord of the Rings. That didn't even sound at all like Share and I LOVED it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Oh dear Aunt Share, this is not you - the other Share that's destroying your innocent purity. That neurotic b$tch up in Fairfield that's a sweet talking b$tch that hides her delusions behind inane platitudes, visiting every healer, Guru, light worker. She who levels the playing field a la Curtis by her - we all have positive and negative qualities BS. She, like many neurotic birches that I have seen around Amma's cult that accuse men of psychological rape. Yes a little grumpy dear Auntie but you have made me feel better. I love you. Ravi On Mar 25, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: dear Ravi, pray tell, who is this other Share and how dare she join FFL! Though I did not break into applause of any kind, I have been enjoying the posts of Curtis. And those of just about everybody else. As probably just about everybody else has been enjoying mine (-: But why are you picking on Marek? Are you becoming a grumpy boots down there in sunny San Diego? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only, Oh Curtis - I have to say this is a really beautiful slick presentation which will make the Steves and Shares of this list break into a spontaneous applause. However remember the old adage - you can't deceive everyone every time. The magic you weave with your tricks, sleight of hand deceptions is a sight to behold. You start off with leveling the play field on FFL for your pal Barry - all the voices on FFL are equaled to a robotic set of POV's devoid of any personal subjectivity of individual posters, devoid of any biases of posters creeping into their posts. It's all POV's - the voice of Ann is no different from Barry, the posts of Emily no different from azgrey. And you Curtis are this supremely disinterested, impartial poster who is constantly adjusting his POV based on other's POV's. But wait, what do we have here? Well Barry has likes and dislikes as anyone else. Oh you go further - he gives it back good to people who give the poor guy a hard time. And then Judy is someone who directs her toxic energy towards a stranger (you !!) on an internet forum. Robin is an insincere, condescending fool who insults others. Oh boy your theory has completely broken down here. His Holiness is now no impartial, disinterested poster - he is delivering his judgement with impunity. Curtis - you seem to really crave for adulation and praise from your pack of males. It is so perverse and juvenile - this male pack mentality can be forgiven in the teenagers of Steubenville not a bunch of 60 year old's who claim to be philosophers, lawyers, educators, artists. You and Marek are blind to this male pack mentality that is so eager to makeup for the flaws of your pack - the Barry's and azgrey's and their vile filth on FFL - disgusting and pitiful. Your dishonesty and deviousness is sickening. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: To: Awoe, as Buck in Dome calls her Dear Missy Ann, I beg of you, please refrain from such undiluted praise of the writing of my client Share F. Long. I'll have you know that I have worked long and hard, steeped in the adoration I bestow on all my clients, attempting to promote her to Hollywood's A list of actresses. If you continue with such lavish blandishments of her forays into this other avenue of artistic endeavor, she may give in to temptation and forego her acting career in favor or favour of this more literary pursuit. Think Carrie Fisher. OTOH, dear lady, I believe you yourself could have a wonderful career here in Hollywood offering workshops in the Art of the Left Handed Compliment. Or the Art of the Backhanded Compliment. I could have my people do some research on those 2 different brandings and see which might work better. As much as I love Tinseltown, I do realize my fellow City of Angels inhabitants can be a bit jaded about such. And I do realize tee hee that my dear Missy Share might be the first in line to take your workshop. Your humble servant, Wilbur Farnsworpy Tigglewud III PS If we ever become closer please feel free to call me as my friends do: Tiggy 3. But please, no monogrammed ascots, riding crops or poop scoopers for me. Someday I will explain all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBz7Rg_15lU From: Ann awoelflebater@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,  The post Share made the other day from her agent declining Share's bit part in the MJ remake of The Lord of the Rings. That didn't even sound at all like Share and I LOVED it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
'Twould appear that a literary monster has been awakened. No, make that *two* literary monsters, or *three* if you count dumbass, md. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: To: Awoe, as Buck in Dome calls her Dear Missy Ann, I beg of you, please refrain from such undiluted praise of the writing of my client Share F. Long. I'll have you know that I have worked long and hard, steeped in the adoration I bestow on all my clients, attempting to promote her to Hollywood's A list of actresses. If you continue with such lavish blandishments of her forays into this other avenue of artistic endeavor, she may give in to temptation and forego her acting career in favor or favour of this more literary pursuit. Think Carrie Fisher. OTOH, dear lady, I believe you yourself could have a wonderful career here in Hollywood offering workshops in the Art of the Left Handed Compliment. Or the Art of the Backhanded Compliment. I could have my people do some research on those 2 different brandings and see which might work better. As much as I love Tinseltown, I do realize my fellow City of Angels inhabitants can be a bit jaded about such. And I do realize tee hee that my dear Missy Share might be the first in line to take your workshop. Your humble servant, Wilbur Farnsworpy Tigglewud III PS If we ever become closer please feel free to call me as my friends do: Tiggy 3. But please, no monogrammed ascots, riding crops or poop scoopers for me. Someday I will explain all. From: Ann awoelflebater@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,  The post Share made the other day from her agent declining Share's bit part in the MJ remake of The Lord of the Rings. That didn't even sound at all like Share and I LOVED it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Surely you mean sugar maples rather than birches smiley face hugs From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only, Oh dear Aunt Share, this is not you - the other Share that's destroying your innocent purity. That neurotic b$tch up in Fairfield that's a sweet talking b$tch that hides her delusions behind inane platitudes, visiting every healer, Guru, light worker. She who levels the playing field a la Curtis by her - we all have positive and negative qualities BS. She, like many neurotic birches that I have seen around Amma's cult that accuse men of psychological rape. Yes a little grumpy dear Auntie but you have made me feel better. I love you. Ravi On Mar 25, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: dear Ravi, pray tell, who is this other Share and how dare she join FFL! Though I did not break into applause of any kind, I have been enjoying the posts of Curtis. And those of just about everybody else. As probably just about everybody else has been enjoying mine (-: But why are you picking on Marek? Are you becoming a grumpy boots down there in sunny San Diego? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only, Oh Curtis - I have to say this is a really beautiful slick presentation which will make the Steves and Shares of this list break into a spontaneous applause. However remember the old adage - you can't deceive everyone every time. The magic you weave with your tricks, sleight of hand deceptions is a sight to behold. You start off with leveling the play field on FFL for your pal Barry - all the voices on FFL are equaled to a robotic set of POV's devoid of any personal subjectivity of individual posters, devoid of any biases of posters creeping into their posts. It's all POV's - the voice of Ann is no different from Barry, the posts of Emily no different from azgrey. And you Curtis are this supremely disinterested, impartial poster who is constantly adjusting his POV based on other's POV's. But wait, what do we have here? Well Barry has likes and dislikes as anyone else. Oh you go further - he gives it back good to people who give the poor guy a hard time. And then Judy is someone who directs her toxic energy towards a stranger (you !!) on an internet forum. Robin is an insincere, condescending fool who insults others. Oh boy your theory has completely broken down here. His Holiness is now no impartial, disinterested poster - he is delivering his judgement with impunity. Curtis - you seem to really crave for adulation and praise from your pack of males. It is so perverse and juvenile - this male pack mentality can be forgiven in the teenagers of Steubenville not a bunch of 60 year old's who claim to be philosophers, lawyers, educators, artists. You and Marek are blind to this male pack mentality that is so eager to makeup for the flaws of your pack - the Barry's and azgrey's and their vile filth on FFL - disgusting and pitiful. Your dishonesty and deviousness is sickening. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to talk about a subject directly to come to understand how someone thinks about that subject. Granted, it can be the most direct way but words are easy to come by and actions and reactions under certain conditions can tell us much about another's beliefs. (I am trying not to talk specifically about Barry here and it may be coming out a bit unclear. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.) He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to deal with Robin. He is so far out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is unknown or possible that to actually interact on even the most superficial level with Robin would require something Barry simply does not possess or refuses to acknowledge. It is kind of like asking a seal to run the 100m dash in 10 seconds on dry land. Not possible. I guess we don't hold the same lofty view of Robin's intellect. I don't hold a lofty view of Robin's intellect. I think he sees the world in a different way than I see it. I am open to figuring out if that way, in each form that it expresses itself under many different circumstances, is valid or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in full prostrate e-position) On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to talk about a subject directly to come to understand how someone thinks about that subject. Granted, it can be the most direct way but words are easy to come by and actions and reactions under certain conditions can tell us much about another's beliefs. (I am trying not to talk specifically about Barry here and it may be coming out a bit unclear. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.) He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to deal with Robin. He is so far out of his depth, his
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and read the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, retarded attempt at irony is pretty pathetic. Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - I beg you, please let it be NC). On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in full prostrate e-position) On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to talk about a subject directly to come to understand how someone thinks about that subject. Granted, it can be the most direct way but words are easy to come by and actions and reactions under certain conditions can tell us much about another's beliefs. (I am trying not to talk specifically about Barry here and it may be coming out a bit unclear. I hope you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Archives??? You mean there are archives here at FFL where anything the anyone has written, even when they make total asses of themselves, is kept forever and ever??? Please say it isn't true! North Carolina --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and read the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, retarded attempt at irony is pretty pathetic. Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - I beg you, please let it be NC). On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in full prostrate e-position) On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and read the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, retarded attempt at irony is pretty pathetic. http://youtu.be/xDUKxVPKUt8 Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - I beg you, please let it be NC). On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in full prostrate e-position) On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to talk about a subject directly to come to understand how someone thinks about that subject. Granted, it can be the most direct way but words are easy to come by and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Oh LG, I take everything back. I should have never gotten mad at you - I apologize. You are from NC? You hit me at my sensitive spot - have two friends with connections there, both sweet, sensitive women, authentic unlike my neurotic aunt. No LG, I'm good - we are cool. On Mar 25, 2013, at 11:12 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Archives??? You mean there are archives here at FFL where anything the anyone has written, even when they make total asses of themselves, is kept forever and ever??? Please say it isn't true! North Carolina --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and read the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, retarded attempt at irony is pretty pathetic. Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - I beg you, please let it be NC). On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in full prostrate e-position) On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Agree !!! We will always choose the clarity, brevity of Guru Xeno's inane platitudes and the clarity, brevity of His Holiness Curtis's devious disinterestedness. Fuck complexities - fuck all life's baffling, bewildering, puzzling contradictions. Let's all numb our pain, fears, insecurities thus. Hail to Guru Xeno and His Holiness Curtis !!! On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: Your recent posts have been a model of clarity Curtis. I am working on a tablet with an onscreen keyboard, requiring brevity. I think Robin would benefit from being sentenced to using an iPhone or similar device (without voice control or physical keyboard) for a few years. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Curtis: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. AWB: Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. Curtis: I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. Robin2: Curtis, you did not address A's point whatsoever. Does it seem true that, over the years, Barry's antipathy (as he expresses it) towards someone correlates significantly with the extent to which that person contradicts Barry? I think it does. A made a simple declaration of this fact. Me: I don't think it is factual. There is zero back and forth discussion going on between Barry and his detractors. So I believe the weight is more on personal attack. You and Ann see it differently. OK. I don't have to claim that you are being deceptive because you see it differently. You are missing the point that I disagree with Barry on many things and we get along fine. R: You have chosen to ignore the substance of what she said, turning it inside-out: Now it's others who are being accused of what A implied was a self-evident fact. This is cunning and deceptive. Why not just address A's point: Does Barry allow himself to separate an argument from the person who is making that argument, if that argument challenges what he believes? I have not seen him do this. And show me where someone, gratuitously, prejudicially, attacks Barry personally. You know what Barry does; you have turned A's point around *without even attempting to take on what she said. This is a classic manoeuvre on your part, Curtis. ME: And you are turning a disagreement into a accusatory insult. Barry would not have responded to what you wrote, but I am. I don't need to take on what she said. Her opinion of Barry is not something I need to argue about. Remember I know Barry differently than you guys. I have zero interest in your take on him. I am presenting mine, take it or leave it. And by the way, if you choose to answer this post, you will do the same to the very point I am making right here. Watch for it. ME: The Robin set-up. Does that really provide you intellectual satisfaction? It is so lame and intellectually lazy. I am presenting my view which is different from yours and does not conform to the tiny conditions you tried to fit me into. I don't need to argue with you about if people attack Barry personally with your added contrived criteria of gratuitously, prejudicially,. That is your spin. I already said that Barry often starts it, so your point is irrelevant. If you want to understand my views you are going to have to go beyond the accusatory double bind set-ups that accuse me of nefarious agendas. AWB:His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. Curtis: He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) Robin2: Again, Curtis, you sidestep the very essence of what A is saying. Now I ask you, Curtis, Does Barry like personal challenges coming from others? M: I would say he has a much lower threshold for this here than I do. R: If we are to judge by his reaction (see my analysis of him), it would seem A is drawing an objective conclusion based on the data. ME; And once again you are trying to elevate a personal opinion to being more than that. R: You are so doubting in the matter of the integrity of your friend that you will refuse, systematically, to defend him on the merits of attempting to come to terms with
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Your recent posts have been a model of clarity Curtis. I am working on a tablet with an onscreen keyboard, requiring brevity. I think Robin would benefit from being sentenced to using an iPhone or similar device (without voice control or physical keyboard) for a few years. Even better, since I've recently learned how to hack iPhone utilities, one could provide him a built-in onscreen keyboard on the iPhone that lacked the letter I. My bet is that he wouldn't be able to complete a single post. :-) :-) :-) Just a joke. I have read the first ten words of the first I'm bck! post from Robin, and no more. I honestly haven't read a word of anything he's posted since, and won't in the future. I'm basing my joke on his past narcissistic tendencies, back when I foolishly bothered with him. ALSO based on past experience, since I've been similarly NEXTing past the perpetrators of the latest pile on session, I would imagine that a trend that weighs heavily in their posts has to do with people owing them a response and owing them an argument if they disagree with some- thing that the person they're trying to entice into a confrontation wants to argue about. My response to that, if it has indeed come up, is simple, and can be expressed in three words: Get a life. As both navashok and Curtis have correctly perceived about me, I don't feel that I owe ANYONE on this forum diddleysquat, let alone an argument if they're spoiling for one. I say what I have to say -- hopefully in my first post on a subject -- and then allow others to either say what they have to say on the same subject in response or (more wisely) ignore what I said and use their energies on something they DO like if they didn't like what I said. This whole confrontation routine is classic Robin, and classic Judy, and people have come to accept it as if it were both a given, and that arguments were something owed to them. Fat fucking chance. If they want to argue, let them find people who like to argue. I really DO prefer discussions in which people just say what they think or believe, allow others to do the same, and then END IT THERE. Nobody feels the need to win, nobody feels the need to prove them- selves right, and nobody feels the need to put down those who won't play these silly ego-games with them. Try to IMAGINE the ego of someone who feels that they have to prove themselves right about something as silly and petty as WHAT THEY BELIEVE. It boggles my mind that people who have been meditating for decades can still be so stuck in such samskaras. That is a rather long reply. I understand a professional writer has to keep in practice quantity on a deadline. Hope your move back to Paris went without much trouble. I think I would finding moving to another country rather daunting. But I am sort of a stick-in-the-mud sort of guy when it comes to travel; a magnesium flare has to be lit under my ass to get me moving. If you want to make a keyboard for Robin, leaving out the combinations 'space' 'm' 'e' 'space' and 'space' 'm' 'y' 'space' might also be helpful, otherwise he might go Tonto on us. Me sign off now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than usual) unhinged here. Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize him (as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind. Okay, I will. Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy! When you walk into a room, EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just arrived. See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom. Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi? On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to talk about a subject directly to come to understand how someone thinks about that subject. Granted, it can be the most direct way but words are easy to come by and actions and reactions under certain conditions can tell us much about another's beliefs. (I am trying not to talk specifically about Barry here and it may be coming out a bit unclear. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.) He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to deal with Robin. He is so far out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is unknown or possible that to actually interact on even the most superficial level with Robin would require something Barry simply does not possess or refuses to
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
LOL..Steve you are cracking me up, you clearly have trouble abiding by our rules - that thou shall not analyze people's motivations. Perhaps looking at the following list may help you focus better. Here's the list of things you have come up analyzing my motives - this is just in the recent past 1) Ravi craves attention and adulation (This post) (That would be actually your hero/pack leader - His Holiness Curtis) 2) Ravi should free himself from any remants(sic) of British Imperialism in his mind and express himself in a more liberated way (Yesterday) (This really cracked me up but I didn't have time to reply) 3) Ravi is stressed out working in a cubicle (Last week) 4) Ravi is stressed out being single (Last week) 5) Ravi is eager to peddle a list of beliefs (Last week + This post) 6) Ravi fashions himself as a Guru (Last week + This post + Last 3 years) (He better get out of the damn cubicle..LOL) 7) Ravi is a suspected murderer (of his girlfriend) (Few weeks back) (Not at all compatible with #6, LOL) OK that's all I have now Stevie baby. I may add more - but this should help I promise. As always - I love you like a brother. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM, seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than usual) unhinged here. Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize him (as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind. Okay, I will. Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy! When you walk into a room, EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just arrived. See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom. Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi? On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Ravi, You've got me here. I had an insult all planned out for what I anticipated to be your reply, but you've thrown me for a loop here. Now, tell me, have you been tinkering with that new condensed text app? Go ahead, tell me the truth. I'm giving you this round Ravi. Well done. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: LOL..Steve you are cracking me up, you clearly have trouble abiding by our rules - that thou shall not analyze people's motivations. Perhaps looking at the following list may help you focus better. Here's the list of things you have come up analyzing my motives - this is just in the recent past 1) Ravi craves attention and adulation (This post) (That would be actually your hero/pack leader - His Holiness Curtis) 2) Ravi should free himself from any remants(sic) of British Imperialism in his mind and express himself in a more liberated way (Yesterday) (This really cracked me up but I didn't have time to reply) 3) Ravi is stressed out working in a cubicle (Last week) 4) Ravi is stressed out being single (Last week) 5) Ravi is eager to peddle a list of beliefs (Last week + This post) 6) Ravi fashions himself as a Guru (Last week + This post + Last 3 years) (He better get out of the damn cubicle..LOL) 7) Ravi is a suspected murderer (of his girlfriend) (Few weeks back) (Not at all compatible with #6, LOL) OK that's all I have now Stevie baby. I may add more - but this should help I promise. As always - I love you like a brother. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM, seventhray27 steve.sundur@...wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than usual) unhinged here. Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize him (as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind. Okay, I will. Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy! When you walk into a room, EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just arrived. See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom. Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi? On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_reply@...: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.) If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the predictable Barry is bad meme that flows freely here. I see more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's. Barry aside and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Nope - Guru Xeno needs that, not me. Guru Xeno - a dead man with dead beliefs, of dead words, of platitudes, of philosophy, of stupid apps. I always want to get better, I am always learning - never happy with myself, I am a perfectionist, always looking for more data to learn something new. I never want to be caught frozen, immobile by any set of beliefs. I always want to be spontaneous, want my words to be a performance, should touch the person I am interacting with. I respond with total sincerity or total insincerity. With sincerity is the nice, humble guy who loves unconditionally or the arrogant guy who humiliates in pure unconditioned anger. Within the insincerity is the irony, sarcasm and playful humor and I don't know how I will respond - so there, that's it - the truth. So give up your quest for analyzing my motives. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:42 PM, seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.comwrote: ** Ravi, You've got me here. I had an insult all planned out for what I anticipated to be your reply, but you've thrown me for a loop here. Now, tell me, have you been tinkering with that new condensed text app? Go ahead, tell me the truth. I'm giving you this round Ravi. Well done. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: LOL..Steve you are cracking me up, you clearly have trouble abiding by our rules - that thou shall not analyze people's motivations. Perhaps looking at the following list may help you focus better. Here's the list of things you have come up analyzing my motives - this is just in the recent past 1) Ravi craves attention and adulation (This post) (That would be actually your hero/pack leader - His Holiness Curtis) 2) Ravi should free himself from any remants(sic) of British Imperialism in his mind and express himself in a more liberated way (Yesterday) (This really cracked me up but I didn't have time to reply) 3) Ravi is stressed out working in a cubicle (Last week) 4) Ravi is stressed out being single (Last week) 5) Ravi is eager to peddle a list of beliefs (Last week + This post) 6) Ravi fashions himself as a Guru (Last week + This post + Last 3 years) (He better get out of the damn cubicle..LOL) 7) Ravi is a suspected murderer (of his girlfriend) (Few weeks back) (Not at all compatible with #6, LOL) OK that's all I have now Stevie baby. I may add more - but this should help I promise. As always - I love you like a brother. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM, seventhray27 steve.sundur@...wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!! Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than usual) unhinged here. Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize him (as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind. Okay, I will. Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy! When you walk into a room, EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just arrived. See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom. Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi? On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_reply@...: Curtis Ann, I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that territory is below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people attacking him personally. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to deal with Robin. Tell me about it, Barry is too intellectually, emotionally stunted and retarded to watch Robin's brilliance - his intelligence, wit, irony, sensitivity, love. Is this even a topic of discussion - that Barry has tools to deal with Robin? God I hope not...LOL. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to deal with Robin. He is so far out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is unknown or possible that to actually interact on even the most superficial level with Robin would require something Barry simply does not possess or refuses to acknowledge. It is kind of like asking a seal to run the 100m dash in 10 seconds on dry land. Not possible. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. This excuse of respect is not about that at all. That is a convenient but erroneous description of what is really going on. It isn't about what Barry feels about the other person it is what the other person makes Barry feel about himself and THAT is what Barry dislikes. When he is made to feel inadequate he will point his finger at the other person and claim they are to blame; they are too boring or stupid or dogmatic. He will never take responsibility for himself and the reasons he feels the way he does. It will always be about the other guy. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. Exactly. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. Yes, I will give you that. Barry IS predictable. Ridiculously so. This is a man who lives in a world that is bound and known and very limited. He can only venture so far with a person - new acquaintance or old. When he hits the property line, where the boundaries end, he stops dead. And those boundaries are those determined by his own limitations of self. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. I don't think so Curtis. Many people have pretty good ideas of how Barry functions but Robin's today took the proverbial cake; it was far and away the most sophisticated reading of the man and one that you might have a chance of comprehending but Barry never will for, if he could, it would disprove what Robin wrote and what I have just said. Not that we said or are saying the same thing. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. You can't generalize like this. I, for one, am always open to reading someone's post for what new tone or attitude might emerge. I have ideas about what people are like here but I am happy to be surprised
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable. Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think it was totally unnecessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable. Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think it was totally unnecessary. Yep, you people hijacked what was a perfectly good subject and drove it off in to the ditch, again. Could you re-subject the subject thread when you take a turn and drive off? It should be helpful to the reading public here. Thank you in advance, -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@... wrote: I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable. Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think it was totally unnecessary. Perhaps it was for the same reason that you feel you needed to defend Barry - you felt like it. Or maybe he reads FFL and something Barry said (and perhaps for the umpteenth time) just stirred an impulse inside of him to want to say something. Maybe because I can see how Barry throws his bullshit around, his blatant lies or his skewed perspective and Robin recognizes this too (like many of us do) and couldn't sit there any more and say nothing. Who knows? Whatever it was Barry will continue on, oblivious, but will find something ugly and cheap to throw my way, at least, soon enough. Remember, he is very, very predictable - unfortunately. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok no_reply@ wrote: I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable. Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think it was totally unnecessary. Yep, you people hijacked what was a perfectly good subject and drove it off in to the ditch, again. Could you re-subject the subject thread when you take a turn and drive off? It should be helpful to the reading public here. Thank you in advance, -Buck This happens all the time, in every single subject thread. Ever play that game telephone where you have a circle of people and you whisper a sentence in someone's ear and they keep repeating that sentence until the last person speaks out what that sentence was and what started as Men are invited to a meeting at the Dome with Shriver ends up Barry is an invulnerable jerk? See, FFL is just like real life! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum. Augustine: Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things is, believe me, essential before a man can develop that fearlessness in the face of death which is based neither on insensibility nor on foolhardy presumption, neither on the desire for empty glory nor on superstitious credulity. It is that which is the origin of that solid joy with which no pleasure from any transitory source is in any way to be compared. Still seeking enlightenment by any other name, Robin. I think you're approaching this backwards. 'With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality.' In a world view of gods and men, the gods rule, man is subjugated. You cannot get the totality to bow to the demands of a part. You cannot have your objective reality as long as 'you' are a part of it. In religious terms (which I tend to despise in actuality), you need to give up the ghost of your personal ontology, you cannot make a jumble of ideas that are called a personal 'self' a reality. Personal ontology is a useful conceptual vehicle for acting in the world, but it is mythological, it's a narrative, its not an entity, it is not actually real. You are trying to use a fictitious vehicle to understand reality. Your 'self' is like a massive impacted mass of kidney stones. It's your spiritual blockade. It is in your way at every turn. Forget trying to understand why Barry rejects you so wholeheartedly; your 'personal self', your ego, is nothing to him. Nobody's is (unless she has a bold personality and certain topographical contours perhaps). Your rejection of unity is based on the same problem, that 'you' were in unity. Nobody is in unity. The whole, whatever you call it, God as you would like to have it, is its own thing by itself. When the personal ontology drops away, the whole reveals itself, not because now you have achieved something and it decides to show you, but because it is always there and the crap has floated away, and so naturally, it can then be appreciated. Robin Carlsen is so dear to you. Robin Carlsen has to die. That's it. I think you best pen pal here would be Curtis. But those discussions always go awry because whatever Robin is seen to be in your mind, that Robin is the centre. If you want to be religious about it, put God in the centre and lay Robin to rest. The nature of God might then express itself through that body with the name Robin, but not through 'you'. Personal ontology and spiritual maturity are not compatible. 'Although you perform many works, if you do not deny your will and submit yourself, losing all solicitude about yourself and your affairs, you will not make progress.' - St. John of the Cross 'Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium: Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things'. Why do you come back onto FFL?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Good God, Xeno! Sorry for religious term but I don't know how else to express my flabbergastedness. Thank you so much for translation too. I wasn't able to find a good translator online. They would translate a few words then revert to Latin. Very vexing. Ok, I'll simply fumble along, not really adding much, but simply want to say that this IMHO has got to be not only one of your best writings but also one of the best writings to Robin that I have seen. I appreciate how you're clear but also nuanced and rich in your expressions. I appreciate how you're challenging without being confrontational or mean spirited. Last but not least I appreciate your touch of humor with the kidney stones image. I think I'm more than a little envious of your writing acumen in this post. I shall now shut up and go shovel snow for the umpteenth time this year. Ann, where are you when I need you and your shovel? From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:07 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only, --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum. Augustine: Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things is, believe me, essential before a man can develop that fearlessness in the face of death which is based neither on insensibility nor on foolhardy presumption, neither on the desire for empty glory nor on superstitious credulity. It is that which is the origin of that solid joy with which no pleasure from any transitory source is in any way to be compared. Still seeking enlightenment by any other name, Robin. I think you're approaching this backwards. 'With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality.' In a world view of gods and men, the gods rule, man is subjugated. You cannot get the totality to bow to the demands of a part. You cannot have your objective reality as long as 'you' are a part of it. In religious terms (which I tend to despise in actuality), you need to give up the ghost of your personal ontology, you cannot make a jumble of ideas that are called a personal 'self' a reality. Personal ontology is a useful conceptual vehicle for acting in the world, but it is mythological, it's a narrative, its not an entity, it is not actually real. You are trying to use a fictitious vehicle to understand reality. Your 'self' is like a massive impacted mass of kidney stones. It's your spiritual blockade. It is in your way at every turn. Forget trying to understand why Barry rejects you so wholeheartedly; your 'personal self', your ego, is nothing to him. Nobody's is (unless she has a bold personality and certain topographical contours perhaps). Your rejection of unity is based on the same problem, that 'you' were in unity. Nobody is in unity. The whole, whatever you call it, God as you would like to have it, is its own thing by itself. When the personal ontology drops away, the whole reveals itself, not because now you have achieved something and it decides to show you, but because it is always there and the crap has floated away, and so naturally, it can then be appreciated. Robin Carlsen is so dear to you. Robin Carlsen has to die. That's it. I think you best pen pal here would be Curtis. But those discussions always go awry because whatever Robin is seen to be in your mind, that Robin is the centre. If you want to be religious about it, put God in the centre and lay Robin to rest. The nature of God might then express itself through that body with the name Robin, but not through 'you'. Personal ontology and spiritual maturity are not compatible. 'Although you perform many works, if you do not deny your will and submit yourself, losing all solicitude about yourself and your affairs, you will not make progress.' - St. John of the Cross 'Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium: Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things'. Why do you come back onto FFL?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in the larger FF community that managed getting it video recorded. Fairfield Sociology, Still running in to people afterwards, men and women, who would have liked to have heard LB Shriver talk to the community the other night except that it was a thing by these men. It's an interesting thing about the sociology of Fairfield. Surveying and asking about this the common reaction to get from ru's of all the various types when asked if they wanted to or went to hear LB (both men and women) is, why did they make the meeting for men only? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation Dear Seek, Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield sociology. Good insight. Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought reform'. evidently it still is alive in Fairfield. Fairfield is a veritable breeding ground for these kinds of things. What is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Still the best commentary ever on the Man's Movement (or at least one aspect of it), as delivered by Tom Cruise (hey, I know you don't like him, but he *has* done good work, and he was nominated for an Oscar for this performance, possibly for doing little more than acting like the asshole he is in real life), in Magnolia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEYxs7kWmQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-q__knBahs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-q__knBahs Know nothing about the movie, but this was some funny stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. Love, Your Doctor Dumbass --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you: I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young republican debutante, or something. You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm at the first sign of challenge. For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image persists. Tea? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. Love, Your Doctor Dumbass --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
You make me believe there is a God, Curtis. Your dishonesty is too profound to be addressed by anyone else. On my life I swear you are false in nearly all that you say here, Curtis. Knowingly so. Your inspiration for this, however, is paradoxically your sensitivity to truth. Truth is your muse to know how to be so immaculately deceitful. But this almost makes me religious. A truly unbelievable performance. You are masterful, Curtis. I am more interested now in what the death experience will be. I am inspired after this to take my life even more seriously. This is immensely significant. I just found the perfect sacrament. It's all good, then, Curtis. We will resolve this matter between us someday. I promise you this. Maybe there is a heaven after all. My faith has been strengthened by reading this. Thank you, dear Curtis. I feel as if I am praying now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of underscores what those in the other camp' have to say about you. Not that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one could easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to respond in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say, so and so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is where I think you are. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you: I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young republican debutante, or something. You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm at the first sign of challenge. For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image persists. Tea? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. Love, Your Doctor Dumbass --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something that I don't see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony identities around here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry, but is in reality, just that, a masquerade. I enjoy making such distinctions on here, and directly. It is intentionally disruptive. Not for its own sake, but to allow other contributions here also. Seems to be working.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of underscores what those in the other camp' have to say about you. Not that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one could easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to respond in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say, so and so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is where I think you are. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you: I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young republican debutante, or something. You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm at the first sign of challenge. For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image persists. Tea? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. Love, Your Doctor Dumbass --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something that I don't see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony identities around here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry, but is in reality, just that, a masquerade. I enjoy making such distinctions on here, and directly. It is intentionally disruptive. Not for its own sake, but to allow other contributions here also. Seems to be working.:-) Wel, by all means, carry on, if you feel that it is working! That's not quite my take, but who am I. I was just pointing out that you've pretty much been on restricted diet for a couple weeks now, and maybe you want to try to add a little variety. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of underscores what those in the other camp' have to say about you. Not that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one could easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to respond in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say, so and so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is where I think you are. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you: I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young republican debutante, or something. You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm at the first sign of challenge. For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image persists. Tea? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. Love, Your Doctor Dumbass --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
OK - In other memory news of mine, I saw Argo, and loved it - great all 'round pic and amazing story. Also finally saw Tower Heist which is a fun one. And Baby Mama, also enjoyable. Just watched this week's The Amazing Race, which was different this time, because during the last show, one of the monuments featured in Hanoi was a wrecked B-52, shot down during the American War in Vietnam. This show was preceded by an apology regarding US vets, alluding to the earlier footage. I figure we were trying to kill them, to continue the momentum of imperialism inherited from the French, and they defended themselves, on their soil. What is the problem? Your thoughts? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something that I don't see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony identities around here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry, but is in reality, just that, a masquerade. I enjoy making such distinctions on here, and directly. It is intentionally disruptive. Not for its own sake, but to allow other contributions here also. Seems to be working.:-) Wel, by all means, carry on, if you feel that it is working! That's not quite my take, but who am I. I was just pointing out that you've pretty much been on restricted diet for a couple weeks now, and maybe you want to try to add a little variety. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of underscores what those in the other camp' have to say about you. Not that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one could easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to respond in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say, so and so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is where I think you are. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you: I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young republican debutante, or something. You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm at the first sign of challenge. For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image persists. Tea? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. Love, Your Doctor Dumbass --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ? Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted during the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I fall quickly to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 4 and 5 am. Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep nights, I get up at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my body won't really sleep beyond 7 am. Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally hard-wired morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@... wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation Dear Seek, Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield sociology. Good insight. Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought reform'. evidently it still is alive in Fairfield. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
MKP is the new Sterling in FF: http://mankindproject.org/ Notice how the original invite referred to LB as a warrior? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@... wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I was trying to see a picture of the guy. Here is a link: http://www.sterling-institute.com/sterling-institute-justin.php --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@... wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation Dear Seek, Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield sociology. Good insight. Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought reform'. evidently it still is alive in Fairfield. Fairfield is a veritable breeding ground for these kinds of things. What is it about the soil and climate, Buck, that encourages such vegetative flourishing (bad metaphor)? I would love to see a comprehensive list of all the 'teachers', spiritual guides, leaders of healing movements, healers themselves, enablers, channels, talkers, enlightened folk, celestial city constructors, seers, prophesizers, pundits, avatars and whatever else there might be that lurk in the back alleys off the town square. Anyone care to make a list? Share? I want to be ready when I come for a visit to book my first week's itinerary and make sure I cover at least 10% of what there is to offer there. (Now all you FF dwellers, this was meant as a JOKE. Feste, let's meet at the Carnegie Library, the one that still stands upright when I arrive and then perhaps a tea at Cafe Paradiso?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation Dear Seek, Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield sociology. Good insight. Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote: According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought reform'. evidently it still is alive in Fairfield. Fairfield is a veritable breeding ground for these kinds of things. What is it about the soil and climate, Buck, that encourages such vegetative flourishing (bad metaphor)? I would love to see a comprehensive list of all the 'teachers', spiritual guides, leaders of healing movements, healers themselves, enablers, channels, talkers, enlightened folk, celestial city constructors, seers, prophesizers, pundits, avatars and whatever else there might be that lurk in the back alleys off the town square. Anyone care to make a list? It's in the spiritual experience of the place. If not spiritual then you wouldn't appreciate it. If spiritual then this place is Mecca. Awoe, you should view the Fairfield Weekly Reader this week. There's an incredible number of spiritual people advertised for meetings and consults coming up in the next few weeks. There has been a Fairfield Directory of Active Spiritual Practice Groups but I don't think the Men back in those days ever made it in to it. -Buck in the Dome Share? I want to be ready when I come for a visit to book my first week's itinerary and make sure I cover at least 10% of what there is to offer there. (Now all you FF dwellers, this was meant as a JOKE. Feste, let's meet at the Carnegie Library, the one that still stands upright when I arrive and then perhaps a tea at Cafe Paradiso?) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
When I was doing the MA in SCI, a classmate and I both noticed a big difference going to bed at 9:15 rather than 9:30. So we asked our Sanskrit prof Tom Egenes about it and he said that there's something in the Vedic literature about every 15 min before 10 pm being the equivalent of an hour of sleep. And does anyone remember the famous quote attributed to Triguna: that if we all went to bed at 8:30 we wouldn't even need ayurveda? I have 2 acqaintenances who did this for a while and they both looked radiant. I've done it when I've felt an illness coming on and it seems to nip it in the bud. I'm an early riser no matter what time I go to bed and I tend to wake up at least once during the night. So early bedtime is a good habit for me though I realize it's not even necessary for others much less preferred. This past year I read a fascinating article about sleep habits and our cave people ancestors. That they went to bed early, woke in the middle of the night and did stuff, then went back to bed for another chunk of sleeping time. So it might be hardwired into us. Knowing this made me a lot more relaxed about my sleep habits. From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:18 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only, --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ? Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted during the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I fall quickly to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 4 and 5 am. Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep nights, I get up at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my body won't really sleep beyond 7 am. Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally hard-wired morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: I was trying to see a picture of the guy. Here is a link: http://www.sterling-institute.com/sterling-institute-justin.php This is the point at which I just have to roll my eyes. I'm sorry (and no offence intended to those who went for this stuff and felt that they gained something from it), but to me this is just eye-roll city. It's like when I read FFL and see all these long-term TMers so focused on their health problems and their healers and talking about them non-stop and I have to think, WTF? *These* are people who claim that TM produces 'perfect health?' Well, when I read about people who need a fuckin' seminar to figure out what it is to be a man or a woman I have a similar reaction. I liked Robert Bly as a poet, but his whole Man thang just left me completely cold and struck me as whining back when I first heard about it, decades ago -- a bunch of men sitting around a campfire pounding drums to get over their Daddy issues. The whole concept *still* strikes me as ludicrous. WHO, ferchrissakes, needs to be told by some seminar leader *making money from it* how to be a man or a woman, and what that entails? The very *concept* is IMO designed for those who have been trained over the years to pay for *everything* associated with self discovery or fulfillment. These are seminars offered by someone *promoting* duality, and making their money from the idea that men and women are so fundamentally different that they can't communicate without external help. As the bumper sticker says so well, Men are from Earth, women are from Earth...get over it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind ..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@... wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I think you're referring to a recent New Yorker article about how sleep habits have changed. But the reference in that article was to 18th century America not cave people. So it wasn't that long ago. I'm thinking of trying it: going to bed at 8:30 or so, sleeping till 1, then getting up and doing stuff till about 3, then going back to bed until 6. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: When I was doing the MA in SCI, a classmate and I both noticed a big difference going to bed at 9:15 rather than 9:30. So we asked our Sanskrit prof Tom Egenes about it and he said that there's something in the Vedic literature about every 15 min before 10 pm being the equivalent of an hour of sleep. And does anyone remember the famous quote attributed to Triguna: that if we all went to bed at 8:30 we wouldn't even need ayurveda? I have 2 acqaintenances who did this for a while and they both looked radiant. I've done it when I've felt an illness coming on and it seems to nip it in the bud. I'm an early riser no matter what time I go to bed and I tend to wake up at least once during the night. So early bedtime is a good habit for me though I realize it's not even necessary for others much less preferred. This past year I read a fascinating article about sleep habits and our cave people ancestors. That they went to bed early, woke in the middle of the night and did stuff, then went back to bed for another chunk of sleeping time. So it might be hardwired into us. Knowing this made me a lot more relaxed about my sleep habits. From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:18 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ? Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted during the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I fall quickly to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 4 and 5 am. Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep nights, I get up at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my body won't really sleep beyond 7 am. Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally hard-wired morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Still the best commentary ever on the Man's Movement (or at least one aspect of it), as delivered by Tom Cruise (hey, I know you don't like him, but he *has* done good work, and he was nominated for an Oscar for this performance, possibly for doing little more than acting like the asshole he is in real life), in Magnolia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEYxs7kWmQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-q__knBahs --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I didn't care to get recruited to a new group. And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was awkward for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics you use to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Ah, Barry's old ask for an explanation in an attempt to seem rational -- not that he ever responds to them... What feste37 meant was that you have been exposed to spiritual traditions often enough to understand their basis, but your actual experience has never matched up. Result? A lot of pressure on you to conform your actions to match those in spiritual traditions you respect. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The conflict it causes within you, has made you a natural asshole. Get it? Everyone else on here does. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: It's like when I read FFL and see all these long-term TMers so focused on their health problems and their healers and talking about them non-stop and I have to think, WTF? *These* are people who claim that TM produces 'perfect health?' Well, when I read about people who need a fuckin' seminar to figure out what it is to be a man or a woman I have a similar reaction. I liked Robert Bly as a poet, but his whole Man thang just left me completely cold and struck me as whining back when I first heard about it, decades ago -- a bunch of men sitting around a campfire pounding drums to get over their Daddy issues. The whole concept *still* strikes me as ludicrous. I agree that a lot of the rituals that some of these groups use are nothing more than mood-making rituals rather than the actual experience that enables individuals to get past whatever issues they have. However, after reading some works of Robert Bly and viewing my own experiences in life combined with what I experienced at the Sterling Men's weekend, I do agree that some education or view of problems with boys/men in America needs to be pointed out. But the process of dealing with whatever boundaries someone has towards becoming a mature adult is too personal for group practice to accomodate, IMHO. WHO, ferchrissakes, needs to be told by some seminar leader *making money from it* how to be a man or a woman, and what that entails? The very *concept* is IMO designed for those who have been trained over the years to pay for *everything* associated with self discovery or fulfillment. That was another reason myself and another member of the whole 'Sterling' institute left. We saw a real Ponzi scheme going on. We pay $500 to go there for a weekend, then we work tirelessly at recruiting more people to go there. We put forth all the effort, and someone else is making all the money. Damn that's clever! Or maybe it's not clever; they're just doing what people always do. But on the other hand, I still maintain the stance that what is taught at that weekend is necessary for 'some' young men these days. And I wouldn't say it's all 'daddy' issues, or overcoming emotional pain from upbringing (although that comes up). It's a bit more of a clear look at what a mature self-sufficent man should be, and a reality check at how much we (or at least some men) really suck at it these days. But i've met a lot of men that simply DON'T need that experience or to have these problems pointed out. Yet for some reason the stance of Sterling Institute is that you should relentlessly try to recruit everyone. It's literally worse than being a Christian Evangelist. These are seminars offered by someone *promoting* duality, and making their money from the idea that men and women are so fundamentally different that they can't communicate without external help. As the bumper sticker says so well, Men are from Earth, women are from Earth...get over it. That reminds me of a conversation I had with someone when I was at the 'weekend'. There was a lot of talk regarding differences between men and women. There was also the implication that men were simply NOT capable of certain things, which myself and the other guy disagreed with. But at the same time, America has moved into a rather strange social era where becoming a mature and self-sufficient man is not only decreasing among our populace, but it is often discouraged. I don't think there is any way we can deny this, but you can offer a different POV if you like. The whole point of some of these seminars is to address this disturbing issue. They are effective to some extent, albeit they end up going astray very quickly and get caught up in a lot of bullshit that I think is manufactured and effective for only a small percentage of participants. In the end, my conclusion is that there is something critical missing from boys and young men's lives that is preventing them from becoming a man. At least there is 'something' out there trying to address it. The only alternative is to ignore it and let it get worse. But then again, i've always said that anytime you create an organization, the moment the organization is created it eventually begins to establish patterns of thought and behaviour that are contradictory to the original intentions of the organization in the first place. That's why I felt reading a book or attending a weekend is not a bad idea, provided someone needs it. But the whole group/social club thing, I saw serious problems with it. That whole Sterling group in FF had an entire thought-process that was identical from one man to the next. Eventually, nobody seemed to be able to think independantly at all. It was pretty bad, and that's why I wanted nothing to do with it. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. Not
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
If you notice in the media too, all of the articles that tell you how to: Lose Weight, Get A Better Job, How To Manage Your Money And Avoid Scams, etc. are all written from a victim's perspective. Constantly reinforcing the idea, the fear, that the world is overwhelming and we better step it up and learn from the experts. Even the values adopted by the so called outlaws like Barry - jaywalking, stealing movies, railing about cults, are all pathetic and impotent moves within the social slavery they supposedly confront. The only way to true freedom is through self awareness. The world is as you are. Live unbounded awareness - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: It's like when I read FFL and see all these long-term TMers so focused on their health problems and their healers and talking about them non-stop and I have to think, WTF? *These* are people who claim that TM produces 'perfect health?' Well, when I read about people who need a fuckin' seminar to figure out what it is to be a man or a woman I have a similar reaction. I liked Robert Bly as a poet, but his whole Man thang just left me completely cold and struck me as whining back when I first heard about it, decades ago -- a bunch of men sitting around a campfire pounding drums to get over their Daddy issues. The whole concept *still* strikes me as ludicrous. I agree that a lot of the rituals that some of these groups use are nothing more than mood-making rituals rather than the actual experience that enables individuals to get past whatever issues they have. However, after reading some works of Robert Bly and viewing my own experiences in life combined with what I experienced at the Sterling Men's weekend, I do agree that some education or view of problems with boys/men in America needs to be pointed out. But the process of dealing with whatever boundaries someone has towards becoming a mature adult is too personal for group practice to accomodate, IMHO. WHO, ferchrissakes, needs to be told by some seminar leader *making money from it* how to be a man or a woman, and what that entails? The very *concept* is IMO designed for those who have been trained over the years to pay for *everything* associated with self discovery or fulfillment. That was another reason myself and another member of the whole 'Sterling' institute left. We saw a real Ponzi scheme going on. We pay $500 to go there for a weekend, then we work tirelessly at recruiting more people to go there. We put forth all the effort, and someone else is making all the money. Damn that's clever! Or maybe it's not clever; they're just doing what people always do. But on the other hand, I still maintain the stance that what is taught at that weekend is necessary for 'some' young men these days. And I wouldn't say it's all 'daddy' issues, or overcoming emotional pain from upbringing (although that comes up). It's a bit more of a clear look at what a mature self-sufficent man should be, and a reality check at how much we (or at least some men) really suck at it these days. But i've met a lot of men that simply DON'T need that experience or to have these problems pointed out. Yet for some reason the stance of Sterling Institute is that you should relentlessly try to recruit everyone. It's literally worse than being a Christian Evangelist. These are seminars offered by someone *promoting* duality, and making their money from the idea that men and women are so fundamentally different that they can't communicate without external help. As the bumper sticker says so well, Men are from Earth, women are from Earth...get over it. That reminds me of a conversation I had with someone when I was at the 'weekend'. There was a lot of talk regarding differences between men and women. There was also the implication that men were simply NOT capable of certain things, which myself and the other guy disagreed with. But at the same time, America has moved into a rather strange social era where becoming a mature and self-sufficient man is not only decreasing among our populace, but it is often discouraged. I don't think there is any way we can deny this, but you can offer a different POV if you like. The whole point of some of these seminars is to address this disturbing issue. They are effective to some extent, albeit they end up going astray very quickly and get caught up in a lot of bullshit that I think is manufactured and effective for only a small percentage of participants. In the end, my conclusion is that there is something critical missing from boys and young men's lives that is preventing them from becoming a man. At least there is 'something' out there trying to address it. The
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
turquoiseb: These are seminars offered by someone *promoting* duality, and making their money from the idea that men and women are so fundamentally different that they can't communicate without external help. Thanks for this information, but you used to love paying for seminars and paying to go on TTCs and CPs with Rama - what happened? Are you still paying to keep that Rama site up? Go figure. Excerpt: Interviewer: Why did you decide to write a book? Uncle Tantra: I had nothing better to do that day. http://www.ramalila.com/ Uncle Tantra: Sasquatch takes pictures of him. He ran a marathon because it was on his way. He can share insider jokes to with total strangers. He is the most interesting man on the planet! As the bumper sticker says so well, Men are from Earth, women are from Earth...get over it. P.S. Actually neither men nor women are from Earth, since we're all made out of stardust, everything on the planet is from somewhere else in the universe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I can sum up BW's secret in two words, Robin: Control freak. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Robin Carlsen: Here is BW's secret... So, it's all about Barry. Uncle Tantra (UT) is suffering from acute Narcissism. Because he dropped-out of both TM and Rama's program he needs to rewrite history and trash religious groups that he once belonged to. Yet at the same time he needs to show-off to current followers and write spiritual essays of the same teachers he trashes in private. By engaging in this neurotic contradiction any personal failures are covered-up by UT's dual positions. Uncle Tantra's ego can instead present to others the image he clings to: a great writer, an advanced spiritual seeker that has gone into Samadhi, and the hip 60's Jungian wise-old man persona that he so pathetically attempts to cultivate in his ramblings and even through his name 'Uncle Tantra'... Read more: Subject: Trashing Rama - An analysis Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Author: Garuda Date: Wed, May 7 2003 3:39 pm http://tinyurl.com/2edw8k
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@ wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ? Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted during the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I fall quickly to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 4 and 5 am. Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep nights, I get up at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my body won't really sleep beyond 7 am. Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally hard-wired morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality of life. For me obviously it's both :-) Getting up at 5AM is a true blessing. Last time in Paris I hit the streets at 5.30 every day just when the cafees had their only hourly break for cleening. For natural reasons the Turq never experienced this, but the cafe life from 6AM is unique, those that stay open that is. Since they don't have the cleening hour at the same time you'll have plenty cafees open with regulars coming in for morning coffee and those who stayed up all night partying or just flirting sitting side by side giving you an interesting view of the different lives. And the light obviously has a completely different and more glorious quality than later in the day, no matter where you are on the globe. And if you travel with a woman who likes to sleep late, viola !, you have several hours by yourself free to do as you please and free from shopping !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Wow, Ethel*, you really know Fred well. Figures, you're married to him... *Murtz, from the I Love Lucy show. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Just pushing your buttons, Turq. Looks like it worked! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether. However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better. The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof. All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: I am guessing that this is carry over from the Mens movement thing from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess I could look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry now--and may I say this? I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively. I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver. So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me much. Right from the beginning. That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get my revenge here. I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given evidence of simple projection. A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about Barry. I never thought you would have the guts to stand up for Barry. And that I could sneakily deceive all FFL readers into believing what I knew, right from the start, was pure resentment and pique. What is marvellous is the impression I get that your post, it cannot be faulted. Magic. But I am glad you were moved by the profound sense of what you deemed the critical implications for yourself, about leaving my BW post unanswered. Your pride exceeds my love of what is true. Our standoff here, it makes me sense the justification of death (assuming as I do it will deal with this controversy-among other things). No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis. (But you will understand the psychological need I had to respond like this.) Subjective ex cathedra. Oh, and by the way: everything I said about Barry Wright is true, and your post underscores this. Kidding. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis. Only you, right? I know the drill. Anyhoo I am working on a premise that we are all working in a more similar than different way here. We have different styles of expressing it. You are gunna be more rope a dope with some people, Jim and Judy more aggressive. But basically we have each sized each other up and there will be very little openness between certain people, no matter how it appears at first. I am trying to go post by post mirroring the openness or hostility. It does not work with Judy, has worked a bit with Jim in the past. It has actually worked best with Richard who I have shifted my view about, knowing full well that he may let me have it in the next post. Ravi too actually, and certainly Ann and Buck who vacillate in how they relate to me. I am trying to let every post stand on its own without giving the highest weight to the history. With my strong views about the value of the spiritual path I am always gunna get some version of disapproval from many poster here from time to time, and I can accept that and even still like them, while believing they are wrong. Most of them just blow me off unless we are on a non spiritual topic and I understand that. I little of me on that topic goes a long way. I have never gotten back to a trusting sincere space with you. It's funny, I was looking at some old posts from our beginning run and there was a comment you made that at the time I think I took completely the wrong way. You were saying that the one thing I must never do is question your enlightenment in the past. I realized now that I thought you were being snarky and self-effacing, making a joke about insisting that I take that seriously, you know wink, wink, nudge, nudge style. I thought it meant that you were beyond taking that part of your life seriously. In retrospect I suspect a lot of our initial rapport was based on this kind of misread. And perhaps the same for you. Maybe you read my denouncing spirituality as more tongue in cheek than I meant it. Perhaps when you found out I really don't believe in enlightenment in the way you do it was a shock too. You know I wasn't punching you with my analysis of your take on Barry. I wasn't even denying that it was true for you. My point was that your subjective take was not more than that. And there are other perceptual positions that might also be valid for that person. None of us is seeing the other clearly, we all have our choices of interaction embedded in our history of communications here. I wasn't just sticking up for Barry, that is irrelevant. I was sharing my perspective which was different from yours. We are both entitled to our own views, we earned them. I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry now--and may I say this? I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively. I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver. So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me much. Right from the beginning. That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get my revenge here. I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given evidence of simple projection. A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about Barry. I never thought you would have the guts to stand up for Barry. And that I could sneakily deceive all FFL readers into believing what I knew, right from the start, was pure resentment and pique. What is marvellous is the impression I get that your post, it cannot be faulted. Magic. But I am glad you were moved by the profound sense of what you deemed the critical implications for yourself, about leaving my BW post unanswered. Your pride exceeds my love of what is true. Our standoff here, it makes me sense the justification of death (assuming as I do it will deal with this controversy-among other things). No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis. (But you will understand the psychological need I had to respond like this.) Subjective ex cathedra. Oh, and by the way: everything I said about Barry Wright is true, and your post underscores this. Kidding. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows are the innocent
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
If Barry approves of this, I do. You must realize, though, Curtis, that not all of us can aspire to such saintly disinterestedness and impartiality as you do (as evidenced in this post). You attempted one approach; now you proffer another one. We are all different; we each have our own personal and unavoidable (and uncorrectable) point of view. I can't help but being prejudiced and biased against Barry; he, the same vis-a-vis me. We are all doing our very best. Why not recognize that these issues can never been adjudicated objectively, decisively? I get it now. I was fighting for something unwinnable. And I am sorry. Now, that is; after reading this second mood post. If Barry will pretend to like me, I promise I will not try to strike back at him. How did those women ever resist you, Curtis? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis. Only you, right? I know the drill. Anyhoo I am working on a premise that we are all working in a more similar than different way here. We have different styles of expressing it. You are gunna be more rope a dope with some people, Jim and Judy more aggressive. But basically we have each sized each other up and there will be very little openness between certain people, no matter how it appears at first. I am trying to go post by post mirroring the openness or hostility. It does not work with Judy, has worked a bit with Jim in the past. It has actually worked best with Richard who I have shifted my view about, knowing full well that he may let me have it in the next post. Ravi too actually, and certainly Ann and Buck who vacillate in how they relate to me. I am trying to let every post stand on its own without giving the highest weight to the history. With my strong views about the value of the spiritual path I am always gunna get some version of disapproval from many poster here from time to time, and I can accept that and even still like them, while believing they are wrong. Most of them just blow me off unless we are on a non spiritual topic and I understand that. I little of me on that topic goes a long way. I have never gotten back to a trusting sincere space with you. It's funny, I was looking at some old posts from our beginning run and there was a comment you made that at the time I think I took completely the wrong way. You were saying that the one thing I must never do is question your enlightenment in the past. I realized now that I thought you were being snarky and self-effacing, making a joke about insisting that I take that seriously, you know wink, wink, nudge, nudge style. I thought it meant that you were beyond taking that part of your life seriously. In retrospect I suspect a lot of our initial rapport was based on this kind of misread. And perhaps the same for you. Maybe you read my denouncing spirituality as more tongue in cheek than I meant it. Perhaps when you found out I really don't believe in enlightenment in the way you do it was a shock too. You know I wasn't punching you with my analysis of your take on Barry. I wasn't even denying that it was true for you. My point was that your subjective take was not more than that. And there are other perceptual positions that might also be valid for that person. None of us is seeing the other clearly, we all have our choices of interaction embedded in our history of communications here. I wasn't just sticking up for Barry, that is irrelevant. I was sharing my perspective which was different from yours. We are both entitled to our own views, we earned them. I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry now--and may I say this? I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively. I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver. So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me much. Right from the beginning. That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get my revenge here. I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given evidence of simple projection. A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about Barry. I never thought you would have
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? You can lurk but you can never leave --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole Message View crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-) Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same old, same old. The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this. Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there. It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to remain inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he has been posting only to himself. As if this were the case, since he has removed himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the experience of the reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to reality and what abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter about which he is writing. BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or scornful or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting to challenge what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a real intention inside the other person, is the extent to which that intention--and the writing of a counter-post--will end up in empty space--No one is there. BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Ah, I like that. With God, not one with God. Very Christian. And yea, too, for the self that is better than the Self, because who can match any one of us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is boringly the same yesterday, today, and forever! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Wow. Some guys get mean when their fag hag is away. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole Message View crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-) Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same old, same old. The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Ah, I like that. With God, not one with God. Very Christian. And yea, too, for the self that is better than the Self, because who can match any one of us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is boringly the same yesterday, today, and forever! Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole Message View crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-) Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same old, same old. The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Exactly. That Augustine certainly knew a thing or two. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Ah, I like that. With God, not one with God. Very Christian. And yea, too, for the self that is better than the Self, because who can match any one of us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is boringly the same yesterday, today, and forever! Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Richard, you made a funny! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams richard@... wrote: Sasquatch takes pictures of him. He ran a marathon because it was on his way. He can share insider jokes to with total strangers. He is the most interesting man on the planet!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Wow. Some guys get mean when their fag hag is away. Take a moment. Be still. Have a look. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole Message View crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-) Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same old, same old. The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole Message View crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-) Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same old, same old. The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Ethel, one last thing -- given my unspoken desire that you get over yourself, I thought it unfair to not let you in on your utter cluelessness, regarding your earlier assumptions, so I have addressed them below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole Message View crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-) Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same old, same old. The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others. If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to deal with Robin. He is so far out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is unknown or possible that to actually interact on even the most superficial level with Robin would require something Barry simply does not possess or refuses to acknowledge. It is kind of like asking a seal to run the 100m dash in 10 seconds on dry land. Not possible. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. This excuse of respect is not about that at all. That is a convenient but erroneous description of what is really going on. It isn't about what Barry feels about the other person it is what the other person makes Barry feel about himself and THAT is what Barry dislikes. When he is made to feel inadequate he will point his finger at the other person and claim they are to blame; they are too boring or stupid or dogmatic. He will never take responsibility for himself and the reasons he feels the way he does. It will always be about the other guy. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. Exactly. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. Yes, I will give you that. Barry IS predictable. Ridiculously so. This is a man who lives in a world that is bound and known and very limited. He can only venture so far with a person - new acquaintance or old. When he hits the property line, where the boundaries end, he stops dead. And those boundaries are those determined by his own limitations of self. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. I don't think so Curtis. Many people have pretty good ideas of how Barry functions but Robin's today took the proverbial cake; it was far and away the most sophisticated reading of the man and one that you might have a chance of comprehending but Barry never will for, if he could, it would disprove what Robin wrote and what I have just said. Not that we said or are saying the same thing. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. You can't generalize like this. I, for one, am always open to reading someone's post for what new tone or attitude might emerge. I have ideas about what people are like here but I am happy to be surprised and welcome that surprise when it occurs. I am as open to Barry as I am to anyone here and have commented positively about some of his posts. You simply can not clump everyone here as operating from the same origin of perception. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. But you never do differ.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Yes, a suitable temperament is critical, Alex. As you know, consistent with its support of TSA's Homeland Security, Maharishi's World Government has created the Department of Lowhand Security (DLS), for which you would be both an inspiration, and a perfect fit. Well, I am feeling these men are way too confrontational with this. I am going to go over to the Mother Divine Church on the Fairfield square and sing inclusive devotional spiritual songs instead at the same time. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti, -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Those crafty drag kings can do a great job with hair and clothes, but there's no way a strap-on will ever sneak past my thorough inspection. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Well, like most conservative Fairfield meditators I am proly way too effeminate for these guys to be able to go to this meeting. Besides I can only do one cult at a time. Though I do hope someone will take some notes for the whole community to read. I understand that our FFL moderator here is going to be there checking 'equipment' at the door. -Buck in the Dome FW: From: ednoyes@ To: Subject: Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:15:37 -0500 Men, As you may be aware, our fellow warrior, L.B. Shriver is facing a serious health issue. He has agreed to meet with the Men next Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 7:30 at the Phoenix Rising Hall, (previously First Christian Church, 207 W. Burlington). Enter at Northwest entrance. The evening is called The Life and Times of L.B. Shriver. Please come prepared to give your Love and fond memories to each other and Mr. Shriver. This is a Men Only event. Please r.s.v.p.. However, even late arrivals are welcome. Anyone with love in their heart, and the requisite anatomy is welcome. INVITE all men you feel would want to be there! The legendary drum will be used to inaugurate the event (drummers needed). Bring Legacy and Power objects. Looking forward to a wonderful and eventful evening. Coordinators, Ed Noyes and Jonas Magram. Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in the larger FF community that managed getting it video recorded.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Does any one know LB's Tel # I would like to talk to him as an old supporting friend now in Buffalo NY have missed our talks when he I were in FF IA. He was the 1 who 1 St opened my eyes to the movement being like as Ashram or rather the MIU being such. I am deeply indebted to him 4 such read all his news prints they are of quality germain today 4 the most part. In a message dated 3/22/2013 10:12:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com writes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in the larger FF community that managed getting it video recorded. 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
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,..to WLeed3
Go to whitepages.com, type in LB Shriver beside name, and Fairfield, IA beside city/state, and you'll have it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote: Does any one know LB's Tel # I would like to talk to him as an old supporting friend now in Buffalo NY have missed our talks when he I were in FF IA. He was the 1 who 1 St opened my eyes to the movement being like as Ashram or rather the MIU being such. I am deeply indebted to him 4 such read all his news prints they are of quality germain today 4 the most part. In a message dated 3/22/2013 10:12:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhamiltony2k5@... writes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's] lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people. I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend. Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in the larger FF community that managed getting it video recorded. 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
