Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
First time I fasted was when working in Spruce Pines, NC, working for the team of TM governors who were teaching sidhi prep courses - did a five day fast while working in the kitchen (like a fool) - I got so goddamn hungry I finally broke the fast by eating half a pint of goat milk ice cream. On Tue, 1/7/14, Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 7, 2014, 6:03 AM The guy quit on day 16...eating pizza tonight on TV.miffed that he only got one pizza sent to him -- asks for more to be sent. On day 16 of a fast, an inexperienced person might be hallucinating to some degree -- maybe God came to him and said, Oy! Could you lay off with the hating? What do your parents think of this? Have some pizza, and here wash it down with some bread sticks, extra sauce and some potato knishesI put a bit of cheese in each one...you'll likesitlet me get you some soda..
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Ann, it's an interesting topic: what constitutes initiating violence against another? With this wording I'm excluding violence that a person uses to defend themselves or their loved ones. So again, what constitutes initiating violence or harm against another? Does it encompass only physical harm? Can psychological harm be included? I think as people deal with cyberbullying, these kind of issues will receive more attention. What also comes to mind is the whole issue of secondary cigarette smoke. Many places outlaw that now. Maybe because there's proof that it harms others physically. Same with loud noises, for example, around hospitals often there's a law against loud noises. Ann, I think your ideas about this are very compassionate and evolved. I also think it opens up the possibility of abuse and censorship. I doubt that everyone will agree on what constitutes initiating violence against another that does not include actual physical harm. But I think as humans evolve, we'll find some way to treat people compassionately and deal with their wrong doing in a way that protects society while treating the wrong doer justly but humanely. On Monday, January 6, 2014 8:19 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: But, the thing is, in his fight to protest and in turn his hope to have gay marriages banned or made unlawful heis doing a kind of violence. The form his violence is taking is to judge and ultimately condemn the validity and the power of love and the desire to commit, in the form of marriage, between two human beings of the same gender. The nature of his protest is not killing or maiming people but the end result would be to deny a percentage of the adult population the opportunity to show and enact their devotion to one another in the form of marriage, something heterosexuals get to do all the time. This is, in my view, a twisted sort of injustice and therefore as bad as physical violence or terrorism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
On 1/6/2014 9:20 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: When most people fight for a cause, they harm other people. Simply not true that when most people fight for a cause, they harm other people. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan based on the opinion of our congressional leaders. For the past ten years the U.S., under the direction of the President, has been administered based on his opinion. There's probably not a day that goes by that the U.S. does not kill someone based on the opinions of our President and our leaders. Most people in this country, at least, don't believe their strong opinions give them the right to do violence to others. We have targeted assassinations and drone strikes everywhere in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and we are fighting for a cause. Thousands of people on both sides get harmed everyday when people fight for their opinions.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, it's an interesting topic: what constitutes initiating violence against another? With this wording I'm excluding violence that a person uses to defend themselves or their loved ones. So again, what constitutes initiating violence or harm against another? Does it encompass only physical harm? Can psychological harm be included? I think as people deal with cyberbullying, these kind of issues will receive more attention. Absolutely violence includes non physical violence. To inhibit, limit or outright deny certain rights to a percentage of the population based on gender is to imprison them in some way. It is to curtail the freedom of them to enjoy the same things that others get to embrace, whether we are talking about same sex marriage or about some other group or ethnicity denied something else. I believe it to be a form of violence because this denial of freedoms is based on the idea that those who should be denied are somehow lesser or more sinful or less worthy or downright inferior and when that happens it is accompanied by negativity and often hate. Negativity and hate are violent things and only action that is violating in some way can result from such feelings. I have taken this subject away from the original discussion and question of hunger strikers and the sacredness of life, however. To return to that briefly, I find it interesting that the term sacred is actually related to religion, at least in the definitions I looked up when thinking about this. I am not religious and so I can not say that I believe life to be sacred in that way. However, life is an opportunity and if you believe in God, as I do, then I also believe that life is a means to experience, grow, evolve, come to know God more fully. So, in that way it is a treasure, a gift, a thing beyond price and certainly not something to be squandered or abused. Hunger strikes? I still say they are a sort of blackmail but at the same time they are an indication of how strongly someone feels about something but ultimately they are also a sort of publicity stunt. What also comes to mind is the whole issue of secondary cigarette smoke. Many places outlaw that now. Maybe because there's proof that it harms others physically. Same with loud noises, for example, around hospitals often there's a law against loud noises. Ann, I think your ideas about this are very compassionate and evolved. I also think it opens up the possibility of abuse and censorship. I doubt that everyone will agree on what constitutes initiating violence against another that does not include actual physical harm. But I think as humans evolve, we'll find some way to treat people compassionately and deal with their wrong doing in a way that protects society while treating the wrong doer justly but humanely. On Monday, January 6, 2014 8:19 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: But, the thing is, in his fight to protest and in turn his hope to have gay marriages banned or made unlawful he is doing a kind of violence. The form his violence is taking is to judge and ultimately condemn the validity and the power of love and the desire to commit, in the form of marriage, between two human beings of the same gender. The nature of his protest is not killing or maiming people but the end result would be to deny a percentage of the adult population the opportunity to show and enact their devotion to one another in the form of marriage, something heterosexuals get to do all the time. This is, in my view, a twisted sort of injustice and therefore as bad as physical violence or terrorism.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've won. It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a Block mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've won. It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a Block mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Yup, Barry has chosen his next favourite haunt, Facebook, to continue to put Robin down. Remarking on subjects he just makes shit up about. LIke he is some resident expert, using an unrelated to site to badmouth a guy he never met and making his usual blather up about. Go ahead and hide it Bawwy; one thing you can't hide is what a sneaky little libelous liar you are. Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've won. It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a Block mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. Now here's a true indication of how this guy feels about women. When it all comes down to it, when you boil it all away, this is what lies at the 'heart' of the guy. Real attractive, ain't it? I daresay there isn't another man on this forum who would find themselves saying something like this towards the other women here. It is always Barry who brings out this term which, incidentally, he thinks there is nothing wrong with, there is only something wrong with the people who take offense to the use of the word cunt who are at fault. He wrote a couple of dissertations on this a while back. Amazing, I know. And it is not about the word, it is about the extreme hostility and the intention that lies behind the use of it that alarms me. It's the kind of response that causes me to question if Barry has ever taken his fist or a baseball bat to a woman. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Ann, he does this sort of thing deliberately - his MO. I read a book once that mentioned about chronological age, vs. emotional age. Barry is very immature for his age. He continues to act as a child, yet because of what he has done in his many years, and the development of his intellect, he socializes with other adults, and they think he is one, also. But, he isn't - He is just a little post-pubescent child, who is probably stuck at about age 14, even though he masquerades as much older. Once you recognize this contradiction, between his bodily age, and his emotional age, his behavior is nothing to get riled up over, or much notice. Unfortunately, he is not unique is this respect, though this man-child syndrome shows up readily on a forum like this. I hope you are enjoying the New Year - I am getting ready to take my land yacht into some wilderness and gettin' jiggy wit' it! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've won. It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a Block mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. Now here's a true indication of how this guy feels about women. When it all comes down to it, when you boil it all away, this is what lies at the 'heart' of the guy. Real attractive, ain't it? I daresay there isn't another man on this forum who would find themselves saying something like this towards the other women here. It is always Barry who brings out this term which, incidentally, he thinks there is nothing wrong with, there is only something wrong with the people who take offense to the use of the word cunt who are at fault. He wrote a couple of dissertations on this a while back. Amazing, I know. And it is not about the word, it is about the extreme hostility and the intention that lies behind the use of it that alarms me. It's the kind of response that causes me to question if Barry has ever taken his fist or a baseball bat to a woman. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Oh, good grief, what a load of utter crap. None of it is even halfway accurate or fair. It's just Barry fantasizing again, demonizing his critics while pretending that he pays no attention to them. Four specific points: First, like Feste and Stevie, Barry doesn't dare acknowledge that this discussion began with wayback (Susan) disagreeing with Share's opinion that the hunger striker was admirable. Obviously Barry would agree with Susan's contention that he wasn't. And I was defending Susan's point, which is horrendously embarrassing to the knee-jerk pro-Share faction here, because Susan is, in their view, one of the Good Guys. Second, the notion that Share has kicked anybody's ass in any dispute here is laughable. Barry, Stevie, and Feste know perfectly well it's Share's ass that has been kicked countless times. That's why Barry is trying to get her to stop engaging with those who disagree with her. Third, although Barry would very much like you to believe it's I who is stalking him on another forum, that's not the case. But that's why he doesn't name whoever's doing it. (Also please note that we have no trouble at all getting a rise out of Barry. This current post is an example. It isn't aimed at Feste or Stevie or even Share, it's aimed at us.) Fourth, Barry's version of what ultimately happened between Robin and Curtis is topsy-turvy, upside-down, and inside-out. In fact, Robin left Curtis floundering so badly that he had to try to save face, after Robin left, by telling the most amazing compendium of lies about Robin (and Ann and me). Not long after that, Curtis left because I took those lies apart one by one, and Curtis simply had no face left. Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've won. It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a Block mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Ann, he does this sort of thing deliberately - his MO. I read a book once that mentioned about chronological age, vs. emotional age. Barry is very immature for his age. He continues to act as a child, yet because of what he has done in his many years, and the development of his intellect, he socializes with other adults, and they think he is one, also. But, he isn't - He is just a little post-pubescent child, who is probably stuck at about age 14, even though he masquerades as much older. Once you recognize this contradiction, between his bodily age, and his emotional age, his behavior is nothing to get riled up over, or much notice. Unfortunately, he is not unique is this respect, though this man-child syndrome shows up readily on a forum like this. Doc, when Bawwy reads what you write he's gotta feel like the loser shmuck he is. How could he not? To compare the depth of intelligence and good sense and culture that you possess is such a stark contrast to his pea-sized heart and mind and emotions it's gotta make him feel small. Thanks so much for your post. Now have a great ol' time careening that yacht around the countryside and may you finally come to rest where you can hear the screech of an eagle and savour the view of an orange blaze of a sunrise peeking over some ragged mountain. I hope you are enjoying the New Year - I am getting ready to take my land yacht into some wilderness and gettin' jiggy wit' it! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've won. It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a Block mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. Now here's a true indication of how this guy feels about women. When it all comes down to it, when you boil it all away, this is what lies at the 'heart' of the guy. Real attractive, ain't it? I daresay there isn't another man on this forum who would find themselves saying something like this towards the other women here. It is always Barry who brings out this term which, incidentally, he thinks there is nothing wrong with, there is only something wrong with the people who take offense to the use of the word cunt who are at fault. He wrote a couple of dissertations on this a while back. Amazing, I know. And it is not about the word, it is about the extreme hostility and the intention that lies behind the use of it that alarms me. It's the kind of response that causes me to question if Barry has ever taken his fist or a baseball bat to a woman. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Barry has taken his anti-Robin jihad over to Facebook?? Unbelievable. He can't get away with that here, because there are too many people who know the facts. On Facebook, he can simply block anyone who knows what the real story is. What a coward. Yup, Barry has chosen his next favourite haunt, Facebook, to continue to put Robin down. Remarking on subjects he just makes shit up about. LIke he is some resident expert, using an unrelated to site to badmouth a guy he never met and making his usual blather up about. Go ahead and hide it Bawwy; one thing you can't hide is what a sneaky little libelous liar you are.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Really, this is so revealing of Barry's integrity and character (or rather, lack of same). It's impossible even to imagine Robin doing something like that to Barry, or to anybody, for that matter. It's also brilliantly confirmatory of everything I've said here about how threatened Barry was--and obviously still is!--by Robin. Barry has taken his anti-Robin jihad over to Facebook?? Unbelievable. He can't get away with that here, because there are too many people who know the facts. On Facebook, he can simply block anyone who knows what the real story is. What a coward. Yup, Barry has chosen his next favourite haunt, Facebook, to continue to put Robin down. Remarking on subjects he just makes shit up about. LIke he is some resident expert, using an unrelated to site to badmouth a guy he never met and making his usual blather up about. Go ahead and hide it Bawwy; one thing you can't hide is what a sneaky little libelous liar you are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: I'll comment on this because...uh, frankly...I set these two up to get their panties in a twist and run around acting like cultists, and they did, so I might as well gloat a little and rub it in. :-) :-) :-) What happened was this. A former FFL member with whom I have remained friends -- who is a *practicing Psychologist*, by the way -- posted a couple of contradictory letters recently. The first was by the daughter of one of the principals in the real-life version of the events portrayed in The Wolf Of Wall Street movie. She was rather upset that the movie seemed to glorify the asshole who perpetrated identity fraud on her, dumped her and her mother, and was eventually convicted of his crimes and did a stretch in prison because of it. She seemed to feel that these two sleazebags (Jordan Belfort and her father Tom Prousalis) were not exactly the kind of role models Hollywood should be making movies about. Her father didn't like this much, and wrote back a long -- and from the Psychologist's point of view, sociopathic and manipulative letter, in which he basically ran the ultimate Narcissistic Personality Disorder routine, denying any wrongdoing on his part, trying to put the blame on everyone else (anyone else), and basically ranting like a madman. My entire comment after reading it, characterized by Ann as continuing to put Robin down, badmouthing a guy he never met, being a libelous liar, and by Judy (without even having read it -- anyone remember her review of a Mel Gibson film she never saw?) as an anti-Robin jihad consisted of six words, He reminds me of Robin C. I wrote this *to* a friend, and furthermore to one who I suspected probably shared my views of Robin C. That was it. That was all that it took for Ann to come roaring in to defend her former (and, it would seem, still current) cult leader. I had just finished asking her not to keep writing to me on FFL, and here she was only a couple of days later acting like a Class A Cultist stalking me to Facebook. The only other comments were from the Psychologist, who basically agreed with me that the comparison was interesting, adding especially with his postings on Ffld Life completely dismissing his previous guru behavior. My followup -- and the end of the exchange -- was Exactly, name of friend. That was it. Eight words. That's what Ann and Judy are characterizing as an anti-Robin jihad. Can you SAY cultists? I think you can. This is *exactly* the same behavior we see when someone on FFL says something negative about some sleazeball spiritual teacher and suddenly his or her disciples descend on the place trying to demonize whoever said it and defend the sleazeball. We've seen it happen dozens of times. What's the difference when these two get their panties so twisted over a casual exchange between friends about the similarity in both writing and mindset between the arguably insane rantings of a sleazeball criminal and the equally arguably insane rantings of a former minor (very minor) cult leader that nobody sane cares about anyway? Seems to me that Ann and Judy are very *much* cultists where Robin is concerned. That's all. Now I'll just sit back and let them rant and scream and say that their panties are *not* in a twist, and then try to explain in dozens of posts defending Robin how they're *not* his cult followers. Those on this forum who read what they write will probably find it most amusing. You can thank me later. :-) :-) :-) 1. Well, for a guy who doesn't read my posts you have been proven to lie about that. 2. The last time I looked FB is available to anyone who wants to sign on. Just because some comment comes up on my newsfeed that you made about a guy who you purportedly don't have the time of day for is hardly stalking. But if you'd like to characterize my having seen your libelous comment as stalking you go right ahead (along with your other copious fantasies about myself. Think about me much, Bawwy? Just keep your hands out of your panties when you do so, alright?) 3. Funny that you feel it necessary to block me from seeing any future comments you feel so inclined to make on FB. Frankly, I see more than enough of your comments over here, I have no desire to read any other shit you choose to write anywhere else. Just this time, I caught you bad mouthing someone you don't know about something you know nothing about. Stick to things you do know, like how to spell C-U-N-T. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, two cunts wrote: Barry has taken his anti-Robin jihad over to Facebook?? Unbelievable. He can't get away with that here, because there are too many people who know the facts. On Facebook, he can simply block anyone who knows what the real story is. What a coward. Yup, Barry has chosen his next favourite haunt, Facebook, to continue to put Robin down. Remarking on
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
turq, I don't agree with you that I'm dragging the forum down because I have mostly ignored the taunts. I've been engaging in what for me was an interesting discussion about several topics. I was surprised by my initial reaction to what you posted and for the most part I've been enjoying unpacking that reaction. On Monday, January 6, 2014 8:08 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: Steve and Feste, I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Share to participate, no matter how badly she kicks the Mean Girls' asses. You *know* how the MGC pack thinks -- if they can taunt one of their hate-objects into replying to them, period, then they believe they've won. It's the same game that their cult leader used to play, and that all narcissists play. It took Curtis to shut *him* up, by simply refusing to reply to the taunts. Heck, one of the MGC even has taken to stalking me lately on another forum, since she can't get a rise out of me here. Fortunately, however, that forum has a Block mechanism, so now hopefully she can't even *see* what I write, much less comment on it. Life is good. :-) Share, I know that to some extent you think this is all fun for you, but you really ARE contributing to dragging this forum down into the gutter by continuing to respond to these bitches' taunts. Why not just ignore them, and thus force them to demonstrate that -- other than stalking the people they don't like and trying to put them down -- they have *nothing else to say*. You do. You'd look better -- even to your supporters here -- if you just focused on doing that, and left these cunts to play with themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@ wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is the threat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is thethreat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
turq, as I said to Ann, I've found it difficult to really know someone's complete self without knowing them in person. I don't think that's an idiotic realization. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Barry wrote: Her father didn't like this much, and wrote back a long -- and from the Psychologist's point of view, sociopathic and manipulative letter, in which he basically ran the ultimate Narcissistic Personality Disorder routine, denying any wrongdoing on his part, trying to put the blame on everyone else (anyone else), and basically ranting like a madman. Which is, of course, about as different from Robin--who repeatedly took the blame for his actions as a cult leader and denounced himself for them--as possibly could be. The level of mendacity is astonishing.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
You don't need to know someone's complete self to draw certain conclusions about them, Share, and it's idiotic to think you do. BTW, here's what this very courageous person has said about gay people on his Facebook page: “The homosexual movement is less tolerant than the Nazis and if they had the power of the Nazis, I have no doubt they would not hesitate to march people of faith into ovens. Nice, huh? He's a hater and a crackpot. We don't need to know his complete self to realize that. turq, as I said to Ann, I've found it difficult to really know someone's complete self without knowing them in person. I don't think that's an idiotic realization. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Thanks for passing it along, Judy. This makes me think way less of him. On Monday, January 6, 2014 1:22 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: You don't need to know someone's complete self to draw certain conclusions about them, Share, and it's idiotic to think you do. BTW, here's what this very courageous person has said about gay people on his Facebook page: “The homosexual movement is less tolerant than the Nazis and if they had the power of the Nazis, I have no doubt they would not hesitate to march people of faith into ovens. Nice, huh? He's a hater and a crackpot. We don't need to know his complete self to realize that. turq, as I said to Ann, I've found it difficult to really know someone's complete self without knowing them in person. I don't think that's an idiotic realization. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: turq, as I said to Ann, I've found it difficult to really know someone's complete self without knowing them in person. I don't think that's an idiotic realization. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. But don't you see how he is holding others responsible if he were to take his own life by starving to death? He is essentially saying, It is up to you to stop me not eating. Until you choose to do what I am demanding or pay attention to me, I will continue to not eat. In that sense he is putting the onus on those who can or will knuckle under to his demands and if they don't and he dies ultimately he would prove they caused his death, which is absurd. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. Share, with all due respect, don't be an idiot. He has no intention of starving himself to death, and never did. He's just a Bigot With A Cause, taking advantage of the media to get some free publicity for his bigotry. As I've said several times, I for one would be happy if he *did* do the Darwin Awards thang and remove himself from the gene pool, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Pretending that it might is just being a party to the spreading of his hatred.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Re IMO emotional blackmail occurs only when there is a personal relationship between the people involved.: You opinion is false. Hunger strikes whip up a lot of emotion! Re In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action?: That's an interesting case. In the UK it is recognised that women were given the vote in recognition of their essential war work in WWI which changed public opinion in their favour (which had been less-impressed by hunger strikes). (The US case is a more complex and drawn-out business.) I did say hunger strikes may be justified in cases were free speech is outlawed. It's arguable that not having voting rights is a comparable situation. This anti-gay marriage protest doesn't qualify.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I think he probably knew he had an out. And looks like he just got it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I guess you could look at it both ways. But it would seem to me that he is putting the onus on someone in this case. I think it is a nice distinction Ann is making in either fighting for a cause, or being willing to die, if something isn't changed in a manner you want to see it changed. For my money, if someone wants to die for a cause, as in starving them self, then more power to them. But more often than not, it never seems to go the distance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is the threat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Seraph, I don't think opinions themselves can be true or false though they can be based on true or false conclusions. And I still think emotional blackmail is an interaction that occurs on the personal rather than societal level. On Monday, January 6, 2014 5:30 PM, s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com wrote: Re IMO emotional blackmail occurs only when there is a personal relationship between the people involved.: You opinion is false. Hunger strikes whip up a lot of emotion! Re In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action?: That's an interesting case. In the UK it is recognised that women were given the vote in recognition of their essential war work in WWI which changed public opinion in their favour (which had been less-impressed by hunger strikes). (The US case is a more complex and drawn-out business.) I did say hunger strikes may be justified in cases were free speech is outlawed. It's arguable that not having voting rights is a comparable situation. This anti-gay marriage protest doesn't qualify.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Steve, what I had been admiring about the guy was his lack of violence against others in the presence of his own strong opinions. Meaning, he isn't bombing abortion clinics or flying airplanes into buildings or bullying gays online. When most people fight for a cause, they harm other people. This guy is not doing that. That's what I admired about him before Judy shared what was on his web page. On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:20 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: I guess you could look at it both ways. But it would seem to me that heis putting the onus on someone in this case. I think it is a nice distinction Ann is making in either fighting for a cause, or being willing to die, if something isn't changed in a manner you want to see it changed. For my money, if someone wants to die for a cause, as in starving them self, then more power to them. But more often than not, it never seems to go the distance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is thethreat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
But, the thing is, in his fight to protest and in turn his hope to have gay marriages banned or made unlawful he is doing a kind of violence. The form his violence is taking is to judge and ultimately condemn the validity and the power of love and the desire to commit, in the form of marriage, between two human beings of the same gender. The nature of his protest is not killing or maiming people but the end result would be to deny a percentage of the adult population the opportunity to show and enact their devotion to one another in the form of marriage, something heterosexuals get to do all the time. This is, in my view, a twisted sort of injustice and therefore as bad as physical violence or terrorism.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Now wait a second. What you are saying has nothing to do with whether he is fasting or not, at least as I understand it. And forget for a moment his other comments, as they seem to have no bearing on what you are saying above. It seems that you are rendering a pretty harsh judgement simply because he happens to be against gay marriage. I mean, there are probably a lot of good people who are against gay marriage, and I am not sure I would lay that kind of trip on them. On the other hand, maybe this issue just carries that much weight for you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Simply not true that when most people fight for a cause, they harm other people. When it does happen, it's the exception, not the rule, not by a very long shot indeed. Most people in this country, at least, don't believe their strong opinions give them the right to do violence to others. It's not a whole lot to ask that a person not bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings to advance their cause, so the fact that he's not doing that doesn't do him a great deal of credit and hardly provides a reason to admire him. Steve, what I had been admiring about the guy was his lack of violence against others in the presence of his own strong opinions. Meaning, he isn't bombing abortion clinics or flying airplanes into buildings or bullying gays online. When most people fight for a cause, they harm other people. This guy is not doing that. That's what I admired about him before Judy shared what was on his web page. On Monday, January 6, 2014 6:20 PM, steve.sundur@... steve.sundur@... wrote: I guess you could look at it both ways. But it would seem to me that he is putting the onus on someone in this case. I think it is a nice distinction Ann is making in either fighting for a cause, or being willing to die, if something isn't changed in a manner you want to see it changed. For my money, if someone wants to die for a cause, as in starving them self, then more power to them. But more often than not, it never seems to go the distance. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, I don't think that guy is putting an onus on anyone. He seems like a very courageous person to me, taking responsibility for his own beliefs, as wrong as I think they are. But I could be incorrect, as I've found it's difficult to really know people's complete selves without knowing them in person. On Monday, January 6, 2014 11:14 AM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Seraphita, I support gay marriage and I don't feel emotionally blackmailed by the guy who's starving himself to death to protest it. IMO emotional blackmail occurs when there is a personal relationship between the people involved. To some degree, I agree with you. Emotional blackmail is the threat of something, like saying you will commit suicide or, in this case, starve yourself to death if someone doesn't comply with some demand you are making, or change something that you want changed. It is a sort of brinkmanship in the worst sense of the word but I can't say I would go so far as Seraphita in saying they should be allowed to die. I don't think it is that simple and I actually believe some causes are worth dying for, but not necessarily in that way. Because to threaten to kill oneself if something doesn't change in the way the threatener wants, is to put the onus on the one who doesn't change this thing. To die fighting for a cause is different; one consciously undertakes some action, without putting any onus or responsibility on others if one were to die, in order to uphold a principal or belief one feels strongly about. Presumably if they die upholding it they are not going to blame anyone else for their choice to have put their life on the line. In the US suffragettes jailed for their beliefs went on hunger strikes and were force fed as a result. Would you say you support such action? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 6:09 PM, s3raphita@... s3raphita@... wrote: People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: good one Judy You could make a macro for that too Steve!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Now wait a second. What you are saying has nothing to do with whether he is fasting or not, at least as I understand it. And forget for a moment his other comments, as they seem to have no bearing on what you are saying above. It seems that you are rendering a pretty harsh judgement simply because he happens to be against gay marriage. I mean, there are probably a lot of good people who are against gay marriage, and I am not sure I would lay that kind of trip on them. On the other hand, maybe this issue just carries that much weight for you. I am saying, Steve, that this guy feels strongly enough about wanting to make some sort of statement about how he feels about gay marriage by fasting. Now, the fasting in and of itself is not violent but he is looking for some sort of outcome as a result of his fasting. He is trying to hold hostage in some way others who might be able to change things to suit his homophobic stance. And what I am ascertaining here is that the outcome he is hoping for is an enacting or upholding of a ban on gay marriages and this, to me, is a sort of violence against those who simply want the right granted and respected of being able to show their devotion and love to another of their gender in the form of a union called marriage. To take a stance to deny others this fundamental right of same sex marriage is a violation and violations relate to violence in my book.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
uh, that might better be a micro!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
I see, A rather extreme stance IMO, but we all have our hot button issues, I guess.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
The guy quit on day 16...eating pizza tonight on TV.miffed that he only got one pizza sent to him -- asks for more to be sent. On day 16 of a fast, an inexperienced person might be hallucinating to some degree -- maybe God came to him and said, Oy! Could you lay off with the hating? What do your parents think of this? Have some pizza, and here wash it down with some bread sticks, extra sauce and some potato knishesI put a bit of cheese in each one...you'll likesitlet me get you some soda..
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: I think that *everyone* who feels that gay marriage is wrong should do exactly what this Utah man is doing, and go on hunger fasts to the death to stand up for their beliefs. This would actually solve much of the problem, and leave the world a better place without them. Oh my, oh my. That Bawwy is certainly a simplistic kind of fellow. How simple, how uncomplicated, how convenient it would be if all those who we disagreed with simply died. Just imagine, no need to grow or absorb or become adaptable and understanding as a human being. Yessiree, just die all you bastards and bitches out there who don't think the way I do! http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
People who starve themselves to make a political point should be ignored and allowed to die. I detest people who use emotional blackmail to get their points across. We were given the gift of rationality so let's use it. Give me reasons why Position X is preferable to Position Y and I'll either agree with you or offer counter-arguments. The only possible situation in which the threat of self-starvation is (maybe) justified is one in which the state doesn't allow people free expression of their views. That doesn't apply in the UK or USA.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Is that worse than being a lying jackass, auth, because that's what you were calling me a couple of weeks ago. I know that following your failure to get the better of Share, who is far too nimble for you ever to lay a glove on, you need to find someone to beat up. Be my guest, if it makes you happy. As nimble as you think Sharon might be and as much as I don't care about checkmate and two steps away and winning and as much as I believe Sharon was trying her best to stay on the road I really would have to say that bumble would be more the word here, Feste. Calling Sharon nimble is like describing yourself as objectively distanced. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Translation: I really don't approve of the dude's hunger strike, but I can't possibly express an opinion contrary to Share's, or I'd look very, very silly. Like Stevie, Feste, your worst flaw is your moral cowardice. Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating in the discussion. Let's see, now: Do you admire the guy who's starving himself to death to protest same-sex marriage? (Regardless of whether you agree with his position--is this a good way to achieve his goal?) Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates losing. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Oh, yesss! Barry. the girl's a super freak! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT65GFEMQ2s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT65GFEMQ2s ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: I think that *everyone* who feels that gay marriage is wrong should do exactly what this Utah man is doing, and go on hunger fasts to the death to stand up for their beliefs. This would actually solve much of the problem, and leave the world a better place without them. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
Yes. Barry I think we can arrange something? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Oh, yesss! Barry. the girl's a super freak! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT65GFEMQ2s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT65GFEMQ2s ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: I think that *everyone* who feels that gay marriage is wrong should do exactly what this Utah man is doing, and go on hunger fasts to the death to stand up for their beliefs. This would actually solve much of the problem, and leave the world a better place without them. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-strike_n_4540369.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Finally, an anti-gay marriage protest I like
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u wrote: Yes. Barry I think we can arrange something? Good to hear. The more of these thought-dinosaurs who remove themselves from the collective gene pool by practicing the Darwin Awards Hunger Fast technique, the better off the human race will be. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: I think that *everyone* who feels that gay marriage is wrong should do exactly what this Utah man is doing, and go on hunger fasts to the death to stand up for their beliefs. This would actually solve much of the problem, and leave the world a better place without them. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-st\ rike_n_4540369.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/04/trestin-meacham-gay-hunger-s\ trike_n_4540369.html
