RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
Are you thinking of yourself as the beautiful, young girl who was saved from drowning by the old monk? And of Barry as that monk? Just trying to understand how I've reminded you of this story that we've all heard so often, because I can't quite see the connection. I mean, neither of the monks said anything about the beautiful, young girl being stupid (at least not in the standard version of the story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: LOL, Judy, Judy, Judy, you remind me of the story of 2 brahmacharyas who came to a river and saw a beautiful, young girl drowning there. The older of the monks jumped in and carried her to the opposite shore. Then he and the young monk continued their journey. A little later the young monk got upset with the old monk for breaking their vows by touching a woman. The old monk wisely noted that he had left her at the river. But the young monk, who had not touched her at all, was still carrying her. Flow on, Judy, flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:02 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share is so fortunate to have a defender like Barry, isn't she? An Open Message To Share turquoiseb Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:51:44 -0700 SHUT THE FUCK UP We get it that you don't care how unintelligent you come across, and that you're trying to single-handedly prove the contention of anti-TM critics that TMers are blissninnies without a brain cell in their thick skulls who will believe anything if they're told its Woo Woo enough. But do you have to be such a codependent, attention-seeking masochist about it? Not only have you been making yourself the object of pursuit of your Jr. High School-mentality tormentors, you've been doing it *purposefully*. For fuck's sake, STOP. You're even more boring than they are as they chase you endlessly like a dog chases a ball. The mean girls trying to get you are an embarrassment to the notion of humans having compassion, but you're an embarrassment to the notion of humans having intelligence. They're doing this because they have no choice; they're the dogs in this scenario: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002189_1015\ 1783564220211_2025423059_n.jpg] You're doing it because you're not terribly smart, or interesting, and you crave attention anyway. And you don't fucking care whether you drag a whole forum down to your level of idiocy to get it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Emily, it is and has been a pleasure for me to read posts from just about all the men on FFL The posts of the MGC? Not so much. Silly me!. Men! Listen up. You are providing a necessary community service when you 'stimulate' Share with your attention and ideas. Keep up the good work. Mean Girls need not apply. Mean Girls need not apply for membership in the human race. They don't qualify. Are all the girls here mean BTW? The only ones we can be fairly certain fall into the Mean Girls category are the ones who have been piling on to Share ever since one of them got called on being a faux feminist. That would be Judy, Ann, and Emily. This behavior is about as *anti-feminist* as it gets. Personally I think Share should just write all three of them off as if they don't exist, but she compassionately still interacts with them, as she does with the other attention troll, Willytex. Waste 'o fuckin' time, if you ask me, but so be it, and better her than me.
Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
Well, Judy I'm not young and I think I'm cute rather than beautiful. And I'm a pretty good swimmer. You remind me of the young monk who's still holding on to an event that's long passed. Flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:37 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Are you thinking of yourself as the beautiful, young girl who was saved from drowning by the old monk? And of Barry as that monk? Just trying to understand how I've reminded you of this story that we've all heard so often, because I can't quite see the connection. I mean, neither of the monks said anything about the beautiful, young girl being stupid (at least not in the standard version of the story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: LOL, Judy, Judy, Judy, you remind me of the story of 2 brahmacharyas who came to a river and saw a beautiful, young girl drowning there. The older of the monks jumped in and carried her to the opposite shore. Then he and the young monk continued their journey. A little later the young monk got upset with the old monk for breaking their vows by touching a woman. The old monk wisely noted that he had left her at the river. But the young monk, who had not touched her at all, was still carrying her. Flow on, Judy, flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:02 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share is so fortunate to have a defender like Barry, isn't she? An Open Message To Share turquoiseb Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:51:44 -0700 SHUT THE FUCK UP We get it that you don't care how unintelligent you come across, and that you're trying to single-handedly prove the contention of anti-TM critics that TMers are blissninnies without a brain cell in their thick skulls who will believe anything if they're told its Woo Woo enough. But do you have to be such a codependent, attention-seeking masochist about it? Not only have you been making yourself the object of pursuit of your Jr. High School-mentality tormentors, you've been doing it *purposefully*. For fuck's sake, STOP. You're even more boring than they are as they chase you endlessly like a dog chases a ball. The mean girls trying to get you are an embarrassment to the notion of humans having compassion, but you're an embarrassment to the notion of humans having intelligence. They're doing this because they have no choice; they're the dogs in this scenario: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002189_1015\ 1783564220211_2025423059_n.jpg] You're doing it because you're not terribly smart, or interesting, and you crave attention anyway. And you don't fucking care whether you drag a whole forum down to your level of idiocy to get it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Emily, it is and has been a pleasure for me to read posts from just about all the men on FFL The posts of the MGC? Not so much. Silly me!. Men! Listen up. You are providing a necessary community service when you 'stimulate' Share with your attention and ideas. Keep up the good work. Mean Girls need not apply. Mean Girls need not apply for membership in the human race. They don't qualify. Are all the girls here mean BTW? The only ones we can be fairly certain fall into the Mean Girls category are the ones who have been piling on to Share ever since one of them got called on being a faux feminist. That would be Judy, Ann, and Emily. This behavior is about as *anti-feminist* as it gets. Personally I think Share should just write all three of them off as if they don't exist, but she compassionately still interacts with them, as she does with the other attention troll, Willytex. Waste 'o fuckin' time, if you ask me, but so be it, and better her than me.
RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
So you're saying Barry's SHUT THE FUCK UP post to you from August was positive and that I'm mistaken to think it was negative? Do you think he's changed his mind about you? (BTW, I don't believe in the original version of the story that the beautiful, young girl was drowning. In the original version, she was just standing by the river helplessly, unable to cross. If the old monk had saved her life, it wouldn't have made much sense for the young monk to feel the old monk had done something wrong. Whoever added the drowning bit obviously missed the whole point of the story.) Share persisted nonsensically: Well, Judy I'm not young and I think I'm cute rather than beautiful. And I'm a pretty good swimmer. You remind me of the young monk who's still holding on to an event that's long passed. Flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:37 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Are you thinking of yourself as the beautiful, young girl who was saved from drowning by the old monk? And of Barry as that monk? Just trying to understand how I've reminded you of this story that we've all heard so often, because I can't quite see the connection. I mean, neither of the monks said anything about the beautiful, young girl being stupid (at least not in the standard version of the story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: LOL, Judy, Judy, Judy, you remind me of the story of 2 brahmacharyas who came to a river and saw a beautiful, young girl drowning there. The older of the monks jumped in and carried her to the opposite shore. Then he and the young monk continued their journey. A little later the young monk got upset with the old monk for breaking their vows by touching a woman. The old monk wisely noted that he had left her at the river. But the young monk, who had not touched her at all, was still carrying her. Flow on, Judy, flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:02 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share is so fortunate to have a defender like Barry, isn't she? An Open Message To Share turquoiseb Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:51:44 -0700 SHUT THE FUCK UP We get it that you don't care how unintelligent you come across, and that you're trying to single-handedly prove the contention of anti-TM critics that TMers are blissninnies without a brain cell in their thick skulls who will believe anything if they're told its Woo Woo enough. But do you have to be such a codependent, attention-seeking masochist about it? Not only have you been making yourself the object of pursuit of your Jr. High School-mentality tormentors, you've been doing it *purposefully*. For fuck's sake, STOP. You're even more boring than they are as they chase you endlessly like a dog chases a ball. The mean girls trying to get you are an embarrassment to the notion of humans having compassion, but you're an embarrassment to the notion of humans having intelligence. They're doing this because they have no choice; they're the dogs in this scenario: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002189_1015\ 1783564220211_2025423059_n.jpg] You're doing it because you're not terribly smart, or interesting, and you crave attention anyway. And you don't fucking care whether you drag a whole forum down to your level of idiocy to get it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Emily, it is and has been a pleasure for me to read posts from just about all the men on FFL The posts of the MGC? Not so much. Silly me!. Men! Listen up. You are providing a necessary community service when you 'stimulate' Share with your attention and ideas. Keep up the good work. Mean Girls need not apply. Mean Girls need not apply for membership in the human race. They don't qualify. Are all the girls here mean BTW? The only ones we can be fairly certain fall into the Mean Girls category are the ones who have been piling on to Share ever since one of them got called on being a faux feminist. That would be Judy, Ann, and Emily. This behavior is about as *anti-feminist* as it gets. Personally I think Share should just write all three of them off as if they don't exist, but she compassionately still interacts with them, as she does with the other attention troll, Willytex. Waste 'o fuckin' time, if you ask me, but so be it, and better her than me.
RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Barry wrote: Since we segued into this stream of thought via the issue of feminism, Actually, we didn't; you did, via the post I just commented on. Feminism hadn't had anything to do with the thread until you brought it up. I noticed that. Guess he was just trying to keep the focus on himself. Barry talking about feminism goes hand in hand with Share's nod to John Gray, who I've always considered a chauvinist. As an aside that doesn't relate, I didn't realize until today his connection to Maharishi. (snip) I ask you, which of these guys acted in a manner that indicated more respect for women? The guy who believes that -- being female -- she carries some kind of weird monk cooties that will infect you and lure you off the path, or the guy who just gave her a ride across the river, and then left her on the other side? The young monk (this is a Buddhist tale, BTW, so presumably he's a Buddhist monk) is concerned about the monkish vows never to touch women that he and his companion had taken. How come Buddhism has such a fear of female cooties? (snip) Then again, if the person getting a piggyback ride had been an old woman, this story would probably never have been remarked on, and thus probably never repeated enough times to become the spiritual staple it has. It's the fact that it's a *young* woman that drives the story. How ageist is that? Um, as ageist as your repeated insults about their age to your critics who happen to be older women?
RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
Judy, again, you're not making any sense. Where do you get the idea that I thought turq's post was positive? I simply think it's over and done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So you're saying Barry's SHUT THE FUCK UP post to you from August was positive and that I'm mistaken to think it was negative? Do you think he's changed his mind about you? (BTW, I don't believe in the original version of the story that the beautiful, young girl was drowning. In the original version, she was just standing by the river helplessly, unable to cross. If the old monk had saved her life, it wouldn't have made much sense for the young monk to feel the old monk had done something wrong. Whoever added the drowning bit obviously missed the whole point of the story.) Share persisted nonsensically: Well, Judy I'm not young and I think I'm cute rather than beautiful. And I'm a pretty good swimmer. You remind me of the young monk who's still holding on to an event that's long passed. Flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:37 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Are you thinking of yourself as the beautiful, young girl who was saved from drowning by the old monk? And of Barry as that monk? Just trying to understand how I've reminded you of this story that we've all heard so often, because I can't quite see the connection. I mean, neither of the monks said anything about the beautiful, young girl being stupid (at least not in the standard version of the story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: LOL, Judy, Judy, Judy, you remind me of the story of 2 brahmacharyas who came to a river and saw a beautiful, young girl drowning there. The older of the monks jumped in and carried her to the opposite shore. Then he and the young monk continued their journey. A little later the young monk got upset with the old monk for breaking their vows by touching a woman. The old monk wisely noted that he had left her at the river. But the young monk, who had not touched her at all, was still carrying her. Flow on, Judy, flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:02 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share is so fortunate to have a defender like Barry, isn't she? An Open Message To Share turquoiseb Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:51:44 -0700 SHUT THE FUCK UP We get it that you don't care how unintelligent you come across, and that you're trying to single-handedly prove the contention of anti-TM critics that TMers are blissninnies without a brain cell in their thick skulls who will believe anything if they're told its Woo Woo enough. But do you have to be such a codependent, attention-seeking masochist about it? Not only have you been making yourself the object of pursuit of your Jr. High School-mentality tormentors, you've been doing it *purposefully*. For fuck's sake, STOP. You're even more boring than they are as they chase you endlessly like a dog chases a ball. The mean girls trying to get you are an embarrassment to the notion of humans having compassion, but you're an embarrassment to the notion of humans having intelligence. They're doing this because they have no choice; they're the dogs in this scenario: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002189_1015\ 1783564220211_2025423059_n.jpg] You're doing it because you're not terribly smart, or interesting, and you crave attention anyway. And you don't fucking care whether you drag a whole forum down to your level of idiocy to get it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Emily, it is and has been a pleasure for me to read posts from just about all the men on FFL The posts of the MGC? Not so much. Silly me!. Men! Listen up. You are providing a necessary community service when you 'stimulate' Share with your attention and ideas. Keep up the good work. Mean Girls need not apply. Mean Girls need not apply for membership in the human race. They don't qualify. Are all the girls here mean BTW? The only ones we can be fairly certain fall into the Mean Girls category are the ones who have been piling on to Share ever since one of them got called on being a faux feminist. That would be Judy, Ann, and Emily. This behavior is about as *anti-feminist* as it gets. Personally I think Share should just write all three of them off as if they don't exist, but she compassionately still interacts with them, as she does with the other attention troll, Willytex. Waste 'o fuckin' time, if you ask me, but so be it, and better her than me.
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
Share, if you'll recall, I suggested to you that you should stop saying You aren't making any sense and say instead, I can't make any sense of what you're saying, because that's more accurate. The parallel is actually quite clear if you take a few minutes to think about it: the old monk did the beautiful, young girl a good turn, but the young monk thought what the old monk had done was shameful. Get it now? (And do you understand why the notion that the beautiful, young girl was drowning completely destroys the point of the story? I'll bet you don't.) Share fumfed:: Judy, again, you're not making any sense. Where do you get the idea that I thought turq's post was positive? I simply think it's over and done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So you're saying Barry's SHUT THE FUCK UP post to you from August was positive and that I'm mistaken to think it was negative? Do you think he's changed his mind about you? (BTW, I don't believe in the original version of the story that the beautiful, young girl was drowning. In the original version, she was just standing by the river helplessly, unable to cross. If the old monk had saved her life, it wouldn't have made much sense for the young monk to feel the old monk had done something wrong. Whoever added the drowning bit obviously missed the whole point of the story.) Share persisted nonsensically: Well, Judy I'm not young and I think I'm cute rather than beautiful. And I'm a pretty good swimmer. You remind me of the young monk who's still holding on to an event that's long passed. Flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:37 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Are you thinking of yourself as the beautiful, young girl who was saved from drowning by the old monk? And of Barry as that monk? Just trying to understand how I've reminded you of this story that we've all heard so often, because I can't quite see the connection. I mean, neither of the monks said anything about the beautiful, young girl being stupid (at least not in the standard version of the story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: LOL, Judy, Judy, Judy, you remind me of the story of 2 brahmacharyas who came to a river and saw a beautiful, young girl drowning there. The older of the monks jumped in and carried her to the opposite shore. Then he and the young monk continued their journey. A little later the young monk got upset with the old monk for breaking their vows by touching a woman. The old monk wisely noted that he had left her at the river. But the young monk, who had not touched her at all, was still carrying her. Flow on, Judy, flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:02 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share is so fortunate to have a defender like Barry, isn't she? An Open Message To Share turquoiseb Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:51:44 -0700 SHUT THE FUCK UP We get it that you don't care how unintelligent you come across, and that you're trying to single-handedly prove the contention of anti-TM critics that TMers are blissninnies without a brain cell in their thick skulls who will believe anything if they're told its Woo Woo enough. But do you have to be such a codependent, attention-seeking masochist about it? Not only have you been making yourself the object of pursuit of your Jr. High School-mentality tormentors, you've been doing it *purposefully*. For fuck's sake, STOP. You're even more boring than they are as they chase you endlessly like a dog chases a ball. The mean girls trying to get you are an embarrassment to the notion of humans having compassion, but you're an embarrassment to the notion of humans having intelligence. They're doing this because they have no choice; they're the dogs in this scenario: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002189_1015\ 1783564220211_2025423059_n.jpg] You're doing it because you're not terribly smart, or interesting, and you crave attention anyway. And you don't fucking care whether you drag a whole forum down to your level of idiocy to get it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Emily, it is and has been a pleasure for me to read posts from just about all the men on FFL The posts of the MGC? Not so much. Silly me!. Men! Listen up. You are providing a necessary community service when you 'stimulate' Share with your attention and ideas. Keep up the good work. Mean Girls need not apply. Mean Girls need not apply for membership in the human race. They don't qualify. Are all the girls here mean BTW? The only ones we can be fairly certain fall into the Mean Girls
Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
Judy, in my using that story, turq, or more specifically his post is the beautiful, young, girl. You're the young monk still carrying the past event and I'm the old monk who left it at the river. On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:37 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, if you'll recall, I suggested to you that you should stop saying You aren't making any sense and say instead, I can't make any sense of what you're saying, because that's more accurate. The parallel is actually quite clear if you take a few minutes to think about it: the old monk did the beautiful, young girl a good turn, but the young monk thought what the old monk had done was shameful. Get it now? (And do you understand why the notion that the beautiful, young girl was drowning completely destroys the point of the story? I'll bet you don't.) Share fumfed:: Judy, again, you're not making any sense. Where do you get the idea that I thought turq's post was positive? I simply think it's over and done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So you're saying Barry's SHUT THE FUCK UP post to you from August was positive and that I'm mistaken to think it was negative? Do you think he's changed his mind about you? (BTW, I don't believe in the original version of the story that the beautiful, young girl was drowning. In the original version, she was just standing by the river helplessly, unable to cross. If the old monk had saved her life, it wouldn't have made much sense for the young monk to feel the old monk had done something wrong. Whoever added the drowning bit obviously missed the whole point of the story.) Share persisted nonsensically: Well, Judy I'm not young and I think I'm cute rather than beautiful. And I'm a pretty good swimmer. You remind me of the young monk who's still holding on to an event that's long passed. Flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:37 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Are you thinking of yourself as the beautiful, young girl who was saved from drowning by the old monk? And of Barry as that monk? Just trying to understand how I've reminded you of this story that we've all heard so often, because I can't quite see the connection. I mean, neither of the monks said anything about the beautiful, young girl being stupid (at least not in the standard version of the story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: LOL, Judy, Judy, Judy, you remind me of the story of 2 brahmacharyas who came to a river and saw a beautiful, young girl drowning there. The older of the monks jumped in and carried her to the opposite shore. Then he and the young monk continued their journey. A little later the young monk got upset with the old monk for breaking their vows by touching a woman. The old monk wisely noted that he had left her at the river. But the young monk, who had not touched her at all, was still carrying her. Flow on, Judy, flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:02 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share is so fortunate to have a defender like Barry, isn't she? An Open Message To Share turquoiseb Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:51:44 -0700 SHUT THE FUCK UP We get it that you don't care how unintelligent you come across, and that you're trying to single-handedly prove the contention of anti-TM critics that TMers are blissninnies without a brain cell in their thick skulls who will believe anything if they're told its Woo Woo enough. But do you have to be such a codependent, attention-seeking masochist about it? Not only have you been making yourself the object of pursuit of your Jr. High School-mentality tormentors, you've been doing it *purposefully*. For fuck's sake, STOP. You're even more boring than they are as they chase you endlessly like a dog chases a ball. The mean girls trying to get you are an embarrassment to the notion of humans having compassion, but you're an embarrassment to the notion of humans having intelligence. They're doing this because they have no choice; they're the dogs in this scenario: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002189_1015\ 1783564220211_2025423059_n.jpg] You're doing it because you're not terribly smart, or interesting, and you crave attention anyway. And you don't fucking care whether you drag a whole forum down to your level of idiocy to get it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: Emily, it is and has been a pleasure for me to read posts from just about all the men on FFL The posts of the MGC? Not so much. Silly me!. Men! Listen up. You are providing a necessary community service when you 'stimulate' Share with your attention and ideas. Keep up the good work. Mean Girls need not apply. Mean Girls need not apply for membership in
RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Re: OMG: viveka, vivekin?
So now you're saying you rescued Barry's post from drowning and carried it across the river, and I reprimanded you because you vowed never to touch Barry's posts? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, in my using that story, turq, or more specifically his post is the beautiful, young, girl. You're the young monk still carrying the past event and I'm the old monk who left it at the river. On Friday, November 15, 2013 3:37 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share, if you'll recall, I suggested to you that you should stop saying You aren't making any sense and say instead, I can't make any sense of what you're saying, because that's more accurate. The parallel is actually quite clear if you take a few minutes to think about it: the old monk did the beautiful, young girl a good turn, but the young monk thought what the old monk had done was shameful. Get it now? (And do you understand why the notion that the beautiful, young girl was drowning completely destroys the point of the story? I'll bet you don't.) Share fumfed:: Judy, again, you're not making any sense. Where do you get the idea that I thought turq's post was positive? I simply think it's over and done. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So you're saying Barry's SHUT THE FUCK UP post to you from August was positive and that I'm mistaken to think it was negative? Do you think he's changed his mind about you? (BTW, I don't believe in the original version of the story that the beautiful, young girl was drowning. In the original version, she was just standing by the river helplessly, unable to cross. If the old monk had saved her life, it wouldn't have made much sense for the young monk to feel the old monk had done something wrong. Whoever added the drowning bit obviously missed the whole point of the story.) Share persisted nonsensically: Well, Judy I'm not young and I think I'm cute rather than beautiful. And I'm a pretty good swimmer. You remind me of the young monk who's still holding on to an event that's long passed. Flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:37 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Are you thinking of yourself as the beautiful, young girl who was saved from drowning by the old monk? And of Barry as that monk? Just trying to understand how I've reminded you of this story that we've all heard so often, because I can't quite see the connection. I mean, neither of the monks said anything about the beautiful, young girl being stupid (at least not in the standard version of the story). ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: LOL, Judy, Judy, Judy, you remind me of the story of 2 brahmacharyas who came to a river and saw a beautiful, young girl drowning there. The older of the monks jumped in and carried her to the opposite shore. Then he and the young monk continued their journey. A little later the young monk got upset with the old monk for breaking their vows by touching a woman. The old monk wisely noted that he had left her at the river. But the young monk, who had not touched her at all, was still carrying her. Flow on, Judy, flow on! On Friday, November 15, 2013 10:02 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share is so fortunate to have a defender like Barry, isn't she? An Open Message To Share turquoiseb Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:51:44 -0700 SHUT THE FUCK UP We get it that you don't care how unintelligent you come across, and that you're trying to single-handedly prove the contention of anti-TM critics that TMers are blissninnies without a brain cell in their thick skulls who will believe anything if they're told its Woo Woo enough. But do you have to be such a codependent, attention-seeking masochist about it? Not only have you been making yourself the object of pursuit of your Jr. High School-mentality tormentors, you've been doing it *purposefully*. For fuck's sake, STOP. You're even more boring than they are as they chase you endlessly like a dog chases a ball. The mean girls trying to get you are an embarrassment to the notion of humans having compassion, but you're an embarrassment to the notion of humans having intelligence. They're doing this because they have no choice; they're the dogs in this scenario: [https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1002189_1015\ 1783564220211_2025423059_n.jpg] You're doing it because you're not terribly smart, or interesting, and you crave attention anyway. And you don't fucking care whether you drag a whole forum down to your level of idiocy to get it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote:
