Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00329)

> On 12/29/99, ""JRC" <jrc@texas.net>" wrote:
>
> > Starting was also your decision.
>
>   All things I do are my decision. (Wait, make that most.) But where
was it
> said     I was addressing *you* I didnt see *your* name at all. Gee
whiz,
> all this from   my little ole post to Alan?

Ok, then I'll use your sweet little tactic:

Alan ... she really is descending as far into pettiness as its possible
to go.

>   Through all those little exchanges with Kym you were in continual
> denial...       But I just know you don't want me recapping all those.
Or
> do you?

Again here, she throws around the big "denial" word ... apparently
clueless that simply because people don't pay attention to what she
thinks they should, or adopt there point of view, they are in denial.

> > And this, I presume, is your version of "stopping"?
>   No, I think it's my version of a slow news day.

So when I respond its because I need the last word, but when she starts
things up again, its not.

> > As your tactic is to come to conclusions about people's characters
based
> > on virtually no knowledge of them at all, save the way they deal
with
> > you at a particular moment, in a communications medium that hardly
shows
> > anything other than a mere fraction of who people are ... telling
people
> > "its your issue", and "you're in denial" ... and the entire world
full
> > of pop psychology buzzwords ... builds walls as high as any on
earth.
>
>   Even the one in China, oh Guru?

Interesting that she, profound psychologist that she is, ignores the
entire point of this and takes a cheap little shot.

> > If you are just playing around, taking a few random little shots at
me,
> > then yes - I'll hold up a mirror. Quite intentionally. Tell me, what
> > *should* have I done, in your view? Just agreed with you? Said
nothing?
> > You brought up no topics ... only came out of the blue and responded
> > (for some reason) to a series of post from a couple of weeks ago (I
> > could barely remember what it was even about) ...
>
>   You're great with the selective memory.  Barely remember!  Hardly.

Of course I did barely remember - and had to go back and read posts from
a couple of weeks ago. But her self-importance apparently assumes that
everything she says is seared into memory, and of course I'm just
pretending to have forgotten (though I can't fathom for what reason I'd
pretend to do).

> > with the assumption that you were being refered to in one of my
posts (when >   you weren't) ...
>
>   Ditto.    Gee, thought I was writing to Alan.

Alan, I wonder whether she'll respond to this directly, or "through you"
... since apparently that's the level of games going on here.

> > and the nice little sentiment that I was wrong, and that this was
> > something for me to deal with.
>
>   Where did I tell this invisible "you" that you were wrong?

Of course if she actually bothers to read her own posts, she'll easily
discover the answer.

> > We
> > all are perfectly free to frame things however we want choose, and
to
> > address whatever issues we each see to be relevent. You haven't
> > addressed any of *my* issues either. But I won't accuse you of
sexism.
>
>   Ditto

Apparently I misinterpreted the sentiment that I won't address what she
considers to be the "issue" with her because she is a woman as implying
sexism. It would be very interesting to know exactly what *was* meant by
such a thing.

> > Er, care to read the post that *started* the last exchange?
>
>   Er, I love it when you *Er* it's getting to be a real trademark.

Another lovely sidestep of a major point.

> > And this post of yours, then, is your way "finding common ground"?
>
>   I admit there is but a very faint possibility of the two of us
finding
> common
>   ground, but never say never.

Again rather ignoring the point ... that she can launch a nasty post in
which she accuses me of being nasty. I love it.

>   Because you have the gall?  Puhleeze, if this was jump-started
again, it
> is       for your very inability not to have the last word.  In fact,
I
> double dare you       not to respond to this post.  Dare ya, dare ya.
I do
> so rarely get to indulge   my inner child, I thank you so much!

Oh this is precious! And expected. She writes a nasty post about me ...
a day or two after an exchange had ended ... and because *I* answered
it, *I've* "jump-started it" again ... thus showing my inability to get
in the last word. "Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black."

Terribly sorry, but if she is going to blast away at me ... and on top
of that it will be *me* that is at fault for not permitting her to have
*both* the first word *and* the last word - then I fear she isn't going
to have fun with me much longer.

>   Truthfully, I don't rightly know what the "real issue" is.  One
issue is
>     that I don't understand why you couldn't have apologized to Kym
wait
> back         when for all your rudeness.  It wouldn't have taken that
> much.

Oh I really love this one. I stand accused of evading some issue - and
when I ask what exactly the issue is so I might cease to evade it ...
the accuser can't seem to come up with it. All she can come up with as
an an issue I'm "evading" is her judgement that I was rude, and that she
couldn't understand why I wouldn't behave as she thought I should have -
given my rudeness. Again this wonderful inability to grasp a world
outside of her own beliefs and opinions about how people ought to act.
And of course will think that if I actually don't care a fig whether I
measure up to her standards, and don't think *her judgements* are *my
issues*, then I must obviously be in "denial".

>   Ahhhhhhh, his memory mysteriously comes back.  And in such detail
too.
>             Hynotism, perhaps? But no- what you wanted to put forth
was my
> "utter       childishness" in even bringing up the"golden rule," which
> neither one of us       seems to be following at the moment anyway. So
a
> lot of good that did.

Wonderful, this accusation that I was for some reason pretending to
forget something. Wonder if she's ever heard of the "Sent Messages"
folder?

>   Ha!  Scintillating psychological analysis!   Sorry- I get *such* a
kick
> from
>   that!

Wow. Cool. Wonder if she get's as much of a kick out of her own?

>   Ditto.  And that is likely not to change since it is apparent that
we
> very          much rub each other the wrong way.

Goodness ... I've formed no actual judgements of her at all ... I will
play these delightful little games, but certainly aren't "rubbed" in any
way, good or bad. As you well know, Alan (as another long time list
member) this discussion list is infinitely permeable. Its quite common
for one to be involved in deep and intense arguments with another on a
particular topic, and three or four months later to be the staunchest
supporter of that same person on another issue. Be kinda sad if she
actually formed completely solid opinions about everyone after but a
month or two of the most superficial conversations, and thought these
would probably remain permanent. Ah well, it'll be her loss if this is
the case.

> > introduce a couple of different subjects for discussion ... having
to do
> > with experiments that are part of a day to day expression of the 3rd
> > Theosophical Object, and only Chuck (who also pursues such things)
> > responded. You didn't -
>
>   No, I didn't.  And you should be quite happy, as I recall you saying
you
>    considered *new learners* IDIOTS.  I'm so happy I didn't ruin it
for
> you.

And here I thought I she had recently accused *me* of "paraphrasing what
people said, and then throwing it back in their faces". Of course my
sentiments about "new learners" came from an entirely different context
... after several people on this list had taken somewhat significant
time to try to answer some fellow's questions, only to find him both
refusing to read anything they suggested, and demanding that they answer
him on his terms, in his vocabulary ... and I pointed out that in
virtually no field would people who had spent years studying a subject
react well to such an attitude - that if someone completely new to any
field started demanding answers the way he was doing, from people who
had no particular reason other than their own goodwill to take time out
from thier own studies, at the same time as refusing to even try to
discourse in the vocabulary of the field, that they'd be considered an
idiot. Thought I was simply stating a fairly evident reality of most of
the academic world of arts and letters. Hadn't realized this was
controversial ... or that it would be held up as yet another example of
my apparently enormously flawed character.

> > Guess what? If you had responded to my post about experiments
involving
> > angels, we'd now be talking about angels. But you didn't ...
>
>   Mea culpa, idiot that I am.

Weirdly enough, I've actually now put several people through a rather
intense training so as to be able to run experiments concerning the
interactions between the human, angelic, and plant kingdoms, and am
involved in a couple of current projects initiated by the angelic
kingdom itself. Fortunately there are at least a few beings on this ol'
earth that don't exactly share her opinion of me.

> > perhaps you'd care to read an article I wrote a couple of years
> > ago, and that Alan posted on his website. One of these days you may
> > actually realize that you've jumped rather too quickly to some
> > conclusions ...

>   Made it a point to do so.  Actually, it does not sound like the you
*I*
> have seen.  Something must have happened to you and you're
> working out your issues
>   here.

Of course if she, attempting to resolve the fact that an article I wrote
at least hints I may be way different than the conclusions she's so
hastily come to, chooses to resolve this conflict within her own
subjective world as "he's working out his issues" ... well, I'll
wholeheartedly support her valiant efforts to harmonize her internal
cognitive dissonance. 'Course neither her original assumptions, nor her
means of adjusting them, have much to do with me as an actual human
being seperate from her internal pictures ... but who cares?

>See how easy it is to turn things around?  Reminds me of a book I
> saw
>   once "A Thousand ways to lie with a piechart."  Oh, my.

I take from this that she actually thinks she "got me" with that one.
That she's cleverly "turned things around". Oh my indeed.

>   Alan is right, though.  We should stop, it is non-Theosphical, and
> probably     very boring to everyone else.

Problem of course is that I think its thoroughly Thesosophical ... and
am quite used to a list in which most people ignore most posts ... they
read the ones they're interested in and simply delete the rest. But I
don't have to tell you that Alan, (-:). -JRC