Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 In a message dated 5/7/2006 7:10:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, illusyn writes: Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to be ignored. But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my view. LE: It seems that the most compassionate thing to do is to join in the fun Your definition of fun perhaps, but not mine! and throw feces along with everyone else, otherwise the group will hate youfor being arrogant, superior, and a snob. Ignoring will be seen as self-centered, egotistical, and unacceptable. Oh dear! Well Larry, I don't give up on people easily. But there comes a time for a good long cooling off period. And am just talking about a couple of people that really aren't into genuine dialog (my assessment, which is the one that I go by). And when I *was* engaging with those particular parties I was siphoning off much more deserved attention from the significant number of other members. And since those particular parties that I have chosen to ignore have such a *very low* esteem of me anyhow, let them think what they will! Heaven knows I couldn't care less as to what they think. Also Larry, perhaps you haven't noticed, but almost no one pays much attention to those individuals I have chosen to ignore. So I think of it as me being the slow one in the group, and only finally catching up. Bill L.E: Well Bill, it's a very small party with very few attending and if you and some others are not interested in what I write and think, it seem rather irrelevant. I didn't join this group to be liked or approved of but as it has turned out, it has been a valuable format to explore my own previously unsaid, and unwritten ideas. So I thank you and others for at least being like a wall and just being in place to bounce a ball on. I have established a huge body of written material that will be useful to me and perhaps others, and there are, I remind you, many many others. So to speak. Now back to this comment: " Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to be ignored. But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my view. " How does the writer know anything about fece-throwing monkeys? And anything about ignoring them? And he is welcome to consider that ignoring an angry, emotionally upset monkey is compassionate, but I disagree. This statement reminds me of the religious authorities that used to burn people alive to save their souls. I think it is more compassionate to try to connect or communicate with the monkey and find out what is the problem. If you find this idea offensive or worth ignoring and if others agree, fine, do that, but remember that groups of people in their agreement with each other have done some horrible things to others in the midst of their self-righteousness. Take the Jew-hating of medieval Europe for example. It is true that I often find " the dialogue' uninteresting and irrelevant, so I create my own dialogue and provide both questions and answers. So What? That's my choice. Are you going to talk about what is " appropriate " for this group? And push your definitions on me? Now and then there are new people who enter this arena and they don't share your preferences and prejudices, although most of them experience a sample of the 'dialogue' and quickly leave and never return, like Claudia from Brazil. Perhaps there is a certain self-centeredness and inflexibility in the conversations that others find boring as I do. Let's continue with the monkeys. Now perhaps the writer, was referring to humans and not monkeys, and was suggesting ignoring people that are insulting and negative or otherwise annoying and irritation, like perhaps you find me. So the suggestion is to ignore that person. I'd like to remind you of Bob Nixon who was obsessed with throwing his obscene feces at me on a continuing and repeated basis. Did anyone speak up and try to stop him, or criticize his behavior or did group members ignore the feces he threw? No! They the group, you as group, encouraged him or watched from the sidelines as his viscous attacks continued. Were you amused? Entertained? So if this group encouraged and accepted his crap, and doesn't like what I write, hmmmmm, maybe many enjoy eating feces while Bob threw them and then all of you enter into discredit in my opinion. So I am not very concerned what you and others think about me as a person, and if my ideas don't appeal to you, big deal. You can write against my ideas if you disagree, or not, as you prefer. As far as dialogue, that is my choice. I am interested in Nisargardatta, and that is why I am on this list, not you or Phil or Len etc. I read and think about what he said which seems much more significant than much of what you or Bob Nixon have to say. So if you see yourself as sort of a leader whom others follow, then be who you want to be as you always do. Ignore me if you want to. There are some people that I just pass bye and will not read. It's a simple choice. Make it. Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 5/7/2006 7:10:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > illusyn writes: > > Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to be ignored. > But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my view. > > LE: It seems that the most compassionate thing to do is to join in the fun > > Your definition of fun perhaps, but not mine! > > and throw feces along with everyone else, otherwise the group will hate > youfor being arrogant, superior, and a snob. Ignoring will be seen as > self-centered, egotistical, and unacceptable. > > Oh dear! > > Well Larry, I don't give up on people easily. But there comes a time for a > good long cooling off period. And am just talking about a couple of people that > really > aren't into genuine dialog (my assessment, which is the > one that I go by). > > And when I *was* engaging with those particular parties I was siphoning off > much more deserved attention from the significant number of other members. > And since those particular parties that I have chosen to ignore have such a > *very low* esteem of me anyhow, let them think what they will! Heaven knows I > couldn't care less as to what they think. > > Also Larry, perhaps you haven't noticed, but almost no one pays much > attention to those individuals I have chosen to ignore. So I think of it as me being > the slow one > in the group, and only finally catching up. > > Bill > > > L.E: Well Bill, it's a very small party with very few attending and if you > and some others are not interested in what I write and think, it seem rather > irrelevant. I didn't join this group to be liked or approved of but as it has > turned out, it has been a valuable format to explore my own previously unsaid, > and unwritten ideas. So I thank you and others for at least being like a wall > and just being in place to bounce a ball on. I have established a huge body > of written material that will be useful to me and perhaps others, and there > are, I remind you, many many others. So to speak. > > Now back to this comment: " Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to > be ignored. But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my > view. " > How does the writer know anything about fece-throwing monkeys? And anything > about ignoring them? And he is welcome to consider that ignoring an angry, > emotionally upset monkey is compassionate, but I disagree. This statement > reminds me of the religious authorities that used to burn people alive to save > their souls. I think it is more compassionate to try to connect or communicate > with the monkey and find out what is the problem. If you find this idea > offensive or worth ignoring and if others agree, fine, do that, but remember that > groups of people in their agreement with each other have done some horrible > things to others in the midst of their self-righteousness. Take the Jew-hating of > medieval Europe for example. > It is true that I often find " the dialogue' uninteresting and irrelevant, so > I create my own dialogue and provide both questions and answers. So What? > That's my choice. > Are you going to talk about what is " appropriate " for this group? And push > your definitions on me? > Now and then there are new people who enter this arena and they don't share > your preferences and prejudices, although most of them experience a sample of > the 'dialogue' and quickly leave and never return, like Claudia from Brazil. > Perhaps there is a certain self-centeredness and inflexibility in the > conversations that others find boring as I do. > Let's continue with the monkeys. Now perhaps the writer, was referring to > humans and not monkeys, and was suggesting ignoring people that are insulting and > negative or otherwise annoying and irritation, like perhaps you find me. So > the suggestion is to ignore that person. > I'd like to remind you of Bob Nixon who was obsessed with throwing his > obscene feces at me on a continuing and repeated basis. Did anyone speak up and try > to stop him, or criticize his behavior or did group members ignore the feces > he threw? > No! They the group, you as group, encouraged him or watched from the > sidelines as his viscous attacks continued. Were you amused? Entertained? > So if this group encouraged and accepted his crap, and doesn't like what I > write, hmmmmm, maybe many enjoy eating feces while Bob threw them and then all > of you enter into discredit in my opinion. So I am not very concerned what > you and others think about me as a person, and if my ideas don't appeal to you, > big deal. > You can write against my ideas if you disagree, or not, as you prefer. As > far as dialogue, that is my choice. I am interested in Nisargardatta, and that > is why I am on this list, not you or Phil or Len etc. I read and think about > what he said which seems much more significant than much of what you or Bob > Nixon have to say. > So if you see yourself as sort of a leader whom others follow, then be who > you want to be as you always do. Ignore me if you want to. There are some > people that I just pass bye and will not read. It's a simple choice. Make it. > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com Beautiful. .....bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 5/7/2006 7:10:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > illusyn writes: > > Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to be ignored. > But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my view. > > LE: It seems that the most compassionate thing to do is to join in the fun > > Your definition of fun perhaps, but not mine! > > and throw feces along with everyone else, otherwise the group will hate > youfor being arrogant, superior, and a snob. Ignoring will be seen as > self-centered, egotistical, and unacceptable. > > Oh dear! > > Well Larry, I don't give up on people easily. But there comes a time for a > good long cooling off period. And am just talking about a couple of people that > really > aren't into genuine dialog (my assessment, which is the > one that I go by). > > And when I *was* engaging with those particular parties I was siphoning off > much more deserved attention from the significant number of other members. > And since those particular parties that I have chosen to ignore have such a > *very low* esteem of me anyhow, let them think what they will! Heaven knows I > couldn't care less as to what they think. > > Also Larry, perhaps you haven't noticed, but almost no one pays much > attention to those individuals I have chosen to ignore. So I think of it as me being > the slow one > in the group, and only finally catching up. > > Bill > > > L.E: Well Bill, it's a very small party with very few attending and if you > and some others are not interested in what I write and think, it seem rather > irrelevant. I didn't join this group to be liked or approved of but as it has > turned out, it has been a valuable format to explore my own previously unsaid, > and unwritten ideas. errr, uhhh... Larry. I was not talking about you! Which I should think you would know. Didn't I tell you recently how I had been especially enjoying some of your posts? And if you have been spuming spiteful foment in my direction, then I must have missed it. So I really wonder how you managed to go off on this particular take. Peace brother. Is OK! Bill > So I thank you and others for at least being like a wall > and just being in place to bounce a ball on. I have established a huge body > of written material that will be useful to me and perhaps others, and there > are, I remind you, many many others. So to speak. > > Now back to this comment: " Nothing a feces-throwing monkey hates more than to > be ignored. But ignoring them is the most compassionate response, in my > view. " > How does the writer know anything about fece-throwing monkeys? And anything > about ignoring them? And he is welcome to consider that ignoring an angry, > emotionally upset monkey is compassionate, but I disagree. This statement > reminds me of the religious authorities that used to burn people alive to save > their souls. I think it is more compassionate to try to connect or communicate > with the monkey and find out what is the problem. If you find this idea > offensive or worth ignoring and if others agree, fine, do that, but remember that > groups of people in their agreement with each other have done some horrible > things to others in the midst of their self-righteousness. Take the Jew-hating of > medieval Europe for example. > It is true that I often find " the dialogue' uninteresting and irrelevant, so > I create my own dialogue and provide both questions and answers. So What? > That's my choice. > Are you going to talk about what is " appropriate " for this group? And push > your definitions on me? > Now and then there are new people who enter this arena and they don't share > your preferences and prejudices, although most of them experience a sample of > the 'dialogue' and quickly leave and never return, like Claudia from Brazil. > Perhaps there is a certain self-centeredness and inflexibility in the > conversations that others find boring as I do. > Let's continue with the monkeys. Now perhaps the writer, was referring to > humans and not monkeys, and was suggesting ignoring people that are insulting and > negative or otherwise annoying and irritation, like perhaps you find me. So > the suggestion is to ignore that person. > I'd like to remind you of Bob Nixon who was obsessed with throwing his > obscene feces at me on a continuing and repeated basis. Did anyone speak up and try > to stop him, or criticize his behavior or did group members ignore the feces > he threw? > No! They the group, you as group, encouraged him or watched from the > sidelines as his viscous attacks continued. Were you amused? Entertained? > So if this group encouraged and accepted his crap, and doesn't like what I > write, hmmmmm, maybe many enjoy eating feces while Bob threw them and then all > of you enter into discredit in my opinion. So I am not very concerned what > you and others think about me as a person, and if my ideas don't appeal to you, > big deal. > You can write against my ideas if you disagree, or not, as you prefer. As > far as dialogue, that is my choice. I am interested in Nisargardatta, and that > is why I am on this list, not you or Phil or Len etc. I read and think about > what he said which seems much more significant than much of what you or Bob > Nixon have to say. > So if you see yourself as sort of a leader whom others follow, then be who > you want to be as you always do. Ignore me if you want to. There are some > people that I just pass bye and will not read. It's a simple choice. Make it. > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.