Thanks for the dance / baby?

User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25339
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Postby lizzytysh » Fri May 26, 2006 8:11 pm

Oh, my, Tc... your apparent interpretation of bully goes beyond the pale... as though one walks through the Forum blinded, unable to see your many attempts; your many seizings of opportunities to pounce [that would be you and Laurie] at every chance... to hang in like pit bulls... with your many links for the 'benefit' of others... to provide links to past interactions, for the 'benefit' of newcomers... to do all you can to warn others for their own 'benefit' against me. You just expect to be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, in whatever blatant, covert, or otherwise way you want... and when someone responds 'in kind,' go screaming "bully" like a little girl. Bully deflection/projection [you have plenty of psycho-manuals :wink: ].

You're right, yes, that I as an "other" have a right to comment on something here going on between you and Dem that I'm finding very humourous. Oh, by the way, why don't you explain exactly what you meant by your convoluted and protracted quote.

Ahh. Such an interpretation of "bully," that you must hold that you feel so free to name-call and mud-sling... and then point to me as the bully. To presume my inability to read between your many lines and not see what you relentlessly attempt.

To think I'm soliciting others to gang up on you when you have already been fully engaged for a long, long time. Let's not forget that Laurie is still pouring the wine. I've only not had the chance to properly respond to your gullibility with allegations.

However, I'll take this opportunity to point out one of many lies of yours here:
Well, I don,t think so. But I consider that private lifes of non-celebrities as well is not much of my business than private life of celebrities, this as long as that does not affect my private life, I consider that they don't need my acknowledgment, or my permission to be interested in private life of celebrities if they do. Not my business.

Just an FYI ~ I'm a non-celebrity, and I do not recall seeing you or having any level of business with you in New Orleans, yet you are certainly present in that thread, despite your claims; yet very in keeping with your false claims.

Your ignorance regarding the Events is showing. It's easy as easy can be to avoid seeing, looking at, or speaking to someone. As for "weard" on the Forum, I'll take weird any day, if you represent normal.

Your ignorance regarding NOLA is showing, as well. There were no attacks face-to-face. However, there were many [with additional ones by those whose "business" it admittedly is not] compressed into one here. Once again, "seizing" the opportunity to add to what was said, as though you were there, as though you 'knew'... anything. Then, a measure more of your own insults and mud-slinging, as you self-righteously call me "bully."

Another insight that puts into perspective a number of your previous complaints about me was provided to me by you. Not that I didn't suspect it, but it's always better to get it from the horse's mouth [italics mine]:
It is because you are a male, probably. I say this because I feel better in the company of males (in term of quantity not necessarily quality)and I think they are feeling better in my company than women. Men are much more nice with me than women, in general. [/] Only jerks are jerks, this has no sex. This said when I get along well with a woman it is a really rich experience. I don't think that all this has to do with sexism. But with nature.

I too had think at 27 that my life would have been more easy if I had been born a man.

I don't focus on relationships with men, here or elsewhere. My relationship interest is with people. As for your apparent 'wish' to have been a man for the sake of 'ease' in this life, with my apologies to all the kind, gentle males here, you exhibit rather prominently some stereotypical male qualities of aggression and, yes, bullying... even to the extent of junior-high, school-yard level taunts like "Vomit!" ~ with many etc's.

Find Suzanne so you can look in her mirror.


~ Lizzy
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Fri May 26, 2006 10:11 pm

Again, don't waste your time trying to convince me of your "All Kindnessdom."

I read here since long enough to know that your are kind when eveything is to your satisfaction and people behave like you want them to do. Otherwise you bully them by all means you can.

So I don't read your delirium. I have time to waste right now, but not at this point.

And don't worry I have no intention to "change you" or something. I just wanted to make things clear.
User avatar
davideo
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:17 am
Location: canadian west coast
Contact:

birth,infancy...

Postby davideo » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:21 am

'...both the parents ask
the nurse to tell them fairytales
on both sides of the glass
'and now the infant
with his chord
is hauled in like a kite-
one eye filled with blueprints
the other filled with sight...'

( not verbatim)
Last edited by davideo on Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
"A Course in Miracles"
http://members.shaw.ca/clatwood/
User avatar
davideo
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:17 am
Location: canadian west coast
Contact:

not-quite-born children

Postby davideo » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:24 am

'there is no comfort in the covens of the witch
some very clever doctor went and sterilized the bitch
and every man of energy, yes the revolution's pride
he trained a hundred women just to kill an unborn child'
( Diamonds in the Mine- loosely recollected by me)
Last edited by davideo on Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
"A Course in Miracles"
http://members.shaw.ca/clatwood/
YdF

Postby YdF » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:36 pm

In another century, when pregancy and parenthood were not planned and children arrived like another year and child mortality rate was so high, people were not attached to their children (only adults were considering to have a value of some sort) and it was very bad behaviour for a mother to be sad for the death of a baby or a child. Mothers were expected not to complain about the loss at all.

Sorry. But this is utter nonsense. Except in certain eastern (and early western societies)--where girls and deformed infants were not valued--parents were just as attached to their children as those of today. And the children did have value as an important part of the economic support of the family. Parents in the past may have been more stoical about the deaths of their children and may have had a deeper religious consolation for these deaths then today's parents. But I assure you, it was not "bad behaviour for a mother to be sad for the death of a baby or child." They grieved plenty.

YdF
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:28 am

So you were there and this is a memory form a previous life as a mother of many that you did remimber this morning when you wake up. 8)

I know (I suspect would be more exact) that it is your ordinary provocating game but it worked. Happy?

Sorry but anybody serious about that will find the truth easily. So I'm not worry about that comment of mine. In addition I'll will say that it is in England that the romantic family values began to emerge. Do a little search and your provocation is all ruined. Sorry babe.

How awfully beautiful is this text (thanks to have remind me of it Davideo) :



Stories Of The Street


The stories of the street are mine,the Spanish voices laugh.
The Cadillacs go creeping now through the night and the poison
gas,
and I lean from my window sill in this old hotel I chose,
yes one hand on my suicide, one hand on the rose.
I know you've heard it's over now and war must surely come,
the cities they are broke in half and the middle men are gone.


But let me ask you one more time, O children of the dusk,
All these hunters who are shrieking now oh do they speak for us?
And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?
Why are the armies marching still that were coming home to me?
O lady with your legs so fine O stranger at your wheel,
You are locked into your suffering and your pleasures are the
seal.

The age of lust is giving birth, and both the parents ask
the nurse to tell them fairy tales on both sides of the glass.
And now the infant with his cord is hauled in like a kite,
and one eye filled with blueprints, one eye filled with night.
O come with me my little one, we will find that farm
and grow us grass and apples there and keep all the animals
warm.

And if by chance I wake at night and I ask you who I am,
O take me to the slaughterhouse, I will wait there with the
lamb.
With one hand on the hexagram and one hand on the girl
I balance on a wishing well that all men call the world.
We are so small between the stars, so large against the sky,
and lost among the subway crowds I try to catch your eye.
User avatar
linmag
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:10 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK
Contact:

Postby linmag » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:53 am

Dem wrote:I think "Thanks for the Dance"
is as much biographical as
"The Gypsy's Wife" is.

i.e.:

a) Leonard is not a Gypsy

b) he never had a Gypsy wife

c)actually, he never had a wife

Dem
Actually, Dem, I think LC has said in interview somewhere that this was written at a time when Suzanne was giving him the runaround, and he has referred to their long-term relationship as a marriage.

Apart from that, I quite agree with the point you were making. It's way too easy to identify with bits of a favourite singer's work and assume that they think/feel the same way you do, or that the voice in the song is always their own. This appears to be a song about a long-term relationship with unhappy memories, where the partners are still together out of some sort of inertia. I don't see this as applying to whatever relationship exists between LC and Anjani.

Another singer-songwriter in whom I take an interest (Steve Knightley) has been having similar problems recently. He has in the past written a couple of songs that had lines that seemed to question the existence of a 'higher authority' or supreme being. In his last album he wrote a piece from the point of view of a member of a minority religious cult. I was amused to find at the last concert of his I went to that he was having to explain that this song was written in character, and would people please stop emailing him about his apparent change of heart!
Linda

1972: Leeds, 2008: Manchester, Lyon, London O2, 2009: Wet Weybridge, 2012: Hop Farm/Wembley Arena
Young dr. Freud
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am

Postby Young dr. Freud » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:08 pm

choch,

No, I wasn't "there." But the literature, the diaries, the letters of parents in the past centuries bear witness against your idiotic generalizations regarding their attitudes about the deaths of their children.


YdF
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:00 am

So this is what I meant. You are not serious at it. Check your centuries, check your references. I won't give you the answers on a silver plate. I'm sorry (again) but violence can not do the job of intelligence and insults are not facts.
Young dr. Freud
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am

Postby Young dr. Freud » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:19 am

You can't give any answers on a silver plate because you haven't any answers period. You were talking through your hat and you know it.


YdF
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:48 pm

OK, I gave you enough of my energy, baby, I won't answer to this anymore unless you come here with serious matter that we can discuss honestly. Cheers! Hugs. I'm sure your Mom loves you. At least her. :wink:
Simon
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Montréal

Postby Simon » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:17 pm

Hi Tchoco,

I too was surprised by your statement. This is a vast subject and one that usually raises a lot of passionate debate.

It might help to specify which century you are reffering to, and to which cultural setting. Social conditions and the perception of birth and death have varied a great deal over centuries past and between various ethnic groups, so there may be indeed some seeming differences, but women do grieve a lost child, and, ethologically speaking, I am pretty convinced they always did. Over the centuries past, death was much more seen as part of life though. People were confronted to it much more directly, so maybe there was a more stoïcal attitude towards it. But mothers grieve, simply because mothers bond with their children. This attatchment in itself is so crucial that without it our specie would surely not have made it this far. There is nothing more fascinating, touching and impressive than the establishment of the mother-child bonding in the first few moments after birth. (new baby bonding).

Before she saved her eight children, one of my grand mothers had previouly lost four at childbirth or in very early infancy. She grieved them four all her life.

I’m rather tempted to think that it is the people of the past who would find our present day western world behaviour questionable. Today, proper bonding and grief are very difficult to fit in anybody’s crazy agenda.
Cohen is the koan
Why else would I still be stuck here
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:28 am

It seems that there is a great confusion here between nature and culture.

It was in Europe.

Now I would like to give you satisfaction in providing more details, but not to YdF. So. I'll wait until I feel comfortable about that so I can not give a date, not even next year same date. There. Everybody will be happy.
Image

"Today, proper bonding and grief are very difficult to fit in anybody’s crazy agenda."

Well. I'm thinking to Humanponeys2000 now, every time I think about a conspiracy of some sort, I think about her now. This reminds me of this urban legend that circulates : the silent bomb. Briefly : Some control freaks had planned the destruction of the society in order to take control of the world by destroying cells/structure of the society : families, work places etc. They are doing this with many means, one mean being to keep people very busy only in order to survive. But shhh.... Nobody is suppose to know.

Well.

You know. 8)
User avatar
davideo
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:17 am
Location: canadian west coast
Contact:

old days

Postby davideo » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:23 am

Hi. Tchocolatl's statements included the following words:

"(only adults were considering to have a value of some sort) and it was very bad behaviour for a mother to be sad for the death of a baby or a child. Mothers were expected not to complain about the loss at all. "

I don't think that Tchocolatl would deny that most mothers hurt at having lost a child. I got the impression from her words that she was trying to point out the 'protocol' and 'requirements', socially, of the times- ie. that people didn't want to see or hear of your agony in this regard, which may have been the case. These days, when people in far off lands lose family members, they wail aloud in front of cameras and neighbors. In North America, it seems much less comon for people to outright wail and mourn aloud at such losses. ( I have no doubt that everyone suffers profoundly, whether aloud or secretly. It seems healthier to be free to show pain than to have to conceal it!)
I may be wrong in my interpretation of Tchocolatl's meaning, but that's what I 'read': that it was "socially undesirable" to 'whine' about nearly common place tragedies that none could do anything about. Or, in the words of John Lennon: "Don't bring me down!"
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
"A Course in Miracles"
http://members.shaw.ca/clatwood/
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:23 pm

Wooo! Somebody who understands "my English". This Course in Miracle must be efficient. 8)

While we are at it, you remind me Davideo that even now one must not show their grief too much and for too long even if no one can force this process to be over in not time. However this is true that there is a way to ease the process. Escape it, no.

Return to “Blue Alert”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests