GENIUS FORUMS

What happened to her? I've noticed her login name is subtitled "Guest." Did she decide to take a break from here?

Marsha, if you're reading this, I hope all is well by you.

Bryan - she said goodbye awhile ago:
link

It's the last post on the thread.

It kind of looks like the elephant sitting in the middle of the living room that everyone is still denying may have squashed her. It nearly squashed me a few times, so I can understand that.
.

Wow. Marsha did take things too personally.

If you are reading this, Marsha, I hope all turns out well for you, instead of allowing yourself to be infiltrated by other's drama.

Maybe it is best you left to take care of yourself. If it does bother you that much what others think of you, then you need to attend to yourself.

Best of luck,

Bryan

Funny how so many of the females, including Marsha, get the impression that females tend to get treated differently... yet the males staunchly insist it is not that way. If it looks like an elephant and smells like an elephant, it's probably a good idea to keep an eye on the living room - there just might be an elephant wandering through from time to time.

Even when women are being treated exactly the same as men, they would still insist that they were being treated differently. It is in their nature to always see themselves in contrast to all others. This way, their specialness can shine.

.

I lost touch with Marsha the last time I had to reformat my computer and thereby lost all my emails. She's been doing it tough of late as her daughter appears to have Chron's disease and has been very ill. I don't know if she still reads here at all or not or what her Net activity is, if any.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Even when women are being treated exactly the same as men, they would still insist that they were being treated differently. It is in their nature to always see themselves in contrast to all others. This way, their specialness can shine.

Sue,

Please clarify what you mean - do you mean biological females or just the psychology? And do you think Marsha was psychologically feminine? And why would you say that when David's girlfriend left and he posted about it, his post was recognized as a letting go of attachments thread, but when Marsha posted about letting go of her family, it was brought to a personal level?

Funny how so many of the females, including Marsha, get the impression that females tend to get treated differently... yet the males staunchly insist it is not that way.

I treat the QRS differently to others. Why, because they are different.

The commonality of attitude of the majority of females who visit here is also different than the lesser degree of commonality of the viewpoints of males. Females tend to promote views I've heard before, they tend to be a bit more new agey, there seems to be more instances where they are promoting the ideas of others, whereas males tend to have a wider range of viewpoints. I think the male passion to be top of the roost promotes variation and imagination, whereas female viewpoints or intentions are more herdy, and here they are judged harshly for same. They also take criticism more personally, which causes them to react in a kind of similar hysterical manner.

We all have auto-responses based on what is most commonly experienced, not just here but all experiences, and the women here may cop a bit of the negative side of that.

Elizabeth,

Please clarify what you mean - do you mean biological females or just the psychology?

Most females are psychologically "women", but so are many, many males. So when I write about "women", I am referring to most people.

And do you think Marsha was psychologically feminine?

Yes. She did not possess the ability to reflect upon her thoughts. She was extremely superficial.

And why would you say that when David's girlfriend left and he posted about it, his post was recognized as a letting go of attachments thread, but when Marsha posted about letting go of her family, it was brought to a personal level?

David H. has shown by his writing that he is capable of reflection. The degree that he is capable of reflection is the degree of depth he possesses. Because he has this depth, he is interesting. Marsha had as much depth as fireworks, therefore, everything she wrote was experienced as superficial nonsense.

.

Jamesh wrote:

The commonality of attitude of the majority of females who visit here is also different than the lesser degree of commonality of the viewpoints of males. Females tend to promote views I've heard before, they tend to be a bit more new agey, there seems to be more instances where they are promoting the ideas of others, whereas males tend to have a wider range of viewpoints. I think the male passion to be top of the roost promotes variation and imagination, whereas female viewpoints or intentions are more herdy, and here they are judged harshly for same. They also take criticism more personally, which causes them to react in a kind of similar hysterical manner.

I agree with you that most females that come here are feminine minded, but the difficulty I have is working out who isn’t female. There are a few males who have common male names, which added to their work, I am able to recognize as men, but then there is a whole bunch of people using proper names and usernames that sound male but their work is completely feminine minded. So I don’t pay any attention to names and usernames – I just go by what I read. If a work is full of love of women, love of status, and love of worldly traditions and superstitions, I then take the position that I'm talking to a female – even if the person’s name is John Wayne.

We all have auto-responses based on what is most commonly experienced, not just here but all experiences, and the women here may cop a bit of the negative side of that.

It is indeed very sexist and irrational to go along with such “auto-responses based on what is most commonly experienced”. Better to first understand the truth about masculinity and femininity before one starts discriminating.

.

I agree with you that most females that come here are feminine minded, but the difficulty I have is working out who isn’t female.

I view myself as polarised.

My feminity is very strong. I have no courage and little discipline. I'm not willing to go through the suffering that is required to achieve what I'd like to do - namely, give up useless habits and write a book.

Cognitively though, I think I am very masculine. But I'm sure most here think the same about themselves.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:David H. has shown by his writing that he is capable of reflection. The degree that he is capable of reflection is the degree of depth he possesses. Because he has this depth, he is interesting. Marsha had as much depth as fireworks, therefore, everything she wrote was experienced as superficial nonsense.

While I guess I should thank you for your kind words, I disagree about Marsha. I learned a lot from her. She had a different perspective - a more earthy perspective, I would say, which was a good counterpart to the sometimes extremely cerebral and abstract discussions.

And she actually pushed me to not settle for mediocrity - to do my best, not just good enough or above average.

She was perhaps a bit motherly, but in the best possible way, of supporting people to be the best they could be - including shoving them out of the nest when that was the thing to do.

And why would you say that when David's girlfriend left and he posted about it, his post was recognized as a letting go of attachments thread, but when Marsha posted about letting go of her family, it was brought to a personal level?

I never saw it that way. As a mother, Marsha had certain biological attachments - she had a responsibility to her children, and that's not something you just drop; there is a moral obligation.

As a man, and the children not being biologically mine - I was able to escape those attachments (somewhat to my surprise). Hers were more tenacious. Attachments don't exist on just one side. There's being attached to things, and there are things (people) being attached to you.

I don't know why Marsha left, but I much appreciated her posts, and I think she contributed quite a bit to the forum.

DHodges wrote:I never saw it that way. As a mother, Marsha had certain biological attachments - she had a responsibility to her children, and that's not something you just drop; there is a moral obligation.

That wasn't what i was pointing at. I was pointing at her pointing out that in her detaching from the family thread, people raised questions about her motives for posting about that - whereas with your thread, no one questioned why you were posting that your ex left. Can anyone point out to me exactly where she solicited such a questioning that was different from your post to not solicit that?

I don't know why Marsha left, but I much appreciated her posts, and I think she contributed quite a bit to the forum.

She was often good in what is written in Genius news, but over the last few years, I would have to class her as being insane - way too much hysterical stuff. She couldn't see her own nature.

Bryan McGilly wrote:Wow. Marsha did take things too personally.

Did it ever occur to you that words can really hurt, sometimes worse than being bludgeoned with a baseball bat?

and yes James, repeated verbal bludgeonings can damage a person where only words can hurt - in the personality, in the mind.

That is only true if ego is involved.

But I agree with David H., that historically Marsha's contribution to "Genius" has been valuable, but also at times fascinating, infuriating and even absurd. She helped make Genius-L what it was. I kind of miss her, frankly, but Leyla seems to be trying to take her place so it's all good, as they say :)

That's a joke, Leyla - I think. Marsha is a true "one-off" and I think that's what she wants to be, and I find that hard to fault given the Borgian nature of the world........

Dan Rowden wrote: given the Borgian nature of the world........

The Borgian nature of the GF world that is. While you were gone, I got pretty vicious for awhile. If this place could suck out my compassion, it could do it to anyone. It isn't a good thing.

It is possible to vigorously dissect thoughts without gratuitous bloodletting, and people would be more likely to open up their true natures to philosophical surgeons rather than a band of Jack-the-Ripper types.

I think you're lucky Marsha is not here. You'd have to constantly wear Turtle Neck Sweaters if she was. She would blood you real quick! Most of the posters here are "pansies" in comparison.

Dan Rowden wrote:That is only true if ego is involved.

But I agree with David H., that historically Marsha's contribution to "Genius" has been valuable, but also at times fascinating, infuriating and even absurd. She helped make Genius-L what it was. I kind of miss her, frankly, but Leyla seems to be trying to take her place so it's all good, as they say :)

That's a joke, Leyla - I think. Marsha is a true "one-off" and I think that's what she wants to be, and I find that hard to fault given the Borgian nature of the world........

Of course, I agree with Dave and Dan.

I love Marsha and did not find her shallow, especially if that means anything even remotely related to insincere. She is an incredibly talented writer and demonstrated her capacity to think on many occasions, even if those thoughts were not directly pointed at "the path to Enlightenment."

Accordingly, I thank you for the compliment, Dan. Perhaps I just stick out more now that she's no longer here---for all the wrong reasons...

:)

Leyla wrote:

Accordingly, I thank you for the compliment, Dan. Perhaps I just stick out more now that she's no longer here---for all the wrong reasons...

You stick out because you have the mouth of a sailor, god damn Leyla! And don't tell me to F* off either!

And as for Marsha, unfortunately she was too weak for the forum. She had serious emotional problems. I think I caused a nervous breakdown in her when I criticised the inferiority of everything islam.

She had some strong conditioning that she couldnt overcome. She was like the mom I never wanted - I remember she went on an angry rant for the fact that I still lived with my parents.

Oh the nostagia...

Dan Rowden wrote:I think you're lucky Marsha is not here. You'd have to constantly wear Turtle Neck Sweaters if she was. She would blood you real quick! Most of the posters here are "pansies" in comparison.

I don't know where Marsha came from, but she had the personality of a New Yorker plus the no-nonsense attitude of a good nurse. There's a difference between a confrontational style and blatant attacks, although it is a subtle one. Although you have been online enough to get a bigger world-view, your Aussie background may hinder you just enough to not quite catch all of the subtilities. Yours is a very polite culture especially in comparison to certain American city cultures, so despite that you are a very insightful person, perhaps I can't expect you to be quite as fluent in the subtilities of various kinds of confrontation. I see the difference.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: I remember she went on an angry rant for the fact that I still lived with my parents.

I read that, (edit to add that I think that was confrontationalism, not anger). She had a firm idea of what a grown-up is, and confronted you about not living to the standards of a grown-up. The more that i read about what the concept of sagacity is, the less I can distinguish it from just behaving maturly (and I do recognize that most adults have never really "grown up").
.

Ryan wrote:

You stick out because you have the mouth of a sailor, god damn Leyla! And don't tell me to F* off either!

That’s Captain to you, whore!

I think I caused a nervous breakdown in her when I criticised the inferiority of everything islam.

[laughs!] You’re hallucinating, Ryan. Though, you’re stupidity sometimes is rather testing.

I remember she went on an angry rant for the fact that I still lived with my parents.

It was not an angry rant for the fact that you still lived with your parents. It was sheer disgust at your parasitic (like maggots to a carcass) and hypocritical nature. A wake-up call, if you will. Obviously, fell on deaf ears--do maggots even have ears?

.

Leyla wrote:

fell on deaf ears--do maggots even have ears?

I'm not sure, check your tampon.

Leyla wrote:

It was not an angry rant for the fact that you still lived with your parents. It was sheer disgust at your parasitic (like maggots to a carcass) and hypocritical nature. A wake-up call, if you will. Obviously, fell on deaf ears--do maggots even have ears?

Well, I can either live with my parents or I could go on welfare or disability checks, but both are rather deflating to your bourgeois values Leyla, we all cant be the world champion of female arm wrestling like you, you know…

I don't know where Marsha came from, but she had the personality of a New Yorker plus the no-nonsense attitude of a good nurse.

That was just on her good days. On her bad days she was full of pointless ranting. I was attracted to her fieryness for about 12 months after arriving here, but then it became irritating.

I would never regard what Dan said about Leyla as being a compliment. Her anger is slowly developing into a problem. I think she needs to be made aware that too much aggression will have karmic impacts. Causes are two way - with an increasly high ratio of aggression over calm discussion, then people will be more consistently aggressive back to her and it could snowball into a problem.

I just love this armchair psychology.

James, I am surprised at your shallow interpretation of my post in reply to Dan.

You're lucky I like you, but I want you to know that, if anything, my "anger" is just as much a figment of your imagination as it is Ryan's.

How about you give me some insight into this karmic premonition of yours, though. I think that might be interesting.

As for you Ryan, you're just a silly little boy!

.