OK, let's take it from the top... --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Fun to watch Curtis (and Edg, but to a lesser extent > > because he isn't immediately involved) stand on his > > head to avoid seeing what's actually going on here, > > exercising his creative powers to the utmost to come > > up with an alternate story line that will allow him > > to feel less bad about himself. > > So the mission of the sour plum is to help assist me > feeling badly about myself? So noble, so kind. So you.
But your feeling bad about yourself is the problem *in the first place*. If you didn't try to deny those bad feelings but confronted them--made friends with your Shadow, as I put it below--you'd be able to feel authentically good about yourself without all the Band- Aids. > > Two hints: (1) Not looking for a guru in Curtis; and > > (2) anger *per se* isn't the problem. It's the Hulk- > > like transformation the anger triggers that's the > > problem. Or maybe Jekyll/Hyde is a better analogy. > > Off my schtick for a moment here. Your complaint is > ridiculously pointed at me for the most human quality of > reacting angrily to hostility and (what seems to me) > unfair attack. Already addressed. How much clearer could I have been that anger *per se* isn't the problem I have with you? > There is nothing hulk-like about this switch. Already addressed. I explained that the Hulk and Jekyll/ Hyde were metaphors for the extreme contrast between Mr. Wonderful and how you behave when you address a hostile challenge. <snip> > You more than anyone here has an agenda to get my goat I have no such agenda. > and when you succeed you claim it as a personality defect > rather than the natural reaction that you yourself share > here. No, again, as I've said, it's the creature you become when your goat has been gotten. You get my goat too, but I deal with it straightforwardly without fighting dirty. Yes, the Hulk-like transformation is a personality defect. Do you think you don't have any personality defects, unlike anybody else in the world? I've got 'em, you've got 'em, everybody got 'em. > You are trying to demonize me for trying to gain rapport > with people here (that is being Mr. Wonderful) and then > reacting defensively when attacked. And a typical cycle > of triggers is if any poster has a run of too many positive > posts with me. It seems to unhinge you. This is just silly. I have NO problem with Mr. Wonderful or with your positive exchanges with others. I enjoy it when you're in this mode as much as anybody else does. I do have the sense that you sometimes work on it a little harder than you need to, that you're having trouble convincing *yourself*. So you go for Mr. Super-Wonderful to compensate. The sense I have is that your image of yourself as Mr. Wonderful is precarious. And that's why you overdo it at times, and also why you freak out when you're challenged. > > At any rate, Curtis might find it of benefit to do > > some reading/thinking about Jung's recommendation > > to acknowledge and ultimately accept one's Shadow > > side. If you can make friends with your Shadow, > > you're a lot more likely to get it to work with you > > rather than against you. > > First of all please don't attempt to couch your malevolent > intentions toward me as some kind of exercise in opening > my eyes to greater self knowledge. I don't have "malevolent intentions" toward you. Jeez, how paranoid! I do think you could use some help in opening your eyes to greater self-knowledge. Sue me. > You don't have the empathy skills needed, or even the core > level kindness toward other people that would be required. Well, not sure how you determine the requisite levels. Obviously you think you require gentler treatment. I don't buy that. > You are not a people person Judy. It reveals itself again > and again in your low emotional intelligence displayed in > your posts. > > And secondly, for you to chastise me for having "anger > triggers". I haven't chastised you for having "anger triggers." I don't know where you got that from. As I said elsewhere, you wouldn't be normal if you didn't have anger triggers. The problem is *what happens to you* when your anger gets triggered. How many more times do I have to make that point? On to the next... --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Curtis, you keep *proving my point*. When you get angry, > > > > you go blind. I can't count the number of misreadings > > > > of what I've said in what you write below. You're > > > > responding to posts you wrote in your own mind and > > > > attributed to me, not to my actual posts. How much of > > > > that is willful and how much is due to the red spots > > > > in front of your eyes, I couldn't say. > > > > > > The burden of clear communication is on the writer Judy, > > > as an editor you should know that. > > > > Total bullshit in this context. The writer can't be blamed > > for not being able to overcome a reader's hostile > > determination to misunderstand. > > That is certainly a novel way to avoid the responsibility > to make yourself clear Judy. Does that really work for you? Well, it's hardly "novel"; it's virtually a truism. I can't get inside your head to tweak your synapses and change your motivations. Your misreadings just aren't explicable as due to a lack of clarity on my part. What I'm saying isn't that complicated. <snip> > > Gonna give you just one example from your previous post > > (don't have time now to fisk the whole collection of > > misreadings): > > But of course. The reader is left to assume that you have > lots of them. Terms like a "boatload" would be helpful > in enhancing the impression of your misleading assertion. Very bad call, Curtis. I don't bluff, as this post proves. <snip> > > I say "anger *per se* isn't the problem," and you respond > > that I'm complaining about your anger. > > Let me stop you there. Despite your lip service to it not > being anger, you compare my "transformation" to the Hulk, > the personification of anger so intense that he threw cars > around to emphasize his point and another murderous monster. > Since I do not transform into a hideous creature when > confronted with your hostile accusations It's a *metaphor*, Curtis, not a literal comparison. As I already pointed out, compared to Mr. Wonderful, what you transform into when you're pissed *is* hideous. Let's call it a transformation from Mr. Wonderful into Mr. Hideous if you can't deal with the metaphor. My point *from the beginning* has been that anger doesn't have to invoke Mr. Hideous. Anger can be perfectly straightforward. Expressing anger doesn't have to involve misrepresentation or sophist tricks. Fighting can be done cleanly and honorably. > but respond with my POV which differs from yours, I will > assume that this mischaractorization is one a long history > of ad hominem characterizations meant to distract from your > inability to answer my responses with reasoned argument. Dealt with already. I do the reasoned argument first, then throw in some ad hominem if I feel like it. I don't use ad hominem as a substitute for reasoned argument. > And because you claim that I become a murderous monster, > you believe you are conveniently let off the hook of > responding. Does that really work for you, because from > this end it seems pretty transparently lame. Dealt with already. I'm not usually the one who bails from responding in our exchanges. <snip> > > And I've already been very specific a number of times > > about what I mean by "transformation." In my last post > > in our previous exchange, I put it this way: > > You have made that point abundantly clear from the dramatic > characters you chose to illustrate your point. Both of > whom have homicidal rages used to illustrate a cartoon > image for out of control ANGER, which of course you do not > mean because you said so. It's the "out of control" part that's at issue. But notice that the only way you can address what I actually mean by "transformation" is to make a straw man of it, thus--once again--proving the accuracy of what I described: > > "The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense > > of proportion and fairness, and you too often become > > actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after > > another, as you just did above. You pull out your > > sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to > > discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either > > side." > > Yeah sounds to me as if when I confront your BS with > reasoned argument Straw men aren't a reasoned argument. You don't *want* a reasoned discussion when you're pissed. You want to (metaphorically!) slash and burn, and you don't care if you cheat. <snip> > > Or, as I said several posts back, you're a dirty > > fighter. > > Another ad hominem in such a short space. Now you are > just giving yourself away here Judy. You are making this > too easy. I guess it allows your ego a bit of space > from the reality that you are not up to the challenge. Dealt with already. > If a person exposes your BS they MUST be fighting dirty. > Got it. Uh, no. > > Anger *per se* isn't the problem. As you say, reacting > > angrily to hostility and perceived unfairness is a "most > > human quality." You wouldn't be human if you didn't. > > You *could*, however, do so without feeling you have to > > fight dirty. That is not an unavoidable feature of > > rancorous debate. > > It is "rancorous" because of your hostility and agenda > to make me appear to be a bad person. No such agenda, first. Second, that's a non sequitur. The rancor is a given; how it's generated isn't the issue. The issue is how you behave in a debate that's turned rancorous. > I wonder where I could find an example of this...oh I know, > how about when you characterized me as transforming into a > murderous monster, two different versions of famously > homicidal maniacs a few paragraphs above. Metaphor, Curtis. > Yes that example will do nicely. And if I object to this > wildly insulting accusation it is because I am a dirty > fighter who refuses to acknowledge the truthfulness of > your hostile accusations. I'd put the basis for your objection to that metaphor in the category of dirty fighting. You know it wasn't meant literally; you know I wasn't suggesting that you become homicidal. Straw man, in other words. Which suggests to me that you *do* recognize the validity of the metaphor, so you have to kill it by portraying it as something it never was. <snip remaining ad hominem from Curtis> And another one: --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Only you would even be able to dig up posts I have dropped > for lack of interest in pursuing it beyond making our points > and realizing it was going nowhere. > > Judy: > > If you were honest, you'd acknowledge that in most of our > > hostile exchanges, you're the one to back out, not me. The > > most recent example was our exchange immediately previous > > to this one, where you failed to respond to this post: > > > What's your excuse for letting yourself off the hook of > > responding? > > Because you wear me down Judy as you have here. We both > make our points, disagree and then you continue to post > as if answering your hostile assertions is endlessly > entertaining. You know what it looks like to me? That you dig yourself in deeper and deeper with misreadings, straw men, and sophist tricks until you finally realize you're not going to be able to dig yourself out. That's the point at which you quit, when you know that in my next post I'm going to call you on the messes you've made so definitively that there's no way you can come up with a convincing refutation. I think my post #282863 is an example of what compels you to bail. Among other things, I had commented on some things you had said, and you denied ever saying them. I quoted your own posts showing that you had indeed said exactly what I said you did. It isn't that you get bored. You keep going with Mr. Hideous until you realize you've gone too far. If you didn't insist on fighting dirty, we might actually be able to resolve some of these disputes. But it's just not possible once Mr. Hideous has taken over.
