--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > 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.
An interesting case to try to make about me, and one that in my life's experience is unique to you Judy. Personally I think you are just reaching for a bad thing about a good guy. That's right, my self image is that I am a good person who likes people and loves his life. Sorry to disappoint. > > > > 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. Most people act differently when they are being treated nicely and fairly compared to being attacked. I am not unique in this despite your clumsy attempts to make this case. > > <snip> > > You more than anyone here has an agenda to get my goat > > I have no such agenda. This seems dishonest but it isn't something I could prove. > > > 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. I think you would be about the last person in the world I would go to for insight into this. > > > 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. That was a bit tortured wasn't it? And given how snaky my posts are it is bullshit. There are some people I communicate with in a consistently friendly style, but it is mutual so I have no need to "work it harder" And your Dr. Phil analysis is laughable. I am friendlier with many people here and more interested in people than you are. I am also a professional entertainer and you are a professional picker of nits. So rather than chalk up our different styles to our different temperaments, you imagine a hidden flaw that I need to convince myself of what again...? Made up bullshit at best and outright projection at worst. > > 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. I don't conform in any way to your made up fantasy. And I don't overdo any aspect of the friendliness I exhibit here with some posters. Unlike you I am very expressive of my emotions. You know, like a performer might be. > > > > 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. No you are using the contrived schtick of helping me to try to put me down by imagined states of my inner feelings about myself which you comically believe yourself privy to more than I am. > > > 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. That would be by reading your insults passed of as pseudo analysis. You aren't pulling off what you think you are. > > > 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? It is a bullshit point as you will prove with your example below. > > 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. So you thought I didn't send you on this little mission for a reason. Interesting. You thought that a tweak to send you running for example, would not be snapped up with delight? I wanted you to make the case you are making Judy, to step behind the innuendo and show your examples which you have faithfully done. Now in one place, anyone who cares to can evaluate your claims. Let's see whatcha got.. > > <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. And you thought I was unclear on the metaphor concept? So you substitute "hideous". Bold claim, let's see if you make your case. > > 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. While then we will have to agree to disagree about my arguments here. But I'm sure you have examples so I'll wait. > > > 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. Gunna have to agree to disagree here. > > > 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. So me calling you on your insulting over the top characterization of me is me using a straw man argument? No, it exposed the absurdity of your claim. I'm not letting you hide behind innuendo, I am making it all explicit. You chose an insulting and ridiculous metaphor. But you try to blame me for pointing out its absurdity. There can be no reasoned discussion of your POV on me personally Judy. You are filled with too much obvious loathing to let that happen. > > <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. How I behave in a debate is to make my case as compellingly as I can. All your judgements about my arguments are smoke screen for "I get mad when someone dismisses my personal attacks." > > > 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. So you are thinking that I literally believe that you are accusing me of being murderous and am not just goofing on your over the top, insulting metaphor for how bad I am? In a way that you uniquely know. That is unknown even to myself. But is clear to you, who knows me better than I do myself. > > > 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. Here the bullshit has come to roost Judy. And you know that I was not taking it literally or using it as a straw man. So you use an insulting metaphor and when called on its offensiveness it means that I recognize the VALIDITY of the insult. This version of bullshit had not chance of flying and you seem unaware of this. I can't help you here. > > <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. And you are welcome to this opinion. I respond till I am satisfied that I have made my point to any reasonable person who cares to read it. Then I am done. I am not compelled to answer everything you throw up to keep the debate going. > > 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. Excellent example of our communication issues. I approve of your example. I made my points well enough for anyone to follow. I think you picked a good example of how exasperating it is to discuss topics with you considering your underlying agenda to GET your imagined Mr. Wonderful. This post is full of misinterpretations that I did my best to untangle. Predictably I never got through to you. I am OK with that. But drawing your attention to this example is one I am comfortable with as a refutation of your absurd accusations. Especially in light of your metaphors, it seems particularly ridiculous to me. We see the exchange differently. I am at peace with what I wrote. > > 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. I am not Mr. Wonderful or Mr. Hideous Judy. Both of those are products of your imagination fueled by an unfriendly agenda toward me. But I am happy that you laid your cards on the table and made your case. Anyone masochistically inclined enough to read this exchange has all the information they need to come to a reasonable conclusion about which POV they feel is a better match for reality. Thanks for the time you put into the project. And I mean that with zero snark. We both made our cases, and predictably enough, do not agree. >
