--- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:

<Curtis, should you be right in what you say actuates his writing to me, a 
psychopathic monster.>

But in my own defense I must say the toying with you in such a disingenuous 
way, taking the time to create a faux genuine persona, in an expression of my 
saintly-psyco-pathological personality is a big step up for me from picking up 
hitchhikers and stuffing them in suitcases to leave in truck stops all along 
the East Coast. (Did I say East Coast, I mean West Coast, yeah, that's the 
ticket, West Coast, NOT the East Coast see, not the East Coast.)

Seriously, I mean it, NOT the East Coast.  Damn I am gunna have to shell out 
some dough and get that delete key fixed, this is causing some real concern now.

I am hereby categorically denying that any suitcases filled with humans found 
on the East Coast (Not that I know there are any at all) are mine.

Wait, that doesn't cover it very well at all.  Not the West Coast either.  None 
of them (If there are any and I certainly don't know) are from me.  And I 
didn't leave any in Mexico either.  (Shit why did I bring Mexico into this 
mess!)

Especially the blue American Tourister at the 17th mile marker on 95 North of 
Baltimore.  That one (If there is one, and how could I know?) is NOT mine and I 
did not leave it, pealing out of the parking lot in a blue 1985 Riviera GT at 
3:45 in the morning on Aug 15th.  I am saying very clearly that this was NOT 
me.  My 1985 blue Riviera GT was parked at home where I was in bed sleeping.  
My cat can vouch for this.






>
> Dear Barry Wright,
> 
> If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, 
> acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest 
> post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall 
> cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the 
> refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. Since I take as an 
> original premise the idea that I can read more or less the motives of others 
> when they write to myself. So, I am declaring then, Barry, that everything 
> you say in this post is false (I assume it is basically false as well with 
> respect to the other persons who you categorize as being ministered to by the 
> missionary charity of Curtis; but I don't profess to know this for a dead 
> certainty). Let's put it this way, Barry: You are saying Curtis is writing to 
> me for reasons which directly contradict what he formally professes are his 
> reasons. Am I to believe you and believe him to be lying to me? I have 
> conducted an offline correspondence with Curtis, and our interactions within 
> this context would make of Curtis, should you be right in what you say 
> actuates his writing to me, a psychopathic monster. I will simply say, Barry, 
> you are as inherently wrong about your characterization of Curtis, as I am 
> objectively right in my attribution of his motives in writing to me, viz, 
> that he is utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart. And I let 
> this declaration stand: unless Curtis gainsays what I have said here—or even 
> qualifies it in any way—I will assume that I am right and you, terribly, 
> perversely wrong. You have never once even attempted to make your case, and 
> you haven't here either. Again, Barry, I challenge Curtis: if he refuses to 
> issue any kind of statement in support—even infinitesimally—of what you have 
> said are his reasons for writing to me, I will assume, for the record, that 
> you are, at least with respect to myself, egregiously wrong. And that Curtis 
> knows you to be a false witness to his actions. If I had the very slightest 
> doubt about all that I have said here, Barry, I would stop posting at FFL and 
> personally thank you for performing a service that no one else has been able 
> to perform for me: demonstrating that I am, when it really comes down to it, 
> a neurotic human being who seeks the attention of others because of the 
> shallowness of his soul. 
> 
> By the way, I refuse to let anyone compensate for me. Do you get this, Barry? 
> Think about that.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" 
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him:
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe his email program is bored out of its
> > > > mind by his  mind-numbingly
> > > > long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel.
> > > 
> > > Hey Sal,
> > > 
> > > I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length 
> > > since I produced my half of it.  And I can certainly see 
> > > how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear!  
> > > Seriously.  But I defend the charge that Robin is just 
> > > sending out monologues to strangers here.
> > > 
> > > This is one of the most interesting discussions I have 
> > > engaged in here.  And unfortunately it took a lot of words 
> > > to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and 
> > > me.  The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine 
> > > interest in understanding each other's process for 
> > > approaching reality.  Because it engages our complete 
> > > philosophies, it requires a lot of words.  What we are 
> > > attempting is not simple.  And of course any conversation 
> > > with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy 
> > > strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more.
> > > 
> > > I am not making a case that this should be of interest to 
> > > anyone else. I am just owning my part in it.  
> > 
> > I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not
> > share his fascination with either the people he gets
> > into long-winded discussions with, or with any of 
> > their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does.
> > 
> > As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the
> > Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such,
> > he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I
> > encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over-
> > weaning sense of their own self importance with an
> > almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly
> > possible to convince others of that importance, all 
> > while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative
> > ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them
> > the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently,
> > by waving my paw at them and saying "Bah."
> > 
> > Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts
> > to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some-
> > thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find
> > something interesting in it. As such, he has become in
> > a way the "therapist to the stars," or at least those
> > who are legends in their own minds and convinced that
> > they *are* stars. 
> > 
> > Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or
> > Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only
> > reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually
> > deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self-
> > obsession with "I can understand why you're obsessed
> > with that," tirade with humor. I admire his compassion 
> > and his patience in doing this; it is a skill that I 
> > lack. Since I honestly don't think that I've ever seen
> > an original or creative idea emanate from ANY of the
> > people I mentioned, it is very difficult for me to
> > pretend that I have. It's much easier -- and a far
> > better use of my time -- to wave my paw at them and
> > say "Bah" than it is to get into their obsessions with
> > them. Curtis feels otherwise, and thus provides these
> > oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so 
> > desperately seek.
> > 
> > It's like he's the Mother Teresa of the Internet. 
> > Whereas some encounter a leper trying to show off his
> > sores and turn away, Curtis says, "Wow...that's really
> > a good one. Just LOOK at the pus oozing from that one,"
> > and allows them to feel good about themselves, as if
> > there were at least one person out there in cyberspace
> > who feels that they're interesting enough to deal with.
> > 
> > It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, and I commend
> > him for it. I may not read it, even though I know that
> > this may deprive me of glimpses of his awesome humor, 
> > but I think it's neat that he does it. 
> > 
> > > > The average post here is 
> > > > maybe 5-10 Kbs, this one alone is 125.  While 
> > > > this might be his longest to date, it's hardly
> > > > an aberration.  I don't get it.  Too bad 
> > > > MDG is no longer here to explain how and why 
> > > > someone would take the trouble, day after day,
> > > > to write these endless monologues to a bunch of almost
> > > > complete strangers.
> > > > 
> > > > Sal
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to