Judy, A wonderful post for me to read, Judy. Your favourable review of the Curtis-Robin Conversation means something. And I do not feel, in the slightest, in the way you describe your experience that you are trying to make Curtis and I feel good about our posts—you know, as a counter-response to some of our negative reviews. Thank you for this most interesting analysis.
I find it easy to be utterly sincere with Curtis. I think we both let ourselves be influenced by one another, even as our final perspectives probably remain as far apart as they were since the very beginning of our conversation. Intelligence is a good thing. You have it in abundance. That is, the right kind of intelligence. As in discernment. If you had given our dialogue a negative review, I would have taken this as seriously as I take what you have written here. Because in the case of yourself, you provide evidence of the experience and process by which you come to your judgments. Your writing always seems to me to be honestly felt, and consistently perspicuous. I am glad that Curtis so misrepresented your experience that you decided you needed to correct him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > (Yahoo appears to have eaten my first send of this > post.) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > <snip> > > I believe that it is a rare bird who would enjoy wading > > through this personal conversation with Robin. > > I guess I'm one of those birds, because I've been > loving it. For me it's like watching one of the old > cliff-hanger movie serials. When I finish reading > one of the posts, I'm thinking, Wow, how is > Curtis/Robin going to deal with *this*? I'm > practically on the edge of my seat waiting to find > out. > > And then when the response gets posted, I'm cheering > how it dealt with the previous post and wondering how > the other guy is possibly going to produce a good > comeback. The two of them keep out-thinking each other, > as well as illuminating their own POVs. It's really > a superbly executed and fascinating dialectic, the > best we've seen here in a long while, because both > of them have the intestinal fortitude to actually > *engage* with each other. >
