- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@...> wrote: > Steve, > It's always a pleasure when you come in and clean up after > the food fights; you appear to have missed a question Judy was asking > Curtis----on > behalf of a number of us. There appears to be an email, from King Baby to > me,> which describes Curtis as a rather unattractive hypocrite. Judy just > asked> Curtis if he would love to see said email as much as she (and, I'm > sure,> others) would.
ME: As I said to Barry, I am not a fan of people divulging private emails here, pulling the classically unpleasant mean girl trick. The nature of things said privately is different than what someone might post here for good reasons. I know that in the current climate of schadenfreude that has descended, it would give a lot of people delight to think that Barry is making a private case for me being a hypocrite, and if I knew it would make me angry with Barry, and everyone could get out the popcorn and enjoy the show. Sorry to disappoint. If anyone is making a case for me being a hypocrite by comparing what I might say privately and how it differs from what I say publicly, it is a lame non starter from the getgo for me. It is a gotcha game that doesn't interest me. If you compare emails from a few months back with how I feel about people now, you will find even more "evidence" to make such a case. So let's assume that Barry thinks I am a hypocrite? OK, so what? I don't require people to think only positive things about me. And what could I do with such inside information, argue at Barry that I really am not a hypocrite and the fact that he thinks that about me means that I don't like him now? Is that what people imagine might happen? Most of my posting here through the years has been with a person who has the most negative view of me of anyone here. And I openly admit that I like her. My view of her is not based on her view of me. For all I know her liking me more would F up the whole dynamic of discussion that is working for me. Perhaps Barry's recent outing of a private email we had months ago was his way of letting me know that he believed I was being hypocritical. If he wanted to make it more explicitly he would have emailed me privately or posted the charge on the board. But he sent it to you with an expectation of privacy. And instead it is the latest Wikileaks FFL titillation. (Gotta love that word!) There seems to be a belief that I am somehow dealing with Barry in some protected status bond. But I am dealing with him as I do with everyone here. He has been consistently friendly to me, so I am friendly back. If he sends me an email or makes a post about me being a hypocrite, I might defend myself or decide, oh well, I guess I am not the perfect Messiah to all humans. It would be a tough demotion for me to make internally, but I think I could manage. Its possible some are assuming Curtis was able to secure a copy of said > email; possibly threatening to fire up the Hibachi, where King Baby seems to > have left his balls, but I have no way of confirming that. I'm inclined to > give > Curtis the benefit of the doubt, on that one---although I do sincerely believe > that the way he and King Baby fill up each others dance cards (strictly on > Safari mind you) that Curtis could force the issue and demand that King Baby > post the email and clear his good name; otherwise the Maginot Line, Curtis > refers to as his POV, might become a bit worse for wear. > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/mars1940/4259746842/ > > > > Strictly for your edification; I've taken the liberty of > providing the question from Judy's last "Blues" post. > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > (BTW, did you notice how he's claiming to have "done > the setup for this week's experiment"? Did he explain to you > in private beforehand what he was going to do, and you've > just been playing along? Or did you get sucked up in it > unwittingly as he pulled your strings? Love to know what > he said to Bob in private email that portrayed you as a > hypocrite, wouldn't you?) > > That's my 50th for the week. You may have the last > word until I return. > > > ________________________________ > From: seventhray1 <steve.sundur@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 6:57:58 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Blues > > > > This is where things get kind of screwy, (or so I think).  You think the > point has been made, but then it still goes on. But I guess it is important > to Judy to keep driving it home. To me it crosses a line from a normal > discussion to something quite obsessive. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" curtisdeltablues@ > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote > > > > And you know what? I've been pondering what Robin has > > > > said about your appropriation of context. I think this > > > > is an example. You have terrible difficulty perceiving > > > > any context but your own. Not that we all aren't limited > > > > to some degree in perceiving another person's context, > > > > but most of us do take a stab at it, if only so that we > > > > can more effectively argue our own perspective. You > > > > rarely even try. > > > > > > When it concerns a misrepresentation of my own POV I am not > > > open to considering what point you think I was making. And > > > if you are making a case for having a superior ability for > > > understanding my context this would be a counterexample for > > > that claim. You have attempted to reframe the discussion > > > about whether or not I was "comparing" Maharishi and Mao, > > > which was never in question, of course I was. > > > > This is what you said to Nabby: > > > > Usually I would > > > > > > > correct you concerning this vicious lie pointing out that > > > > > > > my point about Mao had to do with the unreliability of > > > > > > > people's subjective darshon experiences > > > > No "of course I was" about it. You were telling Nabby > > that you *hadn't* been comparing MMY and Mao, that > > your point about Mao had to do only with the darshan > > experiences of his followers. > > > > Nor did you contradict Nabby's assertion that you'd > > said MMY was "worse than Mao." You didn't even mention > > it. *I* was the one who mentioned it, calling it a "lie." > > I even *documented* that it was a lie by quoting you to > > the effect that MMY was "a dim bulb" by comparison with > > Mao. > > > > > But that comparison did not have the odious and practically > > > insane suggestion that a pop guru was worse than the single > > > greatest mass murder in history whose status in buttholery > > > might only be challenged by Stalin. > > > > Right. That's a given, and I acknowledged and documented > > it, as noted. Nabby's gun said "Bang!" and you freaked. > > > > > So no, I am not open to the bullshit context you are > > > attempting and that is not evidence of my lack of ability > > > to understand another person's POV. > > > > Well, yes, it is, because you've completely missed my > > context in this post as well. > > > > > The question I have for you is why you thought you would > > > get away with such a weak case while demonstrating the very > > > lack of perceptiveness you are accusing me of? You haven't > > > demonstrated that you get my context, quite the opposite. > > > > You've just proved my (and Robin's) point in spades, but > > you're incapable of recognizing it. > > > > You weren't even going after Nabby in your initial post, > > BTW; you were going after me *via* Nabby. But you were so > > intent on getting me that you lost focus and shot yourself > > in the foot instead. > > > >     >
