--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote
RESPONSE: Easily the most shocking and astonishing post you have ever written to me, Curtis. I find in what you say here ever more reason to believe in everything that I have written in that five-part post. I have been naive and trusting way beyond what was appropriate in your case. That you would think that this post representsin any way whatsoeveran honest or believably sincere response to what I have said, well, it just finishes me off. I can't bear it. I can't fathom it. I can't accept it. But I must respect the subtext as well as the outer meaning of what you have written here, Curtis: I was naive and foolish in whatever I read into our friendship during those long conversations, both online and offline. I have assumed you are someone you are not. Because in the tone and substance of what you have written here you clearly have no interest in uncovering any truth in this matter; you are merely saying: STFU, Robin: I choose to see you as a meddling, vexatious, and obsessive person who I deem unworthy and undeserving of my time or my respect. I understand; the fault lies in me to have had such lofty and unrealizable expectations. I think you do a terrible injustice to the totality of what I said in those five posts. But for you it is all nothing: I am but another Judy and that is the end of it. I am reeling in the aftermath of having read the post below. But I must sober up, move on, and comply with this fate accompli: that Curtis and I are through with each other. So be it, my friend. You have disappointed me way beyond what I would have ever imaginednot, for instance, for even a moment taken into yourself the great fluctuations of my heart in writing into your personal consciousness. But I am only making matters worse. I came onto FFL because of you. Perhaps now, with this definitive and negative judgment of me I am through with FFL. It seems that for you to have relegated me to the status of persona non grata in your life, that I had better get real right away, and come to face the facts: Robin, you have been JUDGED, and that judgment is most unfavourable. So unfavourable that Curtis Mailloux never wants to read a single thing you might ever want to sayeither to him or to anyone. And yes, he would not be unhappy if you unsubscribed. I just might do it, Curtis. I am very sorry you have chosen to interpret me in this way, Curtis. May reality have mercy on your soul. "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest." You have shut my mouth, and my soul. Curtis. Curtis; After spending over an hour responding to your responses last night I was attacked by a virus which has now eaten up 3 hours of my morning. It is a pernacious bastard that uses popups to pretend it is an aniti virus program that you must buy. No matter how I attack it it comes back. I may now have it on the run, finally being able to run my blocked malwarebytes program after renaming one of the virus files. > > I am now typing on my Ipad without any of what I wrote which may or may not > be preserved in Firefox when I get through with this ordeal. But I am going > into this detail because I experienced an emotion of frustration fighting > this thing that keeps coming back in different forms that I recognized. It > is how I feel in the endless defenses that I am asked to mount for both you > and Judy. But unlike my situation with my computer where quitting is not an > option, with you guys I can and will throw in the towel. This quote from > your post below pretty much sums up how differently we are viewing our roles > on FFL: > "I find this an abdication of your moral responsibility, and if you don't see > this, then that is in itself an extraordinary indictment of you. > > I am still waiting to hear an argument that makes sense of this, Curtis." > > There is no better summation that distills the 180 degree difference in how > we view our role in each other's life here. And I know that Judy would > heartily agree because in a thousand different forms she has said basically > the same thing to me many many many times. > > So here it is Robin. You have made your case about my failings and have > expressed your outrage that I am this way. You have found others who share > your view and perspective on my faults. And what makes it even more of a > match, Judy ( among all the others who have your perspective on me) actually > has the same enthusiasm to write endlessly about my lacks, taking each > defense as an invitation to double down and attack in a different way to get > her point across. So you two need to discuss this topic together if you > wish, but I am out. > > I am not going to give Barry the shit you seek. You may do that yourself if > you wish. I am over the Bob thing for good. I will treat your posts as I do > Judy's. If the topic interests me I will pursue it. (My faults will be > unlikely topics of interest to me but you can give it a shot I even defend > myself to Judy sometimes for a round or two before I realize I am getting > nowhere.) > > Your relationships with other people online don't interest me. Your view that > I am legislating reality does not either. You are welcome to type your > fingers off about my failings and faults. You and I do not share the same > values, you share Judy's. > > I was thinking about your challenge that I consider what I would tell 12th > graders about our interaction. I would tell them that if you are on an > internet forum and someone seems endlessly interested in discussing your > faults that you yourself did not invite and do not agree with, you should > stop interacting with that person. They are looking for someone to argue > with and you can piss away hours of your life defending yourself to someone > who doesn't care about you. I certainly couldn't look the in the eye and > justify the hours I have spent trying to defend myself. > > So now we know the score about what values we share and what ones we don't. > We'll just have to see if we share any common interests. By at least you have > found a kindred spirit in Judy and I look forward to reading the posts that > you will surely create in simpatico. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > -- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Robin2: You have, then, answered Bob Price: for you have judged his post > > > to be > > devoid of substance or truth. His posts were not answered then because, try > > as > > you might, you could not sense anything sincerely felt or intellectually > > articulated that went to what was important. I think it is good to have made > > this clarification: viz "He was being a dick to a stranger on the > > internet". Bob > > Price's unanswered posts were, then, unworthy of a response. I would like, > > for > > my own purposes, to know what set of criteria you morally or psychologically > > apply to make this determination: As for example, you deemed my post > > something > > to be answered, not Bob Price's. > > > > > > What is it about this post in particular which puts it in another category > > from those two posts from Bob Price? > > > > > > Curtis3: I just want to note that after being kinda clear about my lack of > > interest in > > this subject you have doubled down with a few paragraphs, including > > suggesting > > that you post Bob's insults again to stick them in my face. And of course I > > can't control what you write but is this really friendly? Is this how you > > react > > to all your friend's preferences? > > > > Robin4: I mist have misinterpreted those two posts. I took them to be a > > moral and intellectual challenge; not just "Bob's little FU to all things > > Curtis". If they had been what you have characterized them here in this > > post, *I would have recognized this for myself*, and would have, had I been > > your friend, urged you not to answer them. Because they were not worthy of > > being answered. I have no bias one way or the other: I don't forge > > alliances in order to alter my own moral responsibilities: If Tom Brady > > does something dirty, I don't, because I root for the Patriots and like > > Brady as a person, given him a bye and judge him differently from how I > > would judge James Harrison of the Steelers, who I don't particularly like > > and think it is dirty player. When I read the first of those two posts I > > refer to, I thought: Wow: Curtis can really show what he is made of here by > > answering this putdown of himself. > > > > When you just blew this off with some comment like: "That was the most > > disgusting post I have read at FFL" (or words to this effect), I was > > appalled, shocked, stupefied. Because I have noticed that whenever Judy > > criticizes you, you come right back at her. But even in this case, you > > sometimesat suspiciously significant junctures in your dialogues with > > hergo silent, and refuse to take a stand which would enable the reader of > > this feud to know you have the confidence to stand up to Judynot as an > > adversary, but in terms of the form of her arguments against what you have > > written. > > > > In order to comprehend how you can walk away from those two posts, Curtis, > > I would have to have some kind of experience in reading those posts which > > would make your decision understandable to me in terms of not being a > > dishonourable act {which I deem it to be in the absence of an kind of > > reasonable explanation]. You can of course, as you do here, define those > > posts as just "Bob's little FU to all things Curtis"'; but this peremptory > > fiat does not make of them what you say they are. There has to be some kind > > of agreement between your judgment of those posts and what they really are > > independent of your saying what they are. Should one interpret and define > > those posts according to what you say they are here? Is that the last word? > > No, Curtis, you can choose to rule them out of order, declaring there is > > nothing there worthy of taking notice; but then the question comes in: Is > > Curtis's appraisal of Bob Price's critical posts about him congruent with > > what in fact is the objective nature of these Bob Price posts? > > > > And if in this case you are correct, then the fault is all in me: since I > > took those posts to merit, to demand, to require an answer. You don't even > > try to defend your interpretation of them here as not deserving your > > attention: they in their very nature did not warrant you taking any notice > > of them. But you never explain why; you just arbitrarily legislate your own > > reality, and we are all left with only one option: either we accept > > Curtis's characterizing of these two posts of Bob Price, or we don't. But > > you never give any basis for us to make this decision, so I think most of > > the readers at FFL, because of your reputation, simply concur with youYou > > see, Curtis, they have never entered into any process by which they could > > justify your decision not to respond to those posts. And they still > > haven't, even as Steve is certain that you have scored big time. > > > > I find this an abdication of your moral responsibility, and if you don't > > see this, then that is in itself an extraordinary indictment of you. > > > > I am still waiting to hear an argument that makes sense of this, Curtis. > > > > Evidently, being Curtis, you don't have to explain or justify your > > judgments of people, of posts: if you say it is so, then it is so. I don't > > find myself following in lock-step with this. I read Bob Price's posts, > > and sure, I am taken aback at their audacity, their harshness; but I keep > > reading to the end, and I come out of the experience with the unavoidable > > conclusion: There is much substance in this; Curtis will have to address > > this. But you walk away muttering that Bob Price has said nothing about you > > which merits any kind of response. Well, Curtis, for that to be the case, > > it must mean that both these posts could be read by a third partyperhaps > > someone who knows neither you nor Bob Priceand deemed to be unworthy of > > being taken seriously. Do you believe this is the case, Curtis? If those > > two posts were dug up and reposted here, do you think you could justify > > having taken the position that you have? > > > > No, Curtis, you just don't get where your own predilections and > > self-asserted prerogatives run up against reality, and where reality has > > some say in the extent to which you are justified in asserting those > > predilection and prerogatives and then imposing them on usand therefore on > > reality. There is a very important point here: Curtis has essentially told > > all of us readers at FFL that Bob Price's two posts are irrelevant and even > > frivolous: they do not go to any critical issues with regard to Curtis. I > > Curtis will make this decision on your behalf, and then you can simply be > > spared any further difficulty in reconciling what I Curtis has decided > > these posts are with whatever might have been your (the reader's) first > > experience of what they were. I doubt that anyone but your most loyal > > supporters would have immediately had the same take on these two posts as > > you are telling us was your take on them, Curtis. > > > > On the contrary: You did notthis is my conclusion at leastchoose to > > answer either of those posts because you *couldn't* answer them. Now that > > is my position, Curtis, and for you to get me off of that position you will > > have to construct some kind of argument; not legislate what I have said out > > of existence. Does my analysis here simply invalidate itself like Bob > > Price's posts did? > > > > Curtis3: I have to ask myself why? Even in casual acquaintance situations > > if a person > > mentions a preference like this it would be respected. If I was sitting > > next to > > someone at a lunch counter and said I would not like a sticky bun, but > > thanks > > for offering it, the usual reaction is not to grab an icing dripping treat > > and > > shove it into my face. > > > > Robin4: Bob Price was calling you out for being disingenuous and > > manipulative: of course you would prefer that he not do thisand you would > > prefer that no one remind you about this. But the issue, Curtis, is not > > your preference that these posts never be discussed again because you don't > > like the sensation they cause inside of you when they are mentioned (sticky > > buns); the issue is to what extent those two posts addressed you in some > > authentically real and pertinent way. You have sidestepped this issue > > altogether. This is incredible to me that you don't see this. Take what I > > have written so far in this post: If you write that you don't like what I > > have said and you don't want anyone to bring up what Robin has written, > > does that therefore constituteyour saying thisa moral ground upon which > > to stand that supersedes in its importance the arguments I have made so far > > in this post? Apparently for you this is the case, Curtis, for I find > > nothing different in principle here from what you have chosen to say is the > > way reality must behave according to how you have fielded those unpleasant > > and vexing posts. > > > > I don't think you get this at all, Curtis; this is your blind spot. And it > > represents an impediment to a real friendship. Which is why it is being > > discussed now. If I felt you were just deceitfully and dishonestly rigging > > things in a way which you knew was wrong, and you therefore had a guilty > > conscience, that would be one thing; but I actually believe you think you > > are right. This is what astounds me. Because, if you really were > > consciously culpable in this regard, you would not make the argument you > > make here, which, as you can see form how I have deconstructed it, is no > > argument at all. > > > > Curtis3: So what is it that makes you so hell bent on shoving my face in > > Bob's little FU > > to all things Curtis? > > > > Robin4: Only one thing, Curtis: truth, reality, justice. I admit to being > > shocked by Bob Price's first postwhich you found "disgusting". But I never > > conceived of the possibility that you would not reply to him, and defend > > yourself. You never, to repeat, explained the existential basis of walking > > away from this challenge to your integrity. I was not "shoving [your] face > > in Bob's little FU": if Bob Price's post had been just that: "a little FU" > > I would have recognized this and would have urged you, had you asked me, > > not to respond. I have only raised the matter of these posts because in the > > manner in which you have refused to address them, you give evidence of > > their validity. Get it, Curtis? > > > > Curtis3: You must believe that somehow you know what it best for me, my > > growth. In fact > > later on you are going to make it quite clear that you feel that I am not > > handling the feedback areas of my life properly and need a little school'n > > from > > someone who knows better than I do what is good for me. You will attempt to > > make > > the case that unassisted by your superior powers of discernment for what is > > good > > for me, I lack the ability to learn anything about myself. > > > > Robin4: Well, Curtis, in the classroom, if someone tells you, the teacher, > > to FO based upon an unfavourable assessment you have given of one of their > > presentations, does that then end the matter? And if you choose to ask them > > to become responsible for what you deem to be a shoddy performance, does > > that mean that pupil can do what you are doing here, and simply say: Don't > > shove this in my face! I have decided your failing mark does not concern > > me. So let's just move on, Mr M. > > > > I disagree with you in what you say here that I am putting myself in the > > position to "know what is best for me, my growth"and you are not "handling > > the feedback areas of my lfie properly and need a little school'n from > > someone who knows better than I do what is good for me": WRONG, CURTIS. I > > am not, arbitrarily or compulsively or mischievously, or therapeutically, > > or didactically seeking to make you a better person in the way you have > > accused me of doing. It is not this at all, Curtis: it is merely a matter > > of where, in your actions (actions here being defined by your judgments and > > opinions and determinations made on FFLsome of which touch me personally), > > you end up creating an influence, an effect, which interferes with the > > lines of objective and innocent understanding. > > > > News Flash: I have just been informed of the death of Christopher Hitchens: > > 62. This is a major event. And it immediately creates a perfect touchstone > > for me, as I think, ironically enough, that this was a great soul. I won't > > go any further than this, except to say that a heroic person has been taken > > from us the living. And am suddenly quite affected by an emotion which does > > not necessarily coincide with what I am attempting to do here, Curtis, in > > answering your post. Whew: his death has created an effect which is > > palpable. > > > > Curtis3: I hope you will consider this feedback in the manor you suggest I > > lack. What is > > up with this behavior to someone you say you want to be friendly with? Can > > you > > relate to me as an equal? > > > > Robin4: Nope; it is strange thing; but I think, given the impact of the > > death of this remarkable human being that I must break off here. I will > > post this. And then return to this post sometime later, because the issue > > before me right now, and one that I cannot set aside, is the death of this > > person that I respected so much. Even as our beliefs about ultimate matters > > differed considerably. Christopher was dead right on Iraqamong many > > things. And, I believe, Bill Clinton too. I wish that I could have known > > him personally. We will have to wait to see what his fate was until we > > undergo what he has just undergone. I salute you at least in this, Curtis: > > I know you will be in agreement with me about Christopher Hitchens: this > > really is a tragedy. > > >
