--- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > Really, thanks Judy for holding me accountble to what I write. > Let me respond as I go through. > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > And Steve, predictably, goes with whatever context he's > > > > > > read most recently, especially if he senses a trend in > > > > > > the direction of that context. > > > > > > > I've been thinking about this. (and I had to come home for the > > > dishwasher repairman) > > > > > > Regarding this most instance with Robin, where I appear to > > > have contradictory opinions, I want to offer a little > > > clarification. > > > > OK, it didn't appear to me to be a matter of your holding > > contradictory opinions, but rather holding one opinion and > > then switching over to the opposite opinion. > > Judy, this is entirely correct. I took the liberty of > putting myself in a different perspective. I don't claim > to know what perspective Curtis was taking, and initially > I felt his post to Robin was harsh. But if someone had > challenged me in an unrelenting fashion, and then rolled > over and showed me their belly, I might still just give > them a kick.
Gee, that's an ugly image. And it isn't that a propos in any case. Robin wasn't showing anybody his belly, first of all. That's why Curtis was attacking him. When I said Robin was vulnerable, I meant vulnerable to attack because of what he'd done, not vulnerable because he'd surrendered. If anything, Robin was defiant. > So, yes, I did feel that Curtis might have had a little pent > up frustration, and was not particularly in a forgiving mood. > I don't mean to project anything on Curtis, but this were > the impression I had. Me too. And I don't consider it ethical. > And there is just the plain fact that Robin accused Vaj of > lying when he knew this was not the case. Well, I give up here. We just went through this, Steve. You seemed to have understood the case I made and agreed that it was reasonable. Never mind. I'm not going to waste any more time with this. So I think this was the main thrust of > Curtis' post. Whereby I might have given Robin a pass because of his > explanation. Long story short, I played both sides, so to speak. > > > For me, I found his explanations adequate, regarding his > > > striking and when, if, why it happened. But my relationship > > > with Robin is less active than some others here, and a > > > little less controversial. Plus, my habit, or modus > > > operendi, is to not press people too much on issues I may > > > not agree with. I prefer, if possible, to remain on more > > > cordial terms. So, even though I found his explanation a > > > little lame, I went with it. > > > > That's fine on its own terms. But then you didn't go with it > > after you'd read Curtis's post. > right, addressed above, IMO > > > But I felt Curtis, who has had a more involved relationship > > > with Robin, and has been on the receiving end of many of Robin's > > > challenges, had every right to press him on these issues. > > > > This is a change of subject; I don't see how it applies to > > what you've said above about your own vacillation. But I'll > > address it on its own terms. > > > > Curtis would have the right to press Robin on these issues > > *whether or not* he had a more involved relationship with > > Robin and had been on the receiving end of Robin's > > challenges. One doesn't have much to do with the other. > I'm sure this is the case. I do not presume to speak for Curtis, or > know his motives. But Robin has been pretty severe in his challenges to > Curtis. Maybe Curtis felt like asking to be as accountable for his > actions as Robin asked of him. I think the extent of what Curtis was > suggesting was that Robin acknowledge to Vaj, that he was wrong in > calling Vaj, and out and out liar. Is that too much to ask? > > What he doesn't have the right to do, in my view--ethically > > at any rate--is to use arguments that are unfair and in > > some cases based on flat-out inaccurate accounts of what > > happened. I addressed these point by point in my response > > to Curtis (and he dismissed everything I'd said without > > even considering it). > > > > > Isn't that how it works-to give as good as you get. > > > > IMHO, if he was challenged by Robin, Curtis was fully > > entitled to give as good as he got *with regard to those > > challenges*. In this case Curtis took advantage of Robin's > > having made himself painfully vulnerable on a totally > > different issue to revenge himself on Robin. > Ok, the bottom line, as I understood it was asking Robin to acknowledge > to Vaj, that Vaj was accurate in his statement about Robin striking > people. Robin may have had an explanation for it, but Vaj WAS correct. > So what is wrong with acknowledging that. > > Curtis's attempt to equate Robin's accusations that Curtis > > had a tendency to be subtly deceptive on FFL, on the one > > hand, with the "Clintonesque" nature of Robin's initial > > denial of striking students, on the other, was pretty far- > > fetched, it seems to me, for a number of reasons. > > > > First, Robin *confessed* to his "subtle deception" in this > > one case. Curtis hasn't confessed to any of Robin's > > accusations of his own subtle deceptions. If Curtis had > > done so, I can't imagine Robin turning around and attacking > > him on the basis of the confession. > I have found Robin to be much too subtle in some of his assessments of > people for me to follow. That is why I have on ocassion made a Amen to > Curtis' replies, and then berated by Robin for this. But, I am able to > follow Curtis's train of thought better than Robins. But I will say > that it is often a thrill to read Robin's posts. I miss him greatly. > > Second, this was, as noted, one single case of "subtle > > deception" on a very specific point, the nature of which is > > now very clearcut. It's the reasons for it that are subtle, > > not the deception itself. And Robin hasn't engaged in any > > other deceptions, subtle or otherwise, that we know of. > Okay, again, Robin seems to respect Curtis. Why not cede that an > apology might be in order. I mean address the issue on the gross level > as well as the subtle level. Why not? > > Judy, right now we are getting ready to light the candles for my son's > sixteenth birthday. Let me see if I can come back to this later. > > Thanks. > > > > And third, Robin "subtly deceived" the entire forum, not > > just Curtis personally. But Curtis attacked him for having > > done so on a personal basis, in return for what Curtis > > considers personal slights to himself by Robin. > > > > So the equivalence Curtis tries to draw just doesn't hold > > up when it's examined, as far as I'm concerned. > > > > > It's similiar to the Ravi situation. I worst Ravi ever got > > > with me was to call me a "pea brained heartland retard". It > > > didn't much bother me, but I did lose any affection I had for > > > the guy. But over all, I felt that an appropiate sanction > > > for him would be for a time out. > > > > > > But if I had been in, say, Curtis' position, where I was > > > subject to vicious personal attacks, where my reputation and > > > career were at stake, then I likely would have felt > > > differently. > > > > Sure. And this relates to the Robin situation how? I'm not > > seeing the connection. > > > > Again, my beef with you is that when some issue comes up > > between other people, you tend to take whichever side has > > been most recently expressed without ever really examining > > the merits of the case that has been made for it. You said > > in your defense that you don't have the time to go into > > things that deeply, which is perfectly understandable. But > > if it were me, I'd refrain from taking a side at all if I > > hadn't been able to look at it in depth. > > > > It's not the worst flaw in the world by any means. Pretty > > small potatoes, in fact, especially in comparison to your > > many positive traits. Your switch on the Robin issue was > > just an especially clear case of this tendency, and it was > > particularly annoying to me because it seemed to be such a > > blase approach to what was a very sensitive, painful issue. > > That's why I spoke up. > > >
