--- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote:
<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?> I appreciate what you wrote in the whole post, but especially appreciate this focused point. It lasers through Judy's attempt to spin my post to Robin as hitting him when he was down or somehow being bad to poor Robin for giving my opinion on this. Robin wasn't down, he had been forced to come clean with Ann joining us. Without her I suspect we would still be hearing what a liar Vaj was from him. So his mea culpa was missing a piece in my opinion. The whole drama spin that me saying he had been Clintonesque was somehow be being vindictive and hurting poor Robin out of revenge that Judy is selling is transparently shoot the messenger bullshit. A message she is famous for championing herself when it doesn't involve Vaj. I wasn't getting back at Robin or hitting him when he was down, I was talking straight to him as he had in post after post to me,with me retuning nothing but defense till I tired of defending myself. And you don't see me doubling down running after him because he blew off my post. That is his right. I said my piece, he responded, done. He owes me nothing by way of an explanation. And in a perfect world, he would understand why I believed I didn't owe him one for his opinions about me after this. And with my history of long long posts with Robin, the idea that what I had said was somehow horrible or unfair is just laughable. I ended it with a sincere perspective that Robin's belief system concerning his days in "unity" is not serving him too well. If anybody don't think that I had pulled my punches to say what I said as delicately as I could, then they have either never read what I write when I am not being diplomatic (I'm looking at you Divinity Dev boy) or they just might have a need to spin what I said into something awful for their own divisive purposes. I believe you get what I was trying to say Steve. As long as there are a few people like that here it is worth my time writing here. > > > 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. > 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. And > there is just the plain fact that Robin accused Vaj of lying when he > knew this was not the case. 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. > > >
