Dear Curtis. Thank you for asking for a re-post of this. I missed it as well.
Objectively, without parsing the details, this is a brilliant piece of work.
Robin has managed, somehow, to capture almost perfectly his own MO from your
perspective and others' actually, although perhaps not exclusively, as you
note. How many people are able to represent so accurately another's viewpoint
of themselves - he must have tried on the Reality of it all, dontcha
think...maybe just one shoe? You must admit you have made these key points on
many occasions, albeit using different words:
* Look, Robin, I think you are a good guy, very sincere and all that;
but you have one fatal flaw: you seek to judge the motivations of other
persons, and not only do you fumble and stumble around (it is actually quite
embarrassing, Robin), but you actually miss hitting the truth of the person
altogether.
* You can intuit all you like, Robin, but the act of judging what
someone says by what you believe to be their inner faults, this is not only
inappropriate and offensive--it is the most unreliable form of truth there
could ever be. But beyond this, Robin, it is violation of the code of human
relationships. You have just gone one step too far here, Robin, in your rather
pathetic and unconvincing analysis of irony. And I don't appreciate your
bringing me into your little dance of self-congratulations.
* I would just ask you one more time, Robin: Deal with me on the basis
of what I write......... You see, Robin, you can't act as if you are the knower
of what my motives are, my character.
* Robin, can't see how you are acting out a little ritual here which
has become so familiar to most of us that at this point it just seems like a
cheap Vegas act--where the audience dwindles every night.
Now, this last one....your analogies are more creative, but the spirit is
captured. Curtis, you have the skill set to reply in-kind, should you so
choose. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time responding to Robin's request
to "show" him what about his post *wasn't* an accurate reflection of your
position. Sounds like you might be finished for the day though; it was a
helluva show and thank you for your participation. It might have been annoying
as hell from your seat, but from mine, it was insanely funny. But, just so you
know, I am *not* laughing at your expense. I thank you for letting Robin get
under your skin a bit. It was good for me Curtis, I hope it was good for you
too.
________________________________
From: Robin Carlsen <maskedze...@yahoo.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 3:28 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: "I'm not going to shut up; it's my
turn!"
Dear Robin:
I think, Robin, you are way out of line here. As a matter of fact *I never even
read your post*. But now having read it, I can tell you: *It doesn't make it,
Robin*, and your confident assertions about your use of irony in relation to me
is itself a form of irony. Because--listen up, Robin--you don't 'get' me at
all, and the words you put in my mouth there were a misrepresentation of what I
might have said to you. Look, Robin, I think you are a good guy, very sincere
and all that; but you have one fatal flaw: you seek to judge the motivations of
other persons, and not only do you fumble and stumble around (it is actually
quite embarrassing, Robin), but you actually miss hitting the truth of the
person altogether.
You can intuit all you like, Robin, but the act of judging what someone says by
what you believe to be their inner faults, this is not only inappropriate and
offensive--it is the most unreliable form of truth there could ever be. But
beyond this, Robin, it is violation of the code of human relationships. You
have just gone one step too far here, Robin, in your rather pathetic and
unconvincing analysis of irony. And I don't appreciate your bringing me into
your little dance of self-congratulations.
I would just ask you one more time, Robin: Deal with me on the basis of what I
write; don't pry into my soul, because--you must surely know this by now,
Robin--you are engaged in an activity which makes it obvious why you blew up
with your enlightenment trip: You see, Robin, you can't act as if you are the
knower of what my motives are, my character. And the longer you persist in
doing this, the more you are headed for a fall. I don't want to see you lose
it, Robin. You are a kind of fanatic. And sooner or later you will get it
through your brain and heart: I am going to resist your invasions, I am going
to fight back, and eventually, Robin, I will humble you.
Believe me, this is said in love, Robin: You are deeply flawed, and I have
tried to act as your friend. But you are hopelessly beyond the reach of those
who would give you the right advice. Meanwhile your admirers encourage and
indulge you in this, and they are acting therefore as the enemy of your real
integrity. I am quite stunned that someone as intelligent as you, Robin, can't
see how you are acting out a little ritual here which has become so familiar to
most of us that at this point it just seems like a cheap Vegas act--where the
audience dwindles every night.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
> Hey Steve,
>
> First thanks for the kind words about my poo poo platter image and secondly,
> would you mind pointing out the post in question. I have skipped a bunch of
> Robin's posts that look like they are just video links so it didn't register.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > much snipping
> > > > I have to think, Judy, that you would take exception to someone
> > > > describing an entirely fictitious conversation with you as though
> > > > it had occurred. I also think that you might take exception to
> > > > someone writing posts with your byline,
> > >
> > > (Steve has explained he didn't mean using someone else's
> > > account ID.)
> > >
> > > even if it is done in the
> > > > name of so called irony. My feeling is that you would request
> > > > that such a person refrain from doing that.
> > >
> > > It would depend, Steve. And certainly Curtis and Share
> > > are free to object or make such a request if they think
> > > anybody might have been misled.
> > >
> > > But it was obvious to me that the "conspiracy" bit and
> > > the paragraph Robin wrote and signed "Curtis" were both
> > > ironic. And frankly, I'd be astonished if everyone didn't
> > > realize this.
> >
> > Yes, I am sure everyone did realize it. It is just something I would
> > not take the liberty of doing. Perhaps I am more sensitive along these
> > lines. Of course Share did respond that she had not participated in
> > the discussion to which Robin indicated she was a party. I picked up
> > that she wasn't too thrilled about being misrepresented.
> > And also,
> > > Irony is pretty easy to detect if one is in good contact
> > > with reality, because the variance from reality in the
> > > ironic material is clear. It's really just a matter of
> > > common sense.
> > I don't think anyone is missing the irony. But irony just like anything
> > can be in good taste or poor taste. In my opinion, Robin's irony
> > sometimes crosses a line most people would not appreciate.
> > But it may not be enough for them to make a protest. It is not that big
> > a deal for me either. But since we were discussing issues along these
> > lines, I brought it up.
> >
>
