<snip> "Emily weighing in that it was just so wonderful" Curtis, I did giggle a lot yesterday; it's true, but from a far and objective distance. And then I went swimming, which served to kick up my endorphin levels, and then I returned and spontaneously wrote that post. But, I assure you, the post was directed as much at Robin as yourself, and was intended to convey a number of vantage points. I view you as equals - both human beings. No harm intended and as I stated, I was *not* laughing at your expense. I was laughing yesterday at the human condition - very big picture. Have a lovely day. Emily.
________________________________ From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:18 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: "I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!" The technique of trying to write from someone else's POV can be useful to promote understanding. That is not how it was being used here. So the front that I need to show Robin where he misrepresented my POV is all a ruse. This is a mockery piece disguised as Robin's scary brilliance to imitate another poster's POV. Then it became a vehicle for the troll jackals to to their thing. Mocking me is fine, just don't sign my name. Pretty simple? No, not in troll world. The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. It should have been enough that I said it misrepresented me, because I AM me. I might know. But both Judy and Robin have made such a huge fucking deal (Judy even accusing me of lying about it) and Emily weighing in that it was just so wonderful, I thought I would take a few minutes to use this piece to show Robin that he not only doesn't understand my actual POV, he sucks at imitating my style because he is locked in his own. This will do no good because they just want to argue with me about whether or not it represents my own POV. It will satisfy no one and lead to more trollery. But it will now serve my own purpose of illustrating for anyone interested that Robin does not understand my perspective, nor is he interested in doing so. So you wanted it, and now you got it. But before I start lets look at how low Robin lowered the bar as he taunted me to do this: > ROBIN PRETENDS HE IS CURTIS. HE ISN'T REALLY. NONE OF WHAT FOLLOWS IS> > > > WHAT CURTIS WOULD DREAM OF SAYING. THIS POST HAS NOTHING DO WITH CURTIS. Of course the idea that NONE of it is anything I would dream of saying is a loaded deck. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So knowing this exercise will do no good, I begin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > 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*, First false voice. This first line is a simple objection made flamboyant with unnecessary long Robin phrases that will also riddle the rest of this piece. Me: I might phrase this: "I didn't read your post at first, but since I have, I have some issues to raise." R: and your confident assertions ME I might use this phrase. R: about your use of irony in relation to me is itself a form of irony. ME: I would never say this because Robin uses the term "irony" as a gentile name for his mockery. I specifically don't use the term with him because he has mutilated it as much as he has "ontology" so that in the context of discussion with him it is useless, having drifted too far from its common usage. R Because--listen up, Robin--you don't 'get' me at all, Me: Pure Robin's flamboyant voice. The "listen up" phrase is condescension. It automatically turns off the reader ahead of time. If I decide to be condescending (and I am not above that) you will know it halfway through the simile chain that I am being a dick. I would never telegraph a punch like this. It comes from Robin's overconfidence. R: and the words you put in my mouth there were a misrepresentation of what I might have said to you. Anyone could have said this phrase and it could be true of Robin because he does this a lot, and not only to me. R: Look, Robin, I think you are a good guy, very sincere and all that;> Me: I wouldn't say this because I don't believe any of it. Robin is a complex guy and in the past I have enjoyed interacting with him. But I don't for a moment believe he is a "good guy" he often comes off as a real prick as he has in this exchange. And I would never claim that he was sincere because I don't believe he is. In watching how he dealt with Share I could see how much of the old Robin Guru is still kicking. This is not nice, it is not sincere, and this may be the worst representation of my POV in the piece. R: but you have one fatal flaw: you seek to judge the motivations of other persons,> M: I would never say this because we all do this naturally. What I might object to is that Robin tends to ascribe motivations to others that have nothing to do with where they are coming from, but lacking a good feedback loop, he will ignore any correction because he believes he knows people better than they know themselves. R: 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. M: Phrasing is pure Robin and it shifts my point into his own perspective with the tell, "the truth of the person". I would never say this because this comes from his own epistemology system, not mine. It misrepresents the more relativistic view I have of "truth" in a human context. My concept of POV has none of the presumptions contained in the phrase "the truth of the person". R: 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. > C: This is such a jumble of ideas I would never express I don't know where to start. I don't use "truth" this way. That is all Robin. In human interactions we are dealing with perspectives, only Robin tries (and fails) to make this leap to something he claims is "truth". I don't believe it is possible in human interactions of this kind so I would never say it. He has collaged together epistemological issues and douchiness. They are too separate issues for me and I would not muddle them this way. It isn't that he is judging what someone believes through what he believes are their inner faults, it is that he missed their point because he is too busy focusing on their inner faults to even enter into a discussion of the beliefs. He prefers ad hominem attack to real discussion. Take the last go around where I asked him to support asserting confidence in old anecdotal accounts of people levitating. It lead to Robin discussing my "faults" for days. But he never answered the question, trying first that I am too closed minded to accept anything from another POV, and then that he had a very sophisticated understanding that I could not grasp because it was so scary subtle. So I would never make the point he makes above, if we can really call it a coherent point at all. R: But beyond this, Robin, it is violation of the code of human relationships. > Me Only Robin believes there is such a "code". In my view we choose our values of interaction and this determines our level of intimacy with the person. It ranges from the trollish through assholeish to douchey and then breaks into neutral and onward into well intentioned and to intimate trust. I give posters a chance to choose this with me. With some posters it is not possible because they are ill-intentioned. R: 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. M All pure Robin in content and phrasing. R: > I would just ask you one more time, Robin: Deal with me on the basis of what > I write; M I wouldn't open it that way, but I might make this point. R don't pry into my soul, M I don't believe in souls, Robin does. And he is the only one who believes that he is prying into anyone's soul. I believe he is projecting on to them straw men he finds are easier to deal with then their actual POV. R: 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: > M I would not say this because Robin could know what my motives are. But he is not interested in that. He is more interested in ascribing motives he finds easier to deal with. I don't believe this could be a reason he "blew up with you enlightenment trip". I don't discuss my POV on that. R:I am going to resist your invasions, I am going to fight back, and eventually, Robin, I will humble you.> M: Here Robin can't resist putting his most combative POV into my words. I don't believe he is "invading" me, that is his delusion. And the last triumphalist line exposes the most unsavory quality Robin has in discussion. It leaks out of every image he uses to describe discussions here, and I have objected to it from the beginning. I not only would never say this, I am opposed to this whole framework for discussions here. It is unpleasant unfriendliness, with more than a touch of grandiosity. R:Believe me, this is said in love, Robin: You are deeply flawed,> M I don't love bomb and I would never sum up anyone this way, it is bogus as a way to look at any human since it is a quality of every human. It is worthless as a statement to someone else, it conveys nothing but condescension. R: 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. M: I am not here to give Robin advice and would never say this. R: Meanwhile your admirers encourage and indulge you in this, and they are acting therefore as the enemy of your real integrity. M: You may be on to something here although the ending ruins it. You have people who egg you on in douchey behavior. They don't care about real communication or feelings, they just want blood and excitement at anyone's expense. R: I am quite stunned that someone as intelligent as you, Robin, M: Again with the love bomb strategy that only you use. R: 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. M; To invoke Vega but not include some darker noir detail seems like such a waste of a possibility. Sorry you think my writing is so flaccid. > > NOT Curtis, but Robin's version of a straw man of his POV You were so gleeful to rub my nose in this Robin. I hope you have enjoyed yourself with the details of how your piece misses the spirit and substance of what I have been trying to convey to you all this time. It was a sad measure of how little you understand me or my POV, and in that it was revealing. If you had not pulled the dickish more to put my name at the end it would have just been ignored as lame. You put in very little effort and it shows. As I reread this whole thing, I kept wondering, "why so grumpy Curtis?" Perhaps it was that you doubled down on the taunts when I asked you not to sign my name to posts I don't write, that I felt misrepresented. Instead of just coming clean you went on the attack trying to goad me into responding to your post in detail. But you weren't asking me in a nice way to further understanding. You seemed to be coming from a more condescending posture, that you had nailed me because my POV is so simplistic, you could imitate it with very little effort or time. Just rattle off the Curtis trip so well that everyone would agree, Robin really pawned Curtis. I guess it didn't help to have the yipping of the hyenas smelling blood and circling. Judy jumping in to accuse me of lying about this misrepresenting my POV (I'll look forward to that apology which I am sure is forthcoming now.) and that other person who does whatever it is he is doing here. Maybe this all spiraled out of control and this wasn't really your intention to have this taken so seriously. I'll hope for that. The true trolls just want me to react, positively or negatively, it doesn't matter. I wonder if you have a preference? > > --- 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. > > > > > >
