--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > I look forward to seeing those short stubby legs with Gimle > boots dance.
Sorry, lost on me. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > One would think Curtis wouldn't *start* with misrepresentation > > when his goal is to show how he's been misrepresented. > > I am using the slang of "front" and in bieatch be front'n. This too. > I was starting with the disingenuous nature of the whole > exercise which you play a significant role in. If you mean you were presenting it disingenuously, I agree. That was my point. I've never known you to conduct yourself with integrity in a hostile discussion, so no surprise. > > Had Curtis not claimed that Robin had misrepresented his > > POV, it wouldn't have been an issue; there would have been > > no demand for Curtis to identify the purported > > misrepresentations. Curtis brought this on himself. > > I called him on it because I don't like my view misrepresented > here. What you are bringing on yourself is an insight into > your integrity having called me a liar there there was > misrepresentation. I think that last sentence might need a little work, Curtis. > The fact that challenging someone on their knowledge of their > own POV is a weird thing to do is very odd. Not when the person is known to be dishonest and has a strong motivation to posture falsely in a dispute. > > Curtis's attempted analysis is much more about writing > > style and specific choices of words than it is about POV. > > No, it is both and this attempt to split hairs isn't gunna > save your ass. I gave plenty of examples of both for any > person with integrity. Well, fortunately my ass isn't the one in jeopardy here. I stand by what I said. > > Curtis has identified and denied a few actual POV > > elements. I don't know whether Robin wants to go to the > > trouble, and I certainly don't, but I believe most of > > those elements could indeed be found in what Curtis has > > written about Robin. Perhaps Curtis has just forgotten; > > or perhaps he hopes others have, knowing that not that > > many people actually followed his discussions with Robin > > after they became rancorous. > > I hear troll music in the background, what IS that instrument. > Oh it is a single string violin made our of an infants forearm > bones. Makes a creepy sound, you actually dance to that? Notice how creative Curtis gets when he doesn't have a substantive response? > > > 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. > > > > Again, the only reason it became a vehicle for criticism > > of Curtis was his claim to have been misrepresented and > > his denial that he had any ethical obligation to identify > > the purported misrepresentations. > > I didn't have "ethical obligations' for shit in this little > ruse. If it was a ruse, Curtis, it was *your ruse*. And of course you had an ethical obligation to support your claim of misrepresentation. But you've always had a rather strange concept of ethics. If you make a claim--especially one that puts someone else in a negative light--you either support it, or you don't complain when it's not accorded credibility. You can't have it both ways--declining to support the claim *and* whining because it hasn't been accepted by the person on whom it reflects badly. Or you can, but then you also get to look like a dick. > And it got me exactly where I expected, you in denial mode. Um, no, the denying was all on your part. > He had every right to > > demand that Robin make it crystal clear that any future > > attempt at representing Curtis's POV was a Robin's-eye > > view and not something actually written by Curtis. > > > > > Mocking me is fine, just don't sign my name. Pretty simple? > > > > Yes, it would have been very simple had Curtis not decided > > to claim misrepresentation. > > Now claim and demonstrate specifically, line by line. Says Curtis, unable to deal with the point. > > > It should have been enough that I said it misrepresented me, > > > because I AM me. I might know. > > > > Curtis might well know. Or he could just as easily have made > > it up. Hence the call for him to identify the > > misrepresentations that otherwise only he could see (or not > > see, as the case may be). > > Is this a claim to be too idiotic to see the misrepresentations? Says Curtis, unable to deal with the point. And again, I wasn't the only person not to see any misrepresentations. > > > But both Judy and Robin have made such a huge fucking deal > > > > Said huge fucking deal could never have been made had Curtis > > not claimed misrepresentation. > > I did because there was. You thought I wouldn't take the > challenge Little mind-reading there, Curtis? You repeatedly rejected the challenge. > and having zero integrity, knew you could just deny it if I > did prove my case. More mind-reading. Not only have you not proved your case, but Robin took it apart for you. > > > (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. > > > > Of course, Curtis's style wasn't the point. The point was > > to capture Curtis's POV on Robin. Curtis's analysis here > > focuses primarily on style rather than POV and does very > > little in the way of rebutting the latter. > > My claim was misrepresenting. This parsing of how is Troll > queen 101. You're really wearing out the troll accusation, Curtis. It was feeble when you first used it, so it's in very bad shape now. Especially when you use it to avoid the point. In any case, nobody ever claimed your style was being perfectly represented, for pete's sake. That wasn't the intention, and you're very well aware of that. > > Emily has been explicit that she isn't "siding" with Robin > > over Curtis, so I don't think it's unfair for me to quote > > her in this context. She's addressing Curtis here: > > > > "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:" > > > > What's interesting is that an unbiased and intelligent third > > party perceives Curtis to have made the points he claims are > > misrepresentations. Either they aren't misrepresentations, > > then, or Curtis did not succeed in making his *actual* POVs > > on these points clear. Assuming, to be charitable, that the > > latter is the case, it would seem to be grossly unfair for > > Curtis to criticize Robin for not representing Curtis's POVs > > accurately. Curtis must take responsibility for failing to > > convey them clearly. > > Sorry but I proved where he misrepresented my POV line by line No, ya didn't. You made a lot of claims, but you didn't prove nuttin'. > so I don't care how many people thought whatever about it. I'm giving you an out here, Curtis, that your actual POV may have been misrepresented because you never expressed it clearly. When more than one person understands you to have been saying X, especially when one or more of such people doesn't have a dog in the fight, the likelihood is that what you said sounded like X even though you may have meant Y. > It misrepresented my POV in content and tone. It was a lazy > send-up. Robin can parody me well because he doesn't pay > enough attention to my points to understand me. Some of us felt he represented the content of your criticisms of him very accurately. And it was hardly lazy; it was obviously composed with a great deal of thought. "Tone," if by that you mean writing style, has never been the issue, as Robin explained to you in detail (although you knew it wasn't to start with--you just couldn't find enough content for which you could make a plausible claim--even to yourself--for misrepresentation; the style stuff and word choice was filler). > He is too busy trying to shoot the messenger as you often do. > As you did here when you called me a liar for defending myself > against misrepresentation. Let's be accurate about what I said, Curtis: ----- > You don't get the issue Judy. You are following Robin's lead > to coerce me into going point by point to refute his made-up > bullshit. As if that is the main point of why it might not be > cool to make up shit and sign other people's names. No, Curtis. You made it the main point. When you accuse someone of having misrepresented you, you need to be able to back it up. If you'd left that one sentence out, you wouldn't be getting any shit for asking him to stop. You could have had a clean win on that. But that sentence was dishonest. You knew it was dishonest. You can't support it. And now you're trying to cover yourself dishonestly by pretending that isn't the issue. ----- I said you were dishonest for claiming Robin misrepresented you. I did not "call [you] a liar for defending [yourself] against misrepresentation." You do a lot of writing, Curtis, and you pride yourself on being able to exploit nuance. You know there's a difference between what I said and what you said I said. Your statement implies that there *was* misrepresentation against you, but that, of course, is precisely what I was disputing. I could not have said you were dishonest for defending yourself against misrepresentation when I didn't agree that there *was* misrepresentation. IOW, you deliberately misrepresented what I said. That's dishonest. It's also typical of your debating tactics, as I know from long experience. > > Note also that Emily is not talking about words or style; > > she's talking about POV only, the gist of what Curtis has > > said about Robin, not the way he said it. > > > > And then Emily poses a challenge to Curtis: > > > > "Curtis, you have the skill set to reply in-kind, should > > you so choose." > > > > Curtis may have the skill set, but he doesn't have the > > guts to make the attempt. Contra Emily, I don't think he > > has the insight or the humility either. > > Right slip in a little preemptive sucker punch when you can, > you are being exposed as a person who even when proven wrong, > cannot apologize for calling them a liar. You can't do it. Oh, don't be such a pompous ass. I am not "being exposed" as anything, especially not by you. You expose yourself as a hypocrite because you frequently throw in "preemptive sucker punches." It's one of your specialties. So let's just register that Curtis declines to take up Emily's challenge to attempt to represent Robin's POV on Curtis. Readers can decide for themselves why that's the case. > > > 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. > > > > It should be noted here that Robin did not make including > > such a notice (the all-caps quote above) on the posts in > > question contingent on Curtis proving that NONE of what > > Robin said is anything Curtis would dream of saying. So there > > was no deck-loading by Robin, just more Curtis disingenuity. > > That one string fiddle really can play can't it. Don't you > trolls have any other instrument though, it is kind of > screetchy. Gosh, might that be a preemptive sucker punch? Curtis certainly doesn't seem to want to respond to the point, which is frequently how he uses his sucker punches. > > There is additional disingenuity in Curtis's purported > > analysis, most egregiously in Curtis's misrepresentation > > of the discussion he had with Robin about saintly > > levitation. Another example is Curtis's denial of "love- > > bombing." That would be extremely easy to refute from > > Curtis's past posts. I may deal with both of these in > > a later post, as well as some of the others of Curtis's > > denials. Enough is enough for now. > > Nice work Judy. Another integrity test failed. Hypocrisy much, Curtis?
