--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote:
ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? >A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and >ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no "ego stroking". She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the "right" one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word "traumatizing". I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with > > > > > > whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. > > > > > > > > > > Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure that if you play the song "Imagine" > > > > backwards, it generates one of your posts. > > > > > > > You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's > > > cool with you. After calling her motives into question > > > so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just > > > curious... > > > > There's a number of things Curtis can't change. > > > > 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing > > her of being mean to him. > > 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. > > 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email > > sound like no big deal. > > 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending > > me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had > > explicitly explained otherwise. > > > > Why *would* Emily want to be "cool" with Curtis in light of > > those facts? > > > > Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. > > > > Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we > > know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by > > him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had > > not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's > > email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for > > sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, > > and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. > > > > If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to > > someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting > > me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out > > on FFL by name. > > > > Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. > > > > > When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think > > > she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your > > > poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did > > > it have nothing to do with this: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 > > > > Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we > > have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily? > > Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and > ego-stroking to Curtis. When that happens and yet the other side of the email > was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to > not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was > complimentary to him. If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, > why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email > to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. Instead of liking the email because it > was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable > feeling for Emily's position) gotten beyond his subjective support of this > otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for > what it was. That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' > intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by > not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. > But maybe that is asking too much. > > >
