--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool > with you. > > M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a > peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth > out a misunderstanding maybe?
According to Curtis, it's already *been* "smoothed out." > R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, > > M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your > hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained > tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the > mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. > Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and > me huh? I refer everyone to Emily's FFL post in which she described Sal's email-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319943 --then to her FFL post to Curtis: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Emily clearly felt violated both by Sal and by Curtis. raunchy is just reflecting this. > Something that we already worked out just fine without your > "help". > > Does the word brutally" make you think of blood, how it smells? > The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious > mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you > inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. You can always tell when Curtis is really beginning to lose it. > R: do you really think she trusts you? > > M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking > her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me > to worry about whether or not she "trusts" me. raunchy wants you to tell us what you believe. You are unwilling to do that because you couldn't answer in the affirmative without looking ridiculous. > The problem I have is that so little trust is really required > between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with > some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an > appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions > here, just as I do. Both of them already have. Emily does not trust Curtis because he displayed an inappropriate level of mistrust in her. Except he doesn't really believe she was lying; he's trying to take the heat off himself by turning it on Emily. Collateral damage. Tough beans, Emily. > R: Just curious... > > M: This is really just a style point but that "ah shucks lets > set here a spell and shoot the breeze" has been overused by > your mean mentor, Interesting, I don't believe I've ever said anything that could be characterized this way. > so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the "brutally", > but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too > closely. This is insane. > R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she > was teasing you or did it piss you off? > > M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, > that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often > have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss > you off? Says Curtis, doing his absolute damndest to avoid answering raunchy's question. > R: Was your poor treatment > > M: See I would have held back on the "brutally" at first and > gone with this weaker accusation "poor treatment" and then > built to "brutality". This is kind of anti-climatic now. I > hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with > the "brutally" already. Well, you certainly can't deny "poor treatment." > Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the > email as egregious as Judy does? Or as Emily does, Curtis "forgets" to add. Emily responds to Curtis's view of Sal's email: ----- Curtis: Duh,she was being criticized and I was being defended. Imagine that, we have different perspectives on the same email, what an amazing thing. Emily: Criticized? Oh, let's play it down shall we. I'm good at accepting criticism Curtis - constructive criticism that is. Sal's email was mean and and totally off-base. I find it hilarious that you would actually want such a supporter on your 'team' - she is on your 'team,' right? Me, I'll go with logic over loony every time. ----- > Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for > sending it to Judy was comprehensive? Emily's view of Curtis's stated disbelief, also from her post to Curtis: "You have every right to speculate on the reasons I sent that gem from Sal to you. Why believe what I told you was the reason - the same reason I posted here as a matter of fact. I am honored by how devious you think I am.... Considering that I mentioned I had almost no idea who Sal was - you bet, why take anything I said at face value Curtis. Let's attribute motive. "smackdown" - God, I should so get a life, huh?" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Again, raunchy was reflecting Emily's view of how she was treated by Curtis. Curtis knows this. His questions are disingenuous. > And does her lack of seeing Robin's send up the same as I > do constitute her being brutal with me for disagreeing? > Or is that only applied to me? Not analogous, as Curtis is well aware. > R: 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 > > ME: She sent me an email and I called it like I saw it. You > are welcome to interpret that any way you want. Because Curtis sure isn't going to answer raunchy's question. > I guess it makes you happy to imagine me having a bruised ego > over her thinking differently than I did about something. No, she's wondering what the hell made you go after Emily the way you did. > Perhaps you are running these posts a bit closer to your > own ego sense than I do. What was the phrase Curtis used--oh, yeah, "preemptive sucker punch." > But just curious...are you looking forward to a pat on the > head from Judy, See, if Curtis can spin it that raunchy is just looking for strokes from me, rather than having her own independent opinion, it blunts the effect of her criticism of him. I don't know whether he learned this tactic from Barry, or Barry learned it from him, but it's dishonest in the extreme. > or were you pursuing your own desire to > cause trouble between posters here who seem to be getting > along fine without your junior high bullshit? "Seem to be getting along fine"? Does Curtis think nobody here can *read*?
