Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that he overreacted? That's something I very much admire. When a person can say that maybe they got it wrong that time. Or maybe they overreacted. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly, or maybe having a bad day. Something along those lines. So for me, Curtis gets big points for that. And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Which is how you sound to me in this post.
Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Anyway, I agree with you that different people are a different percentage of positive and negative. I find most people to be mostly positive. Say 70-90%. And most of us can and do fluctuate from day to day or situation to situation. Heck I've even seen posters fluctuate from positive to very negative within 1 paragraph of a post! If I did that I'd figure I ate too much sugar. But probably what puts someone over the top is different for different peeps. Laughing because I was typing away and looked at screen and I had typed poops instead of peeps in last sentence above. You gotta love Freud and his whole Freudian slip thingie (-: Anyway, what else to say that might be beneficial at this point? As I said before, I don't think the dumb c phrase was a death threat. Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. Nonetheless it comes across sounding like a death wish. So still extreme vicious. Easy for me to suggest forgive and forget. But can't help but wonder what would happen if you did. Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that. Probably won't. Have to go out of town today. 1 hour drive each way. What else? I still think piling on does not help matters that are essentially private and emotional. Like the conflict between me and Robin. Which is actually what lead to conflict between Robin and Curtis. Which lead to Sal comment, which lead to Emily email to you, which lead to...yep, these things seem to take on a life of their own. Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take each situation, each post on its own merit. While maintaining some compassionate memory of a history I've only glimpsed. Best I can do for now. Share ________________________________ From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology Share, can you see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's response? Read what I wrote carefully, then read what Curtis wrote, then read the numbered paragraphs I added. See which of us you think is telling the truth about what I said to you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- > > negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of > > them, you may never see their negative side until you > > get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for > > dishonesty are so clever about giving the false > > impression that the other side is at fault that a third > > party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see > > how they've done it. > > Riiiiiiiight. Only Judy can. 1. What I said was that only those people who have disputes with such folks are likely to see their negative side. There are at least six people currently posting to FFL who have had disputes with Curtis, for example. All of them have seen his negative side and have testified to it. Many of those who have *not* had disputes with Curtis, in contrast, think of him as Mr. Wonderful. > It is kind of like a magical power but she was never bitten > by a spidera and doesn't come from a red planet that exploded. > > She just declared it and ShhhhhhaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmM! 2. Not magic at all. Again, as I said, it's a function of getting into a dispute with such people. It's very hard for a third party to tell when one's context is being twisted or erased, but one can see it quite clearly oneself. > So just take her word for when someone is lying, she will need > no evidence and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head. 3. What I told Share was that she would have to learn from experience, not that she should take my word for it. > When it looks like she has been spinning bullshit here, it > is really that you just lack her special powers. I don't spin bullshit. I don't have to. Curtis had to, as his post demonstrates. > > Sometimes I wonder if she believes she is addressing a room full of > preschoolers. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply > > > like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy > > > too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find > > > it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the > > > right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are > > > trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq > > > does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a > > > post bringing that to my attention! > > > > Good for you, Share. Just two points to add: > > > > First, don't believe everything you read here. Not only is > > Barry not "schizo," the rest of Richard's description of > > him is not accurate either. On the other hand, most of > > what Barry has said about FFL and its participants, > > especially in the last couple of days, is not accurate > > either (and the inaccuracy goes way beyond just "spinning"). > > > > You have to be particularly cautious, generally speaking, > > when someone delivers a rant about past trends or events > > on this forum that you weren't around to witness. It's > > often just about impossible to know whether they're > > telling the truth if you weren't here, especially if you > > have never learned how to consult the archives of the > > forum. > > > > Second, everyone is a mixture of positive and negative, > > that's very true. But the ratio of positive to negative > > is not always equal in a given individual. Some people > > are more negative than positive, some are more positive > > than negative. > > > > You'll have to learn by experience what the positive-to- > > negative ratios of FFL participants are. With some of > > them, you may never see their negative side until you > > get into a dispute with them. Those with a penchant for > > dishonesty are so clever about giving the false > > impression that the other side is at fault that a third > > party reading the posts in the dispute is unable to see > > how they've done it. > > > > Others are less clever about concealing the truth; if > > they got into an actual dispute their dishonesty would > > very quickly become apparent. They know this and do > > their best to avoid responding to challenges to what > > they say, contenting themselves with rants and not > > reading any of the comments that point out the > > falsehoods. > > > > It's quite shocking to find out, as you eventually will, > > that not everyone on a supposedly spiritually oriented > > forum is dedicated to the truth, and that some are > > actually intentionally and even maliciously deceitful. > > But it's a fact of life, at least here on FFL. > > >
