Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the import of my complete thought as contained in the whole paragraph. For example, what I said about the death wish phrase.
>From your overall relentlessly combative tone, I think this aim of distorting, >rather than arriving at truth or harmony, is your purpose. More directly, I >did not put Barry in the positive and sensible clique as you accuse me of >below. OTOH, when I recall the straightforward tone of Barry calling me an >idiot, I'm more likely to put him there rather than you with, what one friend >of mine calls, your toxic and obfuscating nitpicking. And I'm sure Barry's >happy not to be put in any clique! Perhaps I've been guilty of considered and considerate niceness, what you call synthetic, in the service of not hurting people's feelings and speaking the truth that is sweet. But you're guilty of synthetic truth seeking. In service to putting others down and attempting to win every argument. ________________________________ From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Yes, Judy I see what you mean. In this instance I'd say > you're sounding more reasonable than Curtis. Oh, but that isn't what I asked, is it? I asked if you could see the attempted deceptions in Curtis's comments on my earlier post to you. The attempts to deceive are very clear-cut and objective: I said one thing, and he pretended I had said something different. You should be able to see that and to acknowledge it. Take another look, please. I left it all in below. > BUT...did you see his reply to Ravi in which he admits that > he overreacted? Yes, I didn't find it terribly impressive. He didn't retract any of his accusations (false, IMHO) against Ravi, and in any case in his next post to Ravi he said he was "not so sure" that he'd overreacted after all. > 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. It needs to be balanced against everything else he's said to and about Ravi and the other participants in this dispute, including Emily. It's barely a drop in the bucket of the retractions and apologies he still owes. > And I'm glad that you're feeling better. Now, why would you say that, Share, when I never said I was feeling anything less than fine? You know, I have a lot more respect for people who come right out and say what they mean, even if it's hostile, than for those who try to disguise it, as you just did with that comment. Or perhaps you're just having a bad day. I'll take honesty and reality, even if they're ugly, over synthetic niceness any time. > Which is how you sound to me in this post. Seems like your intuition may need a tune-up. Or just your common sense, maybe. I addressed you in a more cordial tone in the post you're responding to not because I hadn't been feeling well previously, but because you had said something important and intelligent that I agreed with, about DSM-IV labels (V will come out next May) not being helpful to nonprofessionals (although Richard's "SCHIZO" wasn't a DSM label, but a crude insult to go with the rest of his faux history of Barry--and no, the link he posted to an old discussion doesn't help his own credibility, just FYI). > Hey I just remembered. You have 49 posts so you're > welcome to answer this to me directly if you want. Uhhh, thanks, but no thanks. If I had wanted to communicate with you privately, I would have done that from the start. > 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%. It doesn't surprise me that this is what you think. I'm not at all sure it serves you in contexts like FFL, though. <snip> > 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. Not literally, of course not. > Actually the word death is not in the quote at all. "Too stupid to live" does suggest death, don't you think? But perhaps you missed that part of the quote. Or the other bit in the post about raunchy and me bursting into flames. Barry reposted the whole thing, though, so you should have seen both: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320412 Oh, I just checked, and you *did* see that post, because you responded to it. So why would you say there was nothing about death in what he'd written? > 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. If *I* did?? Have you not been paying *any* attention? Or perhaps you've been paying attention only to Barry and Curtis, who have consistently and deliberately misrepresented the whole incident. FYI, Share: *Barry is the person who brings this up over and over, not me, and not raunchy*. I already told you that just two days ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320416 You might want to speak to him about "forgiving and forgetting." Really, though, you're a lot better off not giving advice when you don't have any idea what the hell is going on. > Have not checked archives to see Curtis part in all that. > Probably won't. Of course you won't. You're struggling to preserve your image of him; why would you expose yourself to any contrary evidence? > What else? I still think piling on does not help matters > that are essentially private and emotional. Like the conflict > between me and Robin. You mean, all your public posts castigating him for having said something that you misunderstood? > Which is actually what lead to conflict between Robin and > Curtis. Oh, Share. No, that isn't what led to the conflict between Robin and Curtis. That began last fall. And this current flareup began when Curtis decided to pick a fight with Robin about saints and levitation. You were already here then, I believe. I wonder how you missed it. It was only a little over two weeks ago: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319290 Your thing with Robin was just a sideshow to the main event. (BTW, Curtis misrepresents the page Robin cited in that post. I don't imagine you looked at the page, though, so even if you saw the exchange, you'd have no way of knowing that.) > 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. This one certainly seems to have done so in your mind. > Lastly, I will continue to not choose sides but rather take > each situation, each post on its own merit. Really? Because on Tuesday you said: "dear Ravi, you can add me to the Curtis Susan Steven clique. Thank you, Share "PS I really don't like to be in any clique but in this ongoing conflict between the absent Emily and Sal, hope you can see the irony in that, I choose to align myself with the clique that is overall being the most positive and sensible." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320393 Had you forgotten you'd chosen a side just two days ago? > While maintaining some compassionate memory of a history > I've only glimpsed. Best I can do for now. Yeah, I'm not sure those glimpses have been enough to be useful to you in evaluating many of these situations. You're probably better off not even trying when they involve the past history of the forum. But when a situation unfolds before your eyes, you ought to be able to come to some conclusions. For example, Curtis has been under some pretty heavy fire. in the matter of Sal's email to Emily. If you look closely at how he attempts to defend himself, comparing it with what others have been saying, you may be able to determine for yourself what kind of tactics he uses to do this. Barry, as you've no doubt seen, refuses to engage with his critics or even read their posts (not true, but that's what he claims), let alone take any responsibility for the accuracy of what he says about them. To my mind, that's a big red flag in and of itself. Because I *have* been following the discussion closely (and have seen Sal's email), and because I've been here for years and know what people have done and said and not done and said, I'm quite comfortable with my evaluation of the honesty and accuracy of Curtis's and Barry's recent posts. "Most positive and sensible" is not a phrase I'd apply to Curtis's posts, let alone Barry's. And poor Steve and Susan are just right out of it, even though they've been here for years. I left in the post of mine you were responding to. I'd suggest you read it again to refresh your memory, and then see if you can bring yourself to respond to my question straightforwardly. > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > 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. > > > > > >
