--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
ANN: I say this because I don't really sense that your "rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter" phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was "just right".) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: "Here is the thing, dear Share," You kinda know what's coming after that. RESPONSE: If any reader examines what Curtis has said here, there is a kind of hidden a priori psychology. And what is that a priori? That somehow the force and imperiousness of the personality of Curtis can be a substitute for any contact with the truth of the matter. Notice that Curtis perfectly deprives the impartial reader of any chance to subject this difference of point of view to a fair hearing *independent of the peremptory and despotic authority of Curtis*. Curtis takes on the entire burden of the proof of his argument here--in the absence of any possibility of having this matter adjudicated by a context within which Curtis himself exists. Curtis annexes the context of truth through sheer dint of will and personality. It is certainly a spectacular phenomenon to witness [Hold it, Curtis: I will have no respect for you whatsover *if you use the very mechanism I am describing here to evade facing the inevitability of my analysis*--So STFU--unless you are prepared to address my argument on its own terms]: Curtis lords it over everyone, and kills the possibility of a context which is opposed to Curtis getting a hearing. You see, Curtis is so scrupulously sensitive to the truth, that he knows how important it is to keep that truth from undermining or refuting him. So he just banishes it from existence and appropriates the context totally with the force of his personality. But of course all this is hidden from view. Look: There is some disagreement between this person (whom Curtis is addressing here) and Curtis. But instead of taking on the most generous and sincere motive which could lie behind the comments this person has made to Share Long, Curtis would judge them out of court categorically: as if to say: I have caught you in an utterly dishonest and manipulative form of behaviour, and you had better just own up. You are judged and sentenced; the execution awaits my discretion. I wish those readers at FFL who seek some form of contact with reality, with what is the case, will see that Curtis operates under a set of ruthless and intolerant rules. His judgment does not suffer from some subjectively experienced doubt when he makes his argument. But this is because he simply eliminates all of the reality which existed inside the context where the issue is being controverted, and substitutes his own context, which will not permit any appeal to a truth which Curtis has determined is a moral and intellectual inconvenience to him. Curtis has a secret ex cathedra way of writing. One does not notice it; one is influenced by the illusion that his confidence *must mean he is in contact with the truth*; but as it happens, in disputation at least, Curtis's confidence and authority is directly proportional to the truth which he is denying entrance into the discussion. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use > > > of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as > > > I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or > > > someone from another decade? > > > > > > > > > PS I'd rather be a supposed "pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse" than a > > > rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. > > > > Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception > > to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather > > charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited > > about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I > > know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses > > not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of > > truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say > > this because I don't really sense that your "rageful, reality-obfuscating > > dirty fighter" phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig > > a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your > > feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. > > > > > > BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation > > marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. > >   > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy & everyone -- writing for the Church > > > of $cientology > > > > > > > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in > > > > this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns > > > > about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my > > > > request is that you email me directly for sake of > > > > sparing the forum any further negativity. > > > > > > "Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and > > > falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that." > > > > > >
