--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
CURTIS: The thing is dear Ann...
RESPONSE: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that
this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what
Ann has written to Curtis.
It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis
enter into it. He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of
truth have warned him: "Do not go there. It is dangerous".
So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in
this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he
has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*.
But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one
of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here,
*that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response
stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because
it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo
Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it--so, although ineffectual in
the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very
least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann.
Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is
manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader.
Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each
one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has
responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than
Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence:
"The thing is dear Ann.."
Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost
embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share
as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's
heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.]
But Curtis has a mystique ("most balanced intellect among all of us"--Xeno) and
a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have.
And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically
determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess
that context at all costs.
And in this sense, in saying what he has said to Ann here, he gives the
impression he has essentially had the last word. But has he?
He has said nothing. He has systematically and sedulously and deceitfully made
certain that the potency and thoughtfulness of Ann's post to Curtis is entirely
robbed of its intrinsic merit. This, by force of personality and will. Curtis
legendary status among certain posters and readers here enables him to escape
from the demands of truth and honesty which are incumbent upon the rest of us.
And my thesis can only be denied by Curtis *through the very same M.O. as I
have described here*.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending,
> > > > > there is no other way to spin that.
> > > >
> > > > It's "dormouse," not "doormouse" (dor = sleep).
> > >
> > > Always appreciated.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to
> > > > describe Share (except by herself).
> > >
> > > Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If
> > > so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a
> > > term she herself didn't use.
> > > >
> > > > > Here was your intent tell:
> > > >
> > > > "Intent tell," what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP,
> > > > I assume?
> > >
> > > No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It
> > > sounds so much edgier than "foreshadowing".
> >
> > OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the
> > expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual,
> > "Dear Share". The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening
> > words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't
> > want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have
> > admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual
> > pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I
> > truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could
> > be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse
> > statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when
> > retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to
> > think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of
> > flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to
> > get her feelings across.
> >
> > And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to
> > me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others
> > here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Here is the thing, dear Share,"
> > > > >
> > > > > You kinda know what's coming after that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- 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?Â
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PSÂ I'd rather be a supposed "pompous, reality-avoiding
> > > > > > > dormouse" than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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. Â Â
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > --- 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."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
