--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote:
M: Did the *attack the confidence* formulaic routine work well for you when you were surrounded by 20 somethings Robin? How has it been working for you lately? > > > > --- 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." > > > > > > > > > >
