--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- 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?
Robin: That's an unfair dig, Curtis. I think I never thought of applying it to *that* context--but, now that you bring it up, I sort of wish I had. A little late in the game now, I suppose. The universe computing through my Unity Consciousness didn't really make that one of its priorities. But I am wondering: at 68, do you think it would work for me? Now I realize I have stepped out of my usual mode of robin singing here, but I think there still is enough lust in there to want to give this a try. Ladies: be warned. "20 somethings": God, that would be nice, Curtis! No, the power surge you get in enlightenment, that more or less trumps everything else. But now that I have given up the field of all possibilities, I am thinking retrospectively of *that* possibility. And I think I blew it, Curtis. I think I blew it. Sorry, all your gals *who could have been*. I knew you'd find some way to get under my skin, Curtis. Faces and eros: There has to be someone behind this, don't you think? Platonically yours, Robin > > --- 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
