--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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.
M: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my
phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask
me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant.
I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I
was coming from.
>
> It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis
> enter into it.
M; Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who
has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this
"requirement" only apply to me?
R:He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have
warned him: "Do not go there. It is dangerous".
R: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man.
R: >
> 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
M: You are being an asshole here Robin.
R: --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.."
M: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely.
Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept.
R: >
> 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.
M: Holy shit, no you diiiiiii-int! You never answered me about why you
repeated this charge a hundred times in your last posts, what was up with that.
Did you know you were? Do you know you are now?
Are you aware of the number of times you have repeated this charge?
R:
>
> 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?
M: No Robin that will always be you.
R:
>
> 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*.
M: You really need to get that head out of your ass Robin. At your age that
has to exacerbate constipation issues, and it can't be helping your complexion.
>
> > --- 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."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
