In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
CURTIS1: The thing is dear Ann...
ROBIN1: 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.
CURTIS2: 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.
ROBIN2: Bullshit, Curtis.
ROBIN1:It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that
Curtis
enter into it.
CURTIS 2: 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?
ROBIN2: You are culpably selective and tendentious here, Curtis. You are
proving my thesis.
ROBIN1 :He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have
warned
him: "Do not go there. It is dangerous".
CURTIS 2: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man.
ROBIN2: No, no, Curtis. It is not who is the arbiter of truth. Newton and
Copernicus were not arbiters of the truth. The question is: Does what I am
saying here explain your behaviour, Curtis. And I believe it does. But you, you
*know* it does.
Or am I wrong here, Curtis?
Why not this response: "Robin, what you are saying about me is not true. I do
not avoid the truth, and I do not understand on what basis you can make such an
outrageous and demeaning and trangressive statement. Shut up, Robin. You are
wrong."
But that would be taking too much of a chance. It's the metaphysic of your
M.O., Curtis, and I have been describing it for some time now. You have never
addressed the question--and you never will. This is the secret to understanding
you, Curtis. You will not go anywhere near where reality might make trouble for
you.
ROBIN1: 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
CURTIS2: You are being an asshole here Robin.
ROBIN2: Explain how my assholeness is a more salient fact than what I am
describing as the truth of how you act, Curtis.
ROBIN1: --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.."
CURTIS2: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective
concisely.
Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept.
ROBIN2: Have I misjudged you, Curtis? I think Xeno's estimation of you
significant. But you are making me lose confidence in you. This won't do at all.
I am getting very angry with you, Curtis. Please stop with the names.
ROBIN1: 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.
CURTIS2: 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?
ROBIN2: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way
out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. I have said things about you;
you have not denied them. This is an admission of your concealed acquiescence
in their veracity. No? I say you have bad table manners, Curtis, and I point
out in what way you are offending our host: Miss Reality. You say: You have
told me I have bad table manners over and over again, Robin. Did you know that?
CURTIS2: Are you aware of the number of times you have repeated this charge?
ROBIN2: Are you aware of how many times gravity applies when you jump up in the
air?
ROBIN1: 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?
CURTIS2: No Robin that will always be you.
ROBIN2: The heck with the 20 somethings; to get you to say this (straight,
right?) gives me more of an organismic sensation of bliss than anything I
offhand can think of. I am going to take this as a fact. To have the last word,
that is sort of like "the palm at the end of the mind".
ROBIN1: 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*.
CURTIS2: 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.
ROBIN2: You already saw my photo (*which you are welcome to post*), and
commented favourably on my skin (no vegetarian, me, by the way).
I think your heart wasn't really in this one, Curtis. I missed the intensity of
your quiet desperation. No, this did not reach the Curtis Standard--but I sure
was expecting it would.
You sort of giving up the fight or something, Curtis?
I thought your post to Ann today the most BS-driven post I have ever read on
FFL.
But that said: I love you, God loves you, and Share loves you.
Robin
> >
> > > --- 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.Â
> > > > > > > > > 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."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
