--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
> --- 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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_BWG5tYoLA&feature=related
> 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.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."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
