--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "maskedzebra" <maskedzebra@> wrote:
<I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way
out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. >
CURTIS: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and
out.
ROBIN: "Troll here Robin": Well, as long as the big fish are biting, I will,
Curtis. Thinking of using my Max Squid now, instead of a lake troll. Thanks
for showing me the spot where I should drop my line.
> >
> >
> > 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. 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."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
