Whoops - no, the first few statements of said situation are retakes and weren't subsequent to the FFL Games post. O.K. I promise to immediately stop reviewing the accuracy of my own posts after I've already hit send.
________________________________ From: Emily Reyn <emilymae.r...@yahoo.com> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 2:52 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Memorandum Part 2: GORY DETAILS of Smoothing Things Out MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS To and Re: Curtis, gentle reader on FFL Note: There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely understand this post - those who were involved in it may. You kinda had to be there and be square. From: Emilina, HR Department Re: Situational Gory Details I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner. My goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an angel within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" in all his doings. To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally threw up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily to finish. (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, have little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece this together. I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, resulting from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to correct or ignore any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, as we all know Emily needs more of both (meditation and good genetics). May the force be with you as you review the......GORY DETAILS...... Note: Below are subjective cut and pastes from posts that occurred from September 14 through the 18th (subsequent to the FFL Games post) in mostly chronological order. Curtis, I had no idea we'd done so much heavy and hard emotional work together. I am really impressed. Perhaps you can clarify a few things. I'm leaving the door open for you...... From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 14 through the 18th, 2012 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann "I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!" CURTIS: Emily IMO likes stirring the pot here and watching what happens. She did it often and well. She is a student of the personal dynamics here and I seriously doubt she would object to this characterization of her. When she included Judy she knew exactly what the Judy package comes with. I believe that she hoped for a little Judy/Sal smackdown in return for Sal's critical email. And NO she didn't say this herself, but that doesn't mean that the reason she gave isn't also true. It just may not be the complete list of motivations for why she chose YOU. EMILY: Take 2: Yes, I like to comment when the spirit hits me - stirring the pot? (Alright, just with you, if you say so) and otherwise, no more than anyone else. Yes, I will agree that I have studied the personal dynamics here to some degree and tested them to other degrees. But, considering it's been about a year and a half, I've been kinda slow about it, don't you think? I didn't bring any pre-conceived notions to the table - had never heard of FFL. Didn't even realize Fairfield was in Iowa at the beginning and had no knowledge of Maharishi, the Domes, or his University. I thought I'd dropped into one of those aforementioned parallel universes, if you must know. I was in an emotional and off-guard state when I initially sent you the email - you know this is the truth. You also know I was asking for "review" as that was in the subject line. Old news now, but I most certainly did *not* hope for a Judy/Sal smackdown. I am almost honored to think you thought I was calculating enough in the moment to put together a "list" of motivations. Note to self: Calculate your moves in the future - no more off-the-cuff responses. CURTIS: Duh,she was being criticized and I was being defended. Imagine that, we have different perspectives on the same email, what an amazing thing. EMILY: Alright, then, on a second take, I'll go for "criticized" - but only if all "criticisms" in the future are posted to FFL, and not to me personally. In my day-to-day operational world, that email was simply awful and she had no business sending it to me personally. She can defend you all she likes on FFL. I don't even know you except through this venue. I'm not clear to this day, why you think that it was O.K. for her to do such a thing or say the majority of what she did to me personally and go to great lengths to defend a watered-down interpretation of said email as appropriate. Because I "deserved" it after the horrendous way I had offended your ego, perhaps? If so, you have quite the temper. If I had authored such an email to you personally, as comment on a post you thought you were sending within the appropriate context on FFL and as humor, would you have just written it off as generic "criticism?" CURTIS: Emily may or may not respect me but I know one thing for sure. I am not exempt from her desire to have us entertain her, and she is not against stirring the pot when it suits her. I welcomed her wry wit even when I was on the receiving end it. This whole event doesn't change my view of her at all. EMILY: On second take, what is "her desire to have us entertain her....."? Well, perhaps it is me who is the exalted on....sitting on my throne of blackberry bush, waiting for the jongleurs (new word) to pay homage at my feet. You are all here to entertain me, make no mistake. I am in a different class - an upper class, if you will allow me this discretion. -------------------------- CURTIS: Again, glad you recovered. You continue to be an enigma here, which is, I suspect, just how you like it. EMILY: Do you mean enigma as under this general definition: "a person of puzzling or contradictory character?" I think my character is pretty straight up and pretty consistent. In my study of the human dynamics here, I have thought more than once that *you* are an "enigma", which is why I chose to spontaneously poke fun at you. Your response was quite enigmatic...or perhaps revealing. Perhaps mine was to you as well...I'll give you that possibility. I wish you had asked me to clarify my intentions, instead of assuming/implying what they were in subsequent posts to FFL. -------------------------------------- CURTIS: So Emily and I are cool now...... EMILY: Now, sweetheart (this is a Mother Hen term)...when you wrote this on September 17th, what gave you this impression? My heartfelt apologies to you? Yes, you should be cool with me....why should I have been cool with you at this point? CURTIS to (Judy?): Something that we already worked out just fine without your "help". EMILY: We did? When did we do this? This is what we are doing now, Curtis. What were the assumptions and what was the impetus for these two statements at the time they were made? ---------------------------------------------- RAUNCHY: Do you really think she trusts you? CURTIS: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she "trusts" me. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. EMILY: Curtis, hon (another Mother hen term), yes, you suspect correctly here. The blinders have been compromised and they are off. Too bad though - I liked the innocence from whence I posted in the past. You mean everyone in life doesn't have my best interests at heart - you mean some are out for themselves at others' expense - harm intended? Drag...big drag.... RAUNCHY: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? CURTIS: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? EMILY: Oh alright. I went back and re-read my post to you. Read now, at face value, I see your point. But, considering the timing of when it was posted, you failed utterly to understand or pick up on the irony or humorous intent to tease you. Clearly, you didn't appreciate my slightly edgy post...maybe you were in a bad mood that day. I didn't realize how seriously you would take it....was Sal reflecting your feelings when she accused me of offering up constant put-downs of you? My goodness...lighten up, mon ami. Yes, I thought Robin's email had merit and did capture points you've made to him (albeit using different words) more than once, but I was in no way condemning you or rendering judgment from my throne of blackberry bushes. -------------------------- JUDY: Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't so fine either. CURTIS: Tee hee EMILY: This was the money shot, Curtis. For me, at least. It was my "ah ha" moment. I was like....."oooohhhhh, reallyyyyy, wowwwwww." Now, I explained my use of this term in Memorandum 1 - but I absolutely see how you could have misinterpreted it. Who cares that I followed up that email with more than one attempt to explain myself to you. Why cut me any slack....I don't cut others any, and certainly not you, with all these put-downs I keep posting, right? ------------------------------ CURTIS (to Ann, I believe): Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. EMILY: Ah Ha ha ha ha. Now, what exchange was that? I wish we'd had such an exchange back during this whole situation. You had the opportunity by the way - I opened the door to it. The door is still open. ------------------------- CURTIS (to Steve): It all would have played out a little less silly if Emily had played ball and played her role as the "brutally" aggrieved party. But instead we exchanged posts and made our points clear without attacking each other personally. Imagine that options on FFL? EMILY: We did? Is all this love and light coming from how you've interpreted the comments you made on my draft of the FFL Games post that I sent? Do tell, Curtis.
