Much appreciated Share.
--- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Hey Curtis, taking this opportunity to finally tell you how much your posts > mean to me. This one and also your posts to Robin and Judy. When I read > your words it's as if my whole brain settles down, gets clearer and more at > peace. I know sometimes you get triggered which is totally understandable > on FFL. But I'm still grateful to you for what these settling kinds of > posts do for me. Especially when, as Ann says, the s--- flies (-: > > I hear from my Mom that the cold weather finally hit the DC area. Stay > toasty. > > > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 10:35 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: GORY DETAILS of Smoothing > Things Out > > >  > --- In [email protected], Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > M: This is the "you" I know. Snarky. I get the snark and am not completely > clear on why you would write this. It makes me scratch my head a bit and > then move on. > > 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...... > > M: Are you perhaps having a little too much fun with this? > > > > > 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 <curtisdeltablues@> > > To: [email protected] > > 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. > > M: Do all our motives have to be conscious and calculated? I take you at > your word that you didn't have that thought but I also know that you don't > invoke the name of Judy as a peacemaker around here. > > Or maybe you do. Maybe you see her as a person you trust here and wanted her > opinion and didn't know that she would take this ball and run with her > favorite themes on FFL. > > But when I heard that you had sent it to Judy I realized where it would lead. > That fact that you were not aware of that didn't seem likely to me. >  > > > > 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. > > M: Just remove your email from the board. I get emails from people, we can't > control that unless we want to cut them all off. Some people get all the > messages as emails on the same yahoo mail account you got this one. > > E: 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. > > M: I am not taking responsibility for what Sal wrote to you, I didn't right > it. I believe her intentions toward me were good ones. I can understand why > you didn't like what she said. We get a lot of that around here. You are > about to lay one on me right now: > > E: 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?" > > M: See, written communication can come off harsh. > > My issues with the Robin deal had to do with him using my name. It became a > bigger deal than it needed to with Judy piling on about it being unethical > for me to say it misrepresented my views without showing how. So I did show > how and it was met with the usual routine. > > So I hope you can also understand that I had a completely different focus > during that and your post didn't offend my ego. I was already booked. It > didn't matter to me if you enjoyed it or thought it was the best parody you > ever read. It wasn't me and I didn't want my name on it. If he had just > posted it as Robin goofing on Curtis it wouldn't have even garnered a > response. > > > > > 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. > > M: Emily I don't know you and we don't have a shared history in the TM > group. I'm happy you have found value here but you have a detachment from a > lot of what goes on built in to how you got here. Most of us took a > different road. > >  > > -------------------------- > > 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. > > M: I still might have my own opinion even if you state what your intentions > are. > > > -------------------------------------- > > 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? > > M: Because I didn't expect you to buy into the Judy routine that I was > calling you a liar by saying I believed you knew what you were doing when you > ordered up a side of Judy with your ham and eggs. > > I was assuming that. I guess I was wrong. I'm OK with that. >  > > > > 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? > > M: I said it because I believed your response meant that. If I got it wrong, > you have corrected me. >  > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > 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? > > M: The Tee hee was directed at Judy for once again invoking her "lying" deity > and trying to cause more of a ruckus than any of this needed to be, as > predicted. This line of hers is the perfect example of what you get when you > bring on the Judy. > > > ------------------------------ > > 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.  > > M: I hope what I have written shows you the respect you deserve for your > feelings in this situation. After this exchange I will consider the matter > closed although I will read what you write to me, I may not respond. > > > ------------------------- > > > > 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. > > M: I was under fire from Judy and Robin among others at the time. I did my > best and it seems that I had assumed too much about our being cool with each > other. I understand now that you were not. > > Here is how I see it now: > > You got an email from Sal that upset you. > > You sent it to Judy and me to review. > > I did not respond to you by email but the topic ended up on FFL anyway. > > I interpreted what you wrote that we were cool, but now know I had assumed > something that was not true for you. > > You want me to know that bringing Judy into this was not with the explicit > intention of getting her to back you up with Sal. > > We do not share the same POV on how grievous it was for Sal to send you an > email or on the contents. > > My saying that you were aware of what you get when you bring Judy in was not > me calling you a liar. You may see her participation here differently than I > do. > > You may or may not be cool with me now. > > > >
