Dear Curtis: Thank you for taking the time to respond. Emilina (thank you for allowing me to steal the name for this exchange - I still like it) has left on more important matters, but sent me a short note to inform me that I will be wearing the sparkly gold shorts at the next rehearsal. She informs me that I will look better in them than you - although she acknowledges that it would be funnier to see you wearing them.
Yes, we are now "cool," from my perspective - cool as cucumbers (Damn! There I go with the snarkiness again). I looked that word up - defined as "sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner." Sometimes, yes, this is true, but no harm intended. Emilina has also told me she is considering you for a job in sales - if you send a picture of yourself in a suit to her P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands, it could be a lucrative move for you. (Is this snarkiness, also?) Honestly, I have heard what you said; in part, because I sat on the other side of the room and evaluated the situation from a different perspective. I am actually pretty rough on myself, and try to be honest, so I do not worry about questioning my own motives or behaviors. I don't expect perfection out of myself any longer. I have briefly addressed a few of your comments below. I have only one question, also included below under E2. ________________________________ From: curtisdeltablues <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:35 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? E2: Not too much fun in my world - but fun, yes. > > 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. E2: The last sentence is now quite clear to me. It is true that I view Judy differently than you. > > 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. E2: Understood. 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. E2: Re: the second sentence. What does, "but you have a detachment from a lot of what goes on built in to how you got here" mean? Is it simply because I don't have a shared history in a TM group? It is true that I don't have that "shared experience" and will never "know" of it as I believe "knowing" something requires experience of it. I have found value here and have been asking myself the question as to why I have stayed. Obviously, the curiosity factor is no longer the most prevalent. I do have my reasons. I am preparing to leave for a time, however, as the next indicated step in my life is showing up and it's important that I pay attention. > -------------------------- > 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. E2: Agreed, you might. > -------------------------------------- > 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. E2: At the time, yes; currently, I have closure, so to speak on the issue. I learned a few things, which is always my goal. > > 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. E2: I was headed in that direction, so you weren't completely off target. But, given the timing of these statements relative to when I was on vacation - I thought it was a pretty one-sided assumption at that point. > ---------------------------------------------- > > 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. E2: My mistake, I thought it was directed at me. > ------------------------------ > 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. E2: Yes, it will suffice. I am a strong believer in taking responsibility for one's own feelings, if you must know, so even if what you have written didn't suffice - it wouldn't matter. > ------------------------- > > 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. E2: Agree You sent it to Judy and me to review. E2: Agree I did not respond to you by email but the topic ended up on FFL anyway. E2: Agree - I moved it there. I interpreted what you wrote that we were cool, but now know I had assumed something that was not true for you. E2: Agree. Not at the time. 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. E2: Agree. We do not share the same POV on how grievous it was for Sal to send you an email or on the contents. E2: Agree. Her intentions, from my POV, in sending me that email were more than simply to "show her support for you", which I would have been fine with and reacted much better to, assuming it had been worded to respect me as a person and did not assume I had it in for you, which I didn't. 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. E2: Agree You may or may not be cool with me now. E2: Agree >
