--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Judy formula: > > She misunderstands something obvious. > > She takes off running under her own misconception. > > When her mistake is pointed out she doubles down and > accuses the person of lying or being deceptive. > > She doubles down again, piling on more insults in a rabid > word flood frenzy to avoid facing that she was just wrong > about something relatively petty. > > I think Steve is on to something here. It must have been > very unsafe for you to make a mistake growing up.
Very seriously au contraire, Pierre. Apparently your first nonrefutation didn't give you quite the feeling of triumph you were hoping for, so you're back for another one with yet more name-calling. Me, I stand by the case I made. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > > > <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You lost me on your initial word flood in which you > > > > > seem incapable o distinguishing between the beginning > > > > > of your recent exchange with Share, my obvious intended > > > > > meaning in context, and your fantasy that I was making > > > > > a broader claim about your predisposition somewhere > > > > > back in time that has no relevance to our discussion. > > > > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current* > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this, > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic > > > > (disingenuous smiley face). > > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's > > reply saying the same thing). > > > > > Thanks for your usual breath of sanity LG. It is a little > > > crazy making this hyper focus on a word or phrase twisted > > > out of its intended meaning, and then then the accusations > > > of dishonesty when you try to set it right. > > > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with* > > is likely to be able to spot it. > > > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one. > > > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most > > recent exchange with Share..." > > > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could > > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says > > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least > > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent. > > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a > > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize > > the potential for misunderstanding. > > > > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to > > backpedal from a mistake. > > > > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began > > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly. > > > > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks > > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on > > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her. > > > > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share > > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an > > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You > > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a > > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made > > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that > > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin. > > > > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you > > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been > > friendly. > > > > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the > > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go > > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your > > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning > > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack > > of intention to understand on your part. > > > > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that > > paragraph: > > > > "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly > > and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself > > considering that you are just letting her have it with both > > barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our > > conversations which followed the same arc, although I at > > lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the > > assault." > > > > "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your > > current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by > > Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations > > with him. One more reason to suspect that by "From the > > outset" you meant from his early exchanges with her--except > > that you weren't aware of the "flowers and chocolates" she > > had received from him, hence your phrase "at le[a]st." > > > > Your walkback here is only marginally plausible. You should, > > as Robin says, have just copped to making a mistake. That > > would have been no big deal. > > > > Finally, in Robin's current exchange with Share, his > > remarks about her avoidance of reality were (of course!) > > "uninvited"--but they were, as you know, by no means > > *unprovoked*. > > > > Speaking of inadvertent irony: > > > > > But I am seeing it all as more formulaic than genuine > > > interaction. Judy runs the exact same DLL program. It > > > is the exact opposite of interactions with the intention > > > to understand. > > > > Robin has your modus operandi nailed, Curtis. When conflict > > is involved, your intention--your formula--is to *prevent* > > "genuine interaction" and proclaim CurtisTruth by fiat. > > >
