Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is that people would have to shower less if they just ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and pristine snow he is. [Barry about Robin--from yesterday) CURTIS: In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am referring only to his "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote from Paris. But you knew this. What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of him. It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews. But you knew this. The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of him. They are not. Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU. I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris of today. Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my analysis, Curtis "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world." This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever said about me, Curtis. Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday. You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis. I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant. But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you want this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you were not being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are unanswerable. I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself yesterday touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright. Do you give the stars permission to come out in the sky tonight? We are both extremely objective, Curtis. Me for one purpose, you for another. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > "This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person > who is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up > any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this." > > > > This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness I referred to in > an earlier post Robin. Barry's frequent stream of consciousness writing > style makes this more obvious than for most posters. > > But I'm ready to be proven wrong. Perhaps you could show us how much more > Judy reveals about her experience of herself in her writing, as a clear > contrast. > > In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of > yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond > your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal > experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your > internal world. > > Fill the page. > > > > > > > > > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong > > opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective > > experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even > > the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is > > mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, > > how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he > > envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays > > against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he > > lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main > > focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers > > who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. > > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, > > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he > > so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be > > missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any > > investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And > > why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing > > any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality > > and the consciousness of other persons. > > > > If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated > > posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very > > deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of > > psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will > > ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually > > acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any > > responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of > > truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an > > unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but > > anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you > > are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is > > feeling nothing. A zero. > > > > What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense > > that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely > > interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by > > how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You > > see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from > > reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; > > reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of > > some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think > > about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers > > who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the > > perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. > > > > BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his > > subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his > > posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service > > of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he > > knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have > > stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but > > BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. > > Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he > > vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL > > reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a > > strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of > > what his own experience is of himself when he does this. > > > > Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone > > writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there. > > > > It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the > > quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to > > remain inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he > > has been posting only to himself. As if this were the case, since he has > > removed himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the > > experience of the reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to > > reality and what abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter > > about which he is writing. > > > > BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or > > scornful or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting > > to challenge what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a > > real intention inside the other person, is the extent to which that > > intention--and the writing of a counter-post--will end up in empty > > space--No one is there. > > > > BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to his own subjectivity. His > > pleasure comes from the ineluctable consequence of this as it affects other > > human beings. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > CORRECTION BELOW > > > > > > > > Oh, my. Thank you! We musn't have anything amiss in this vital > > > > communication. > > > > > > Do you think they're finished with this orgy of > > > ego and nastiness yet? > > > > > > Do you think that either of them (Judy and Robin) > > > is even *capable* of understanding how insane this > > > level of self-absorbed narcissism reveals them to > > > be? Well over 40 posts between the two of them, > > > in one day, ranting to (as far as I can tell) no > > > one, because no one sane would bother to read > > > them. One really has to wonder what *happened* > > > to these two people to make them this crazy, > > > and this incapable of realizing that they're > > > crazy. > > > > > >
