--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts stand on their own > without commentary. I think that does you the most justice because Judy has > informed me that when I respond I can keep others from seeing the truth of > your post. > > Hey great job on deflecting the feedback. Not a drop ever reached you. I > guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so > you could dismiss it out of hand.
Well, since you *didn't* believe what [you] wrote, I feel it would have been naive of me not to have "dismiss[ed] it out of hand." But I have not, Curtis. I wrote four posts to you yesterday. Those four posts, each one of them, constitutes a comprehensive response to what you wrote to me this morning, which I just responded to now. We are talking about a Curtis Principle. But I think I might not forget *this*: "I guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand". Orgasm. You came, Curtis. I finally got you to come. > Mighty handy that little trick. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
