-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > snip> > > > The rest of the piece just amplifies this impression. You > > believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I do not. > > You know, Curtis, the dismissively loaded phrase "word flood" > may have had some impact the first time you used it, but it > doesn't wear too well with constant repetition. About all it > conveys now is that you're at a loss to deal with detailed > reasoning.>
You know what wears even less well? Getting word flooded by a person who refuses to ever edit his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's ability to interact here. And you as a professional editor should know better. I am calling it as I see it. A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically long flood of words. Eventually he posts 3 more than I could be reasonably expected to answer, and this is called to attention by both of you. Winning through attrition in a game I am not playing. You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same league as Robin. With you the righting is tight but it extends longer and longer because you never get enough of the specific interaction even after the person had made their points and is done. If you walked a few posts in my shoes you might be more sympathetic. It is a sensation of drowning in too much unedited ideas that could never be answered because they grow exponentially with each post. Only you two do this here. But you have never gone head to head with Robin in the way that I have so your charge of my being unable to deal with "detailed reasoning" is crap. > > If you had understood what Robin wrote, you could have made > an appropriate succinct comment. The one you did make about > "stream of consciousness" was irrelevant. Not to me or the actual author of the post in question, Barry. We both thought it was a good description of how he posts, and the absurdity to claim that he doesn't reveal himself in some unique way that only Robin can detect. > > > > Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you > > > tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you, > > > Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his > > > posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to > > > people he doesn't like. > > > > That was also true and reveals a common cognitive problem > > you have. > > (snicker) Right, Curtis. It's my cognitive problem that I am > able to spot your inconsistencies. I am playing to the balcony here. I know you will absorb nothing of this. Your framing this behavior this way prevents it. Since I have interacted with you on an Internet forum this is your most maddening trait. You gut hung up on something that has no relation to the whole, and the meaning of the post gets derailed. I used to think it was deliberate but now believe that you really can't help yourself. This is how you experience the world. Take our last go around that seemed to fascinate you beyond any other point in my discussion with Robin, that I was ACTUALLY referring to some irrelevant past relationship Robin had with Share before the whole post exchange we were discussing. Most obviously it had to do with his predisposition to enter this exchange with the unfriendly agenda of shocking her into facing the "reality" that is Robin approved. But you couldn't get off it. You had to create a cockamamie theory of me being motivated to lie about my actual intended meaning once I clarified it. It made no rational sense outside your imagination of my dark intentions. It was weird. And it was a derailment. I could post 100 more examples but it will all be the same in the end. You cannot help this. I am not sure about Robin yet. But the point it derailed was about how Robin entered into the interaction with an unfriendly agenda. That was my point that got lost in this idiotic word parsing based on your imagination that I would be motivated to LIE about something so stupid,rather than accept my correction of YOUR misunderstanding. > > > You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together. > > Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone > > and one is a general writing piece for people like me who > > enjoy them. > > Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter And his analysis was wrong about that too, but I will address that to him. > > > > Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do > > > with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more > > > subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at > > > least wanted anybody else to grasp). > > > > Jesus Robin will you pleeeeeeeeze throw some holy water on > > this long suffering disciple. > > > > I liked the little insinuation that I can magically control > > how other people view Robin by expressing an opinion. > > I didn't mean to suggest you're *successful* at it. > > > I wonder if you believe you have such magical powers? > > > > > (Barry's response to your post is amusing. To support your > > > attempted refutation of Robin's analysis, he offers the > > > fact that he types very fast and doesn't do any editing, > > > which has even less to do with anything Robin wrote.) > > > > Unless you are seeing it my way which is that he is describing > > the mechanics of why I see his thought process about himself > > in his writing. > > I wonder whether Barry would acknowledge that he shows > his own experience of himself in his writing: > > Barry: > "In fact, the less awareness of self I have, > the better the writing seems to flow. Self > 'gets in the way.'" > > Robin: > "...does not offer up any evidence of what > his own experience is of himself..." > > > > > 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. > > > > > > It isn't something that can be "shown," in either my case > > > or Barry's (or anybody else's, for that matter). Where it > > > shows (or doesn't show) is in our respective posts. > > > > Another hidden fault like the ones you see in me that you > > are uniquely able to see... > > (I think you meant to type this underneath the paragraph > immediately below.) > > > > If you can't see the difference in what Robin is talking > > > about between my posts and Barry's, perhaps it's *your* > > > lack of perceptiveness that's the problem. > > > > Snaaaaaaap! No you diiiiiiiin't! > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Just a manufactured insult, not something you actually > > > believe to be the case. You aren't *that* undiscerning. > > > > And the winner of "I know more about your internal processes > > than you do" award is....... > > OK, maybe you *are* that undiscerning. > > > sorry Judy, it is still Robin. But keep it he may not enter > > some year. > > Having a bit of a hard time here, ain'cha? Yes but not in the way you imagine. We are two ships in the night.
