If you are reading this please understand that I ma dealing with an internet troll who has put my name on something I did not write in an attempt to get a response from me.
This is my response. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> > > Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless attacks > on me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very seriously. Why > the problem? > > Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about something > does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological reason why I > would come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply responding to > you, Robin, and it seems you don't like this. > > But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, > trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would > explain their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. I > have only done one thing: I have called you on this. > > And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this. > > Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole > self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus > philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; I > will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted to > your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have found > out about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment someone > opposes you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not collapsing > their different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you did in those > seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had enough of that > shit from Ann today). > > You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, > respected me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with > those who have determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there > is life) before you came on board. You have essentially confused and > disturbed people with your word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of > truth-finding on this forum. You have to get this through your swelled (still > some hallucinatory effects there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I know you > are being facetious and mocking with your proposed thought experiment (yes, > now become "existential"--Funny, that, Robin)--there will be more sunlight > here on FFL, Robin. > > You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the skies > here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], Robin. > You are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry doesn't > like it. Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. Many more > would echo this sentiment, Robin. > > Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am > almost (please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my > ordinary prose is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more > effeminate style--and I mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your > style here, Robin. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > Dear Curtis, > > > > I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, > > Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it > > comes to me. > > > > The thought experiment. Now an existential one. > > > > I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are > > other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach > > myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) > > or whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely > > different attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one > > person who stands out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more > > importantly, altering my attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it > > comes to knowing my motives, blind when it comes to understanding who I am, > > blind when it comes to understanding when criticism (about myself) is > > valid, blind when it comes to estimating how perspicuous my posts are. > > > > But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a > > philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via > > examination of self)? > > > > Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to > > seek professional help. > > > > If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this > > private between you and me? > > > > Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you > > will just say: "You are nuts, Robin." And if you deem my problem to in fact > > be psychopathological, you will just say: "You are fine, Robin." > > > > I promise to cease posting if you oblige me in this way. I mean, unless you > > choose to answer those four posts from Saturday. (Then, whether crazy or > > not, I think you will understand my desperate need to have some way of > > preserving my reputation on FFL as someone who never gives in, or gives > > up--Oops! that just may decide which kind of problem I have, what I just > > wrote there. I see that now, Curtis. Still, I am not going prejudge this > > matter.) > > > > I think we should just wipe the slate clean here, Curtis. Until you say > > something bad about me, I won't say anything bad about you. > > > > This, then, will be my last word on FFL until I hear from you as to how I > > should proceed. > > > > Believe it or not, I *am* feeling better. > > > > Thank you, Curtis. > > > > Robin > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Curtis1: 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. > > > > Robin1: 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. > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
