You did not make Ann an example of Robin's behavior - God this is hilarious !!!
"You are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse opposition." If I were you I would call this an incoherent tirade. On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > You really needed that many words to express that? > > Your postings here are not an interaction with other people. It is all going > on inside your own head. > > I am under orders from Ann to ignore you now, but you apparently are free to > rant away. Man you must have done a number on her up at that mic. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > > > Dear Curtis, > > > > I am going to pay tribute to you. > > > > Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer > > to you is: > > > > DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH. > > > > In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ. > > > > Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe. > > > > There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere > > which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility. > > > > I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing > > something anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): > > writing to you, Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious > > determination to keep bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters > > of interpersonal truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will > > leave you alone. > > > > Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday. > > > > Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone > > who decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and > > perverse opposition. > > > > But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting > > the part you were cast to play. > > > > In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters > > in his plays. > > > > You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, > > Curtis. > > > > You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force > > analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play > > I would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who > > you are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.) > > > > I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but > > I am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am > > certain that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created. > > > > Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become > > religious from reading how you argue here on FFL. > > > > You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as > > someone who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to > > the sublime. > > > > You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out > > the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination > > what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, > > alter them, make them, break them, exalt them. > > > > You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis. > > > > You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation. > > > > No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you. > > > > CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT: > > > > Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down > > your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your > > game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't > > have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with > > it. I have been honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; > > but you don't take criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the > > intelligent feedback I keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all > > this, Robin? Those who are defending you have deprived themselves of the > > integrity (they don't realize they have done this, mind you; their > > self-righteousness tells us this) that I have decided will remain in my > > possession. You just don't like it when people disagree with you, Robin. > > > > And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was > > nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. > > You were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your > > own egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it > > is, Robin. > > > > Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my > > defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sincere. You just are > > not used to having an adversary who will not be intimidated, Robin. Robin, > > I wish you could hear this. For all your pretensions of "objectification of > > first person subjectivity" you fail to make the grade. Hardly anyone > > understands you, Robin; and believe it or not, Barry's criticism of you > > which you reposted below, it is felt deeply and passionately--by more > > persons than just Barry. > > > > Robin, you won't like this: But Barry's reaction to you says something real > > about you. > > > > I must stop here, Robin, else you will accuse me of what you do almost all > > the time: word flood. > > > > I think the most gracious thing I can say to you, Robin is: You are flawed, > > you are eccentric, you are very blind, you are very arrogant, and you > > are--I mean this, Robin, my friend--almost pathetic. > > > > I don't really respect either your intelligence or your philosophy. > > > > You need a wake-up call, Robin. I am trying to give that to you. > > > > I expect you just to say: "You are lying here, Curtis. You don't really > > believe any of this". > > > > There. I said it for you, Robin. And you are wrong. > > > > And I have just proven to you something even more significant: I can, as an > > artist, sort of imagine what it is like for you now, reading this. > > > > Why not think *this*, Robin: > > > > This comes, as it were, *from your very own self*. > > > > Curtis > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > snip > > > > > --- 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 are wrong about them too. It is YOUR lack of ability to see his > > > internal processes in them. If anything it comes through more simply in > > > those. He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things > > > that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are > > > focused on you. But even the infamous C posts were completely > > > comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin. > > > Seriously, it is so lame. What I want this post to do is to express ideas > > > I am interested in expressing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > It has to do with mine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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.> > > > > > > > > > Actually it does but you will never hear it. I know that now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.> > > > > > > > > > Mindfuckery statement. Did this used to work for you in the old days with > > > younger minds? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Dude, enough with the word flood posts. I read most of them and I have > > > nothing to say. You are impervious to feedback and they were too > > > long...again. Tighten up you shit if you want me to respond to you. I am > > > not your editor. Better yet, send all your posts to Judy first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself > > > > > > yesterday touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright. > > > > > > I know you believe this. It is part of your wall to any feedback. I would > > > never make such a statement like this about myself. Your confidence in > > > your perceptiveness is maintained by your being impervious to the > > > feedback that you are not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > I'm sure in Robin world that was all very clever. It didn't convey more > > > than a vague sense of smug condescension toward me. Perhaps that was all > > > it was meant to convey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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,
