--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps before you completely disappear into the fog of all the dramatic > > > but unspecified umbridge floating around here, you can finish what YOU > > > started: > > > > Curtis, I don't disappear. No fog, I am transparent. What's this about > > 'dramatic'? You and Barry had some fun between yourselves today. You > > thought you might have been talking about me. You were not. In fact, you > > got so off on some agenda of your own I gave up trying to follow you. Tell > > you what. While I'm finding quotes to show your 'lamentation' and whining > > you find quotes of mine to show I was supporting Robin, getting > > uncomfortable with your exchanges or in some way interfering with whatever > > it was you were talking about with him for the last three days? Deal? > > Deja vu man: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Oh, I spent an hour this morning cutting and pasting your "lamentations", > > > Curtis, into a post which I had to leave to go do my barn chores and when > > > I came back I couldn't find the thing. So I can start over if you like > > > but in the meantime, show me anything I have written in the last four > > > days that has indicated or said directly that I disapprove of your posts > > > with Robin or where I have made any references about your posts in the > > > last four days here. Just one teeny word or phrase will do. > > Me, delivering as promised: > > > Ann: > < I think you should do what you want but don't then lament and cry> > about it as if you are some long-suffering martyr.> > > Ann: reneging and trying to move the goal post again. > > Sorry Ann, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. I get it. I was > giving you a chance to explain your unfriendly interpretation of my > interaction with Robin because we have had friendlier times and I didn't > understand what you were putting out toward me. I've lost interest and am > not going confront you about it ad nauseum Robin style. It was your choice > to explain or not. > > > > > > > > Ann: > > > < What has Barry said on this subject? Not that different from what I am > > > saying. > > > The big difference is that he doesn't think you should bother interacting > > > with the crazy NPD person and I think you should do what you want but > > > don't then lament and cry about it as if you are some long-suffering > > > martyr.> > > > > > > Me: > > > Here the passive aggressive nature of your post zooms forth. I would like > > > you to show me where I have lamented and cried as if I was a > > > long-suffering martyr. > > > > > > I'm sure your computer will be more cooperative this time. > > > > I don't owe you a damn thing, not after your behaviour today.> > > First of all you definitely do not owe me an damn thing. Not an explanation > for why said the things you did about me in my conversation with Robin. I > was giving you a chance to explain how you have been showing up. Your > choice. Secondly, what's with the unspecified "your behavior" umbrage > machine you are laying down? Point out something specific you want me to > explain, and I will tell you why I said it. > > I will start here since you brought it up: > > Ann<you find quotes of mine to show I was supporting Robin,> > > Well you let me have it, and didn't say a word about him for one. > > < getting uncomfortable with your exchanges> > > This is just a guess on my part. You were telling me that I needed to either > have conversations with Robin but not give my opinion about how he was > interacting, or stop interacting with him. But neither of them were your > business, you were inserting yourself. I believe our conversations triggered > you, otherwise why would you care what I say about my interactions enough to > let me have it. "shit or get off the pot" was way over the line of casual > interest in someone else's post exchanges. And your little flash back > description of what it was like with Robin including your odd bravado that I > wouldn't last an hour at the mic but you were able to get through three and a > half years for over ten hours a day did in fact leak more information about > your perspective than your more careful presentation of it does. I still > stand by my , you got triggered, interpretation to understand it. You had no > reason to focus hostility toward me and you actually seem a bit clueless that > you had in fact focused hostility toward me. I gave you a chance to explain, > you doubled down, end of story for me. Ravi seems to be able to interpret > your feelings more to your satisfaction than I am. OK. > > < or in some way interfering with whatever it was you were talking about with > him for the last three days?> > > I never claimed this. This is your invention so I have no explanation. Do > you? > > < But, guess what? I'm going to go through the posts again and find them for > you just because you are too lazy to go through them and find them yourself > > > Whoa. It was your choice of words,not mine. I have no idea why you chose > them, I think they are misdirected. Number two did you really run that > routine in a conversation about you calling ME a long suffering martyr? You > did that with a straight face? > > <or to admit to yourself that you are torn between ignoring Robin and > following his every word.> > > I am not torn. I have the discussion till it no longer interests me. Same > as with you and the clock is ticking fast on this conversation. > > < Am I being 'unpleasant'? Not nearly as unpleasant as you have been today.> > > How? After your description of your time with Robin was it really a news > flash that some of us might suspect you were affected by that? Three and a > half years, over 10 hours a day of Robin? Yeah, both Barry and I think you > might have been affected like any other human in that situation. And no I > don't believe you are even conscious enough of how it has affected you to > deal with it. That is my opinion from seeing you operate here. > > <What, after all this time reading what I have to say, you expect me to roll > over and play dead? I am who I am and anyone with eyes in their head and an > IQ over 30 knows what I am all about. Never, for one minute, have I presented > myself as any saint, enlightened person or above fallibility. I call it like > I call it and right now you could come "clean" and admit you're creating a > drama here. For what ends I don't care to conjecture. > > > > You are just venting here. I can't relate to any of this. > > <But I will tell you one thing: your behaviour has been an incentive for all > sorts of interesting exhibitions of meanness by certain posters here. > > > My "behavior" is not the "incentive" for anyone. People post what they want. > Don't try to pin on me what other posters say to or about you. Discuss it > with them. I don't hold you accountable for the shit Ravi is slinging about > me in support of you. > > I gave you a chance to show up differently Ann. So we now have gained some > better insight into how we view each other. > > I am fine with that. I no longer care why you said what you said. I don't > believe you could give me a straight answer even if you wanted to. And you > have made it very clear that you do not want to. So unlike Robin, I am > shutting off the mic now.
Phew, thank God for that but I'd already left the room a while ago. And I don't think a soul here, including me, could stand another minute of our 'discussion'. It has to have been one of the most misconstrued I have ever engaged in with anybody in my entire life. Seriously. Perhaps an opportunity will come up where we can have a constructive conversation. I'm always open to fresh starts, but I think you know that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Breath of fresh air here. Common sense, a voice of experience and > > > > reason. This is what I can respond to, relate to. Not crazy tangential > > > > meanderings off into a la-la land of misconstrued meanings and > > > > mean-spirited invective. > > > > > > > > It is, in fact, possible to lay out facts without hostility, without > > > > airing pent up frustration from some past history with someone and to > > > > dig a little deeper into oneself to try and find what is true and real > > > > - what is relevant and what transcends the ego. So far, the last few > > > > days, and today especially, have illustrated some pretty low aspects of > > > > people; like some sort of anything-goes, orgiastic (Robin wasn't far > > > > off on that one re: Curtis in his recent post) indulgence in bad > > > > choices, bad behaviour. Very little self-control and a slathering > > > > (sorry Judy) for blood that was awe-inspiring to witness. I mean, even > > > > sweet, apologetic Share broke a sweat swinging the battering ram and > > > > boy did she ever have fun doing it. > > > > > > > > For all you lurkers out there it might get even better tomorrow. I > > > > certainly hope not, my faith in humanity is shaky at the best of times. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Very short on posts, so I'm combining several responses > > > > > in this one. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > > > > <chivukula.ravi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You have got to be kidding me. > > > > > > > > > > > > This exchange between Curtis and Barry marks a new low on FFL. > > > > > > The fact that they reduce Robin's brilliance, intelligence, > > > > > > wisdom to a set of BSM rituals and a set of labels from DSM > > > > > > shows how devious and emotionally, intellectually, morally, > > > > > > ethically bankrupt both are. > > > > > > > > > > Not to mention the outright falsehoods. > > > > > > > > > > God knows I'm used to seeing dishonesty and unfairness of > > > > > all kinds from certain people on FFL. But this post of > > > > > Curtis's to Barry contains more falsehoods than I have ever > > > > > seen crammed into a single post. > > > > > > > > > > > Hats off to Ann for successfully pushing Curtis's buttons - > > > > > > till yesterday it was just a benign accusation of > > > > > > word-flood and subjective imagination on part of Robin - > > > > > > look at how he dramatically escalates. Curtis can't tolerate > > > > > > this opposition - he has to totally dominate, he did that > > > > > > with Emily and now Ann. > > > > > > > > > > That's exactly right, he cannot tolerate opposition, and > > > > > after a certain point he loses control. He's done it with > > > > > raunchy as well, and goodness knows he's tried to do it > > > > > with you and me. (Did you notice that in his next post he > > > > > accuses me of being autistic? "On the spectrum" means on > > > > > the autism spectrum.) > > > > > > > > > > > It's sickening - totally nauseating. I don't have any > > > > > > patience to go through his vomit - I will let Judy do > > > > > > the honors. > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to take my time with it and do a thorough job. > > > > > I probably won't post my response until next week so I > > > > > can deal with any fallout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You two are funny. You have gotten off on a rather circuitous > > > > > > tangent about my lingering attachment, a la Patty Hearst, to > > > > > > a former cult that I left behind many, many years ago. You > > > > > > are attempting to analyze while at the same time call into > > > > > > question my sanity. All over me suggesting Curtis stop > > > > > > interacting with someone who he feels is an endless repeater > > > > > > of no-win word flood arguments. > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe Robin should stop interacting with Curtis. Curtis > > > > > will never give him a fair and honest shake, and Robin's > > > > > decency and integrity won't allow him to go after Curtis > > > > > with the same kind of underhanded tactics that are Curtis's > > > > > specialty. > > > > > > > > > > > How does this relate to what you two have been discussing > > > > > > here as you roll merrily down the train tracks headed for > > > > > > Wichita when the party is happening over here in Spokane? > > > > > > > > > > It's just a detour that allows them to get at Robin through > > > > > you. He's still the real target. > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, from everything I know of you, Ann, you are one of the > > > > > sanest, most balanced posters on FFL. I'm not the first person > > > > > to say so, either; many others have noticed as well. This and > > > > > your first-hand experience with Robin in the past make you > > > > > exceptionally dangerous to the folks who are determined to > > > > > destroy Robin, so they need to try to destroy you along with > > > > > him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, thanks again for what you say here and how you say > > > > > > it. I want to reply to Ann and your insight about her still > > > > > > processing about leaving WTS is very helpful to me as I think > > > > > > about what I want to say to her. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure Ann can hardly wait. But don't you think it > > > > > would be more honest for you to wait to hear what she has > > > > > to say before referring to Curtis's thoughts about her as > > > > > an "insight" (as opposed to a "speculation")? > > > > > > > > > > > What I most question about some posters here is how > > > > > > they have a double standard. For example, recently > > > > > > Judy has been writing extensively about corruption. > > > > > > But not one word did she say when Robin made his, > > > > > > what I'll call very hard porn comment about you. > > > > > > > > > > And here, it would have been much smarter for you to > > > > > ask me if Robin's "hard porn" comment about Curtis > > > > > fell under my definition of "corruption" before > > > > > accusing me of having a "double standard." > > > > > > > > > > It did not, of course. It fell under my definition of > > > > > extremely sophisticated humor. (For the excessively > > > > > literal minded: Yes, the form the humor took was crude; > > > > > it was the idea behind it that was so sophisticated.) > > > > > > > > > > It was one of the funniest remarks I've ever read on > > > > > FFL. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously you missed the humor, and you don't seem to > > > > > have the foggiest notion of what I mean by "corruption." > > > > > > > > > > Nor, BTW, have I "been writing extensively" about it. > > > > > I've mentioned it several times to describe the behavior > > > > > of people such as Curtis, Barry, and yourself, but I > > > > > haven't gone into any detail, assuming that most here > > > > > are smart enough to know what I've been referring to. > > > > > Clearly I was mistaken in your case. > > > > > > > > > > So let me give you a very clear example of what I mean > > > > > by "corruption": Your own posts today. They smell so > > > > > bad, I had to breathe through my mouth as I read them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Well done Curtis. Your analysis IMHO is spot on and > > > > > > offered in a reasonable, calm and heartfelt way > > > > > > especially considering what you went through > > > > > > yesterday. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, you've been hornswoggled. Almost nothing > > > > > in Curtis's post was accurate. Much of it was > > > > > deliberately false; some was Curtis giving his own > > > > > warped perceptions and speculations WAY more credit than > > > > > they warranted. > > > > > > > > > > Curtis has put an enormous amount of study and practice > > > > > into appearing "reasonable, calm and heartfelt" as he > > > > > spins the most egregiously preposterous tales. Some of us > > > > > who have interacted with him on a regular basis over > > > > > time have come to realize just how devious he is, how > > > > > ruthless and calculating and malicious is the mendacity > > > > > of his attacks on those who dare to challenge him. > > > > > > > > > > As I told salyavin yesterday, if you find this difficult > > > > > to believe, there's one good way to test it: engage him, > > > > > up close and personal, in a contentious debate. > > > > > > > > > > You're not likely to see it otherwise. He's too good at > > > > > what he does. But the revelation will dawn because you > > > > > will know what you said, what you meant, what your > > > > > points were, and what the context was in which you made > > > > > them. Then in his replies, you'll see how he simply > > > > > *erases* all of that and substitutes his own context. He > > > > > will never actually address what you said--but he will > > > > > make it *appear* that he did, and nobody but you will > > > > > be the wiser. > > > > > > > > > > It's really a remarkable performance. Nobody believes he > > > > > does what he does until they experience it being done *to > > > > > them*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
