--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > It's astonishing to me that anyone would care so much, and put so much time > into it. I find it bizarre and obsessive. Most peculiar.
When you think about it, it is not so peculiar or bizarre. Many here take great umbrage at other's posts, at their opinion on things. Great calamities and arguments and dissension often follows. A huge amount of energy and angst is often generated with arguing and reasoning and back pedalling. It is a very contentious forum. So when one can actually access archives or proof of various statements or events that happened in the past that might possibly soothe the masses this seems worthwhile to me - not "bizarre and obsessive". We are, presumably, about communicating here. It would be nice if we could all get it right at least half the time. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > One thing I will say. No one can best Judy at analysis, sticking to facts > > or ultimately backing them up. You know why? Not because she is necessarily > > smarter, not because she is better at knowing how to access archives but > > because she doesn't appear to have a lazy bone in her body. Caring has > > something to do with it as well. Caring about accuracy and reality as it > > stands here, in print, in English, here at FFL (Share?). > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > In my earlier post dissecting Curtis's long post to Barry about > > > Robin and Ann, I identified one HUGE lie from Curtis and promised > > > to make a separate post about it. > > > > > > This is the massive lie: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > (snippola) > > > > My initial motivation for interacting with Robin was to see how a > > > > cult leader thought. At first he seemed to have a cool perspective > > > > on his previous life. I believe that my misread of his meaning > > > > when he made a big fuss about me NEVER questioning his enlightenment > > > > experience was pivotal. I thought he was doing schtick on being > > > > sensitive about it. He was not. When he sussed out that I was not > > > > gunna buy his interpretation of his glorious previous state of mind > > > > he turned on me. > > > > > > Curtis had said the same thing directly to Robin near the > > > beginning of their most recent exchange: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > I have never gotten back to a trusting sincere space with you. > > > > It's funny, I was looking at some old posts from our beginning > > > > run and there was a comment you made that at the time I think > > > > I took completely the wrong way. You were saying that the one > > > > thing I must never do is question your enlightenment in the > > > > past. I realized now that I thought you were being snarky and > > > > self-effacing, making a joke about insisting that I take that > > > > seriously, you know wink, wink, nudge, nudge style. I thought > > > > it meant that you were beyond taking that part of your life > > > > seriously. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339021 > > > > > > I'm going to respond to that earlier post: > > > > > > Yes, very funny, especially since it isn't true, Curtis. I > > > looked up the post. I gather you didn't expect anyone to do > > > that. > > > > > > In fact, Robin was indeed kidding about your not questioning > > > his enlightenment--but not because he himself didn't take > > > his enlightenment seriously. He was well aware that it was > > > unlikely others, especially you, would do so. > > > > > > However, if you believed (mistakenly) at the time that he was > > > beyond taking it seriously himself, as you claim, that was in > > > no way reflected in your response. > > > > > > I don't think you did believe that. > > > > > > I think the purpose of the paragraph I quoted above was to try > > > to make him look like a jerk by pretending he had "made a big > > > fuss about [you] NEVER questioning his enlightenment experience." > > > > > > Here's what he actually wrote: > > > > > > "It's going to be fun, Curtis. I appreciate the warning and the > > > hidden admonition. > > > > > > "But don't you DARE question the truth of my enlightenment, OK? > > > > > > "That's where we part company. Just be as flattering, fawning, > > > and sycophantic as you can. > > > > > > "When it comes to my beautiful achievement of Unity Consciousness." > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280412 > > > > > > You knew exactly where he was coming from: he fully expected you > > > to try to refute his claim--the phrasing I just quoted is > > > obviously ironic--but he wasn't about to back down from it. > > > > > > And *that* is what your response reflected: > > > > > > "I don't question that you had a shift of your internal state that > > > was radical enough for you to associate it with the terms Maharishi > > > used for higher states. My experience of the term is based on my > > > own experiences with his programs, so we may differ on what we mean > > > by the term 'enlightenment'. I'm not sure how clear Maharishi > > > himself was on the concept of it or what he was experiencing. I am > > > interested to understand the reasons you came to that conclusion, > > > and whether or not there were reasons that would be compelling to > > > someone else, like me." > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/280422 > > > > > > There's not a thing wrong with what you said in that quote. > > > > > > The deception is in your saying *now* that you thought *at > > > the time* that he was "beyond taking that part of [his] life > > > seriously." Obviously you understood, then, that he *did* > > > take it seriously. Equally obviously, however, he had no > > > problem with your being skeptical. He's known from the > > > start that it was extremely unlikely folks would accept that > > > he'd been in Unity Consciousness simply on the basis of his > > > say-so. By the same token, he wasn't going to *retract* his > > > claim on the basis of somebody's unbelief. > > > > > > Again, Curtis, Robin's claim to enlightenment was *not* the > > > basis of your disagreement and ultimately the collapse of > > > your friendship. > > > > > > Here, just for kicks, is where your dialogue began to break > > > down: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/292125 > > > > > > Not a thing about Robin's enlightenment in it. > > > > > > As he said in your recent exchange: "All your comments about > > > me are disingenuous and absurd." > > > > > > He found out about your disingenuty some time ago, the hard > > > way. It's very tough to "get back into a trusting sincere > > > space" with someone you've betrayed and continue to be willing > > > to betray, even if you wanted to reoccupy that space. But you > > > don't want to. You were only pretending to occupy it in the > > > first place. > > > > > > Personal note: When I look at some of those very early exchanges > > > between Curtis and Robin, I want to weep (and sometimes do). > > > Robin--who had just emerged from 25 years of the kind of hell > > > most of us can't even imagine--was so open, so innocent, so > > > trusting, so loving, so *delighted* by Curtis, so thrilled that > > > someone as bright and creative and funny as Curtis wanted to > > > converse with him in depth. > > > > > > To see how Curtis was leading Robin on, taking advantage of his > > > innocence to reel him in; to know what absolutely crushing, > > > agonizing disillusionment and disappointment Robin was in for > > > once Curtis had decided it was time to take out his shiv and > > > dispense with his pretence of friendship, is painful beyond my > > > ability to express. > > > > > >
