--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > True that. Always the same rap from those two - they are jokesy folksy kool > kats, often with deep and penetrating insights, while the rest of us are all > square, limited, reactive cult addicts. > > If someone can perpetuate a context long enough, there is no need to change. > One of my objectives in creating the dr. dumbass ID and challenging both > Barry and Curtis with the "I am enlightened" schtick, was to disrupt their > rhythm on here, and let other voices begin to be heard more consistently. > > Do I have it in for either one? Not at all. The most interesting part of > acting out my intent, is that every time I became attached to the result, and > took ownership of it, I would fail. Awesome lesson in attachment. > > Is this about trying to change Barry and Curtis's behavior? Not at all. The > intent was to serve as a disruptive influence to their established context, > and see who else showed up. Seems to be working well.
Well, it is good to have you back but I hate to think you have to leave the dreamy swaying of the ocean beneath you and the salty breezes of your recent aquatic foray for the sometimes harsh environment of FFL. Hold onto those visions of mermaids and tangled seaweed as long as you can and still be on land. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@> wrote: > > > > Man what hypocritical bullshit. > > > > If it's Barry and Curtis it's all impartial, monotonous set of POV's, it's > > a rap, it's stream of consciousness, it's harmless likes and dislikes, just > > benign preferences. > > > > If its others it's mindfuckery, it's unpleasant, unfriendly, unwelcome word > > flood, it's toxic energy directed at strangers, it's trollish behavior - > > even psychological rape's now approved by His Holiness. > > > > A master of deception at work. > > > > > > On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:40 AM, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of > > > words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that > > > you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you > > > into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way. > > > > > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this > > > unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined with the > > > word flooding it is quite unpleasant. > > > > > > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a > > > way that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe > > > it. > > > > > > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he > > > had crossed... > > > > > > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way. > > > > > > Note to Share: You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda > > > no matter what you say. It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even > > > an unnecessary apology will be judged by them. > > > > > > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or > > > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as > > > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a > > > > "psychological rapist." > > > > > > > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step" > > > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually > > > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin > > > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would > > > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely. > > > > > > > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your > > > > character. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends > > > > > part of an apology. Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I > > > > > could make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and > > > > > Curtis exchange. For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua > > > > > non of an apology and this is where the cost comes in. And of course > > > > > the cost or amends is meant to address the actual consequences. Such > > > > > as a restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who > > > > > lost the family savings for example. > > > > > > > > > > But the first step is to offer > > > > > apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person. > > > > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year. And it seems > > > > > we're not getting to it again. But I've made my offer and stand by > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing. In those > > > > > days many people went to confession every week. Also I say it just > > > > > in case I've hurt someone's feelings. The better I know FFL people > > > > > the more I'll dispense with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S > > > > > VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful > > > > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis > > > > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the > > > > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the > > > > > > semantics of that) > > > > > > > > > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and > > > > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference > > > > > to what Curtis said. > > > > > > > > > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you. > > > > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including > > > > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when > > > > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best > > > > > *ambiguous*. > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin > > > > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's, > > > > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and > > > > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was > > > > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response > > > > > to your post about Barry, Ann. > > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite > > > > > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It > > > > > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to > > > > > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant. > > > > > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense > > > > > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate > > > > > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before > > > > > > they even have time to react. > > > > > > > > > > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone > > > > > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent > > > > > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what > > > > > will an apology from this person mean for something that > > > > > really requires an apology? > > > > > > > > > > If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to > > > > > the person to whom it is given. > > > > > > > > > > It would cost Share something to apologize for calling > > > > > Robin a psychological rapist. But she isn't willing to > > > > > give that much of herself to right the grievous wrong > > > > > for which she was responsible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
