No problem, Curtis. My self aggrandizing behavior has fulfilled its purpose. After all, I am enlightened, remember? So, I'll just step out of the way now, and let the disruption of your rhythm continue, so that others can reveal the truth on here, as they see it. Have a nice day! :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- 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. > > Were you bullied in school or something? This is a whole lot of you > projecting here. > > > > > 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.> > > > Let's see if I follow this... not believing that you are in a special state > of mind is OUR problem and you are the rhythm disruptor to let other voices > be heard here. Barry I are clogging up the space of the Internet, but now > because you used the name Dumbass, voices more sympathetic to your > self-aggrandizing narrative about yourself can be heard more clearly. I think > I follow that. > > So you didn't listen to the captain's advice about the importance of using a > sun umbrella, huh? > > > > > > 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. > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
