--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Carol I believe you have a much better way to asses the kind > of person I am beyond Judy's filter.
Right, ignore what Judy says and look through Curtis's filter instead. > I have nothing to do with John Knapp or his perspective, I concur that Curtis has nothing to do with Knapp or his perspective (aside from their mutual antipathy to Maharishi and the TMO). And Knapp's and Curtis's psychopathologies are different in many respects; Knapp's does not serve him nearly as well as Curtis's serves him. > and in fact have my own stories which I am really not > interested in sharing on a public board. > > Robin and I really enjoyed communicating on this board for > a long time and I think we both feel that period was a > highlight in our posting history here. The complex reasons > that lead to our falling out are not even clear to either > of us, and we have both processed some of them openly here > on this forum. > > The risk of doing that is that someone with ill will toward > one of us can use specific statements for their own goals. What Curtis is referring to here is a specific statement he made a few days ago to Barry about an exchange between him and Robin from the very beginning of their conversations. That statement by Curtis was documentably false; it misrepresented what had transpired in that early exchange, and the misrepresentation was clearly in the interest of Curtis's current goals. In this case Curtis's goal was to portray his conversations with Robin as having fallen apart because Robin would not tolerate Curtis's skepticism about Robin's claim to have experienced Unity Consciousness decades previously. That portrayal by Curtis was also knowingly false, massively and maliciously so. Robin's claim about his past enlightenment experiences was not what his disagreements with Curtis were about. In more general terms, Curtis's intention with those false statements--and others--was to make Robin look like a loon, someone so insistent on his purported delusions of past grandeur that he'd bust up an otherwise very rewarding friendship because the other person wouldn't buy into them. That is *so* appallingly untrue and unfair, and it's purely malicious on Curtis's part. > That is the nature of a public forum and the evaluation > of it's risk reward balance is always a continual > assessment for me. Hopefully Curtis is now assessing whether the risk of making those knowingly false statements to Barry was worth the reward. He's having to do damage control, and that's very difficult because everything is on the record. > Judy's view of what went on between Robin and me is not > some clear "truth" about it. Happens to be very close to Robin's view of what went on between himself and Curtis, however. And since Robin was one of the two participants, his view would seem to carry some significant weight. Plus which, it's supported by the record of what has been posted here. > It is her very unflattering opinion of me which has been > a consistent theme for a very long time. And which is shared by Robin, albeit for a shorter period, since he only encountered Curtis for the first time back in June of 2011. > The topic changes, but the narrative is the same. Which might be because I'm a nasty person who simply wants to lash out at other people, or because Curtis's dishonest and unfair behavior has been consistent since I first ran into him in the late '90s on alt.m.t. > Although I don't have a very flattering view of Judy > either, I am not interested in making a case for my > opinion by fighting a war of quotes with her here. > That is not a statement of me conceding that her view > is accurate. Curtis is making a case for his opinion in this post to Carol by doing what Robin has dubbed "legislating reality"--substituting his own context for mine and Robin's by fiat, without ever actually confronting or addressing or even acknowledging the differences. It's his standard M.O. in any contentious discussion. And he's very, very good at it. As I've pointed out here before, you can only see what he's doing when it's *your* context he's erasing and replacing with his own. To everyone else, he appears to be perfectly reasonable. Poor Knapp could only dream of having this kind of subtle skill. The fact remains that no amount of skill in legislating reality can overcome the actual evidence of the record of what has been posted to FFL. Besides the false statements I noted above, there's a host of other misstatements of fact in Curtis's recent posts. Curtis does not want to "fight a war of quotes" because he knows what the quotes will show. > > I thought I owed you that explanation at least.
