--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > You know, Curtis, it's amazing how much Share sounds like > > you sometimes, especially when she's talking about Robin, > > and about the folks who are trying (unsuccessfully) to > > keep her honest. > > I don't know what your point is here. More conspiracy > theories no doubt. To your unasked question I answer: > zero offline contact. We did share the focus of Robin's > uninvited improvement sessions though, so perhaps we > found it equally distasteful. Our interests couldn't > be further apart aside from being the focus of ...
WARNING: CONTEXT SHIFTING AHEAD. > Your fairly constant references to honesty and your > high value on it has taken the form of a tell. There > is only one type of person who makes such constant > references to something which the rest of us just > take for granted in our dealings with people. You > are the magician announcing to the audience that he > is hold a "normal deck of playing cards". It draws > too much attention to the possibility of the gimmicked > deck. Same with your constant "story" about your > special relationship with honesty. You have played it > too hard and now your audience views you with the > suspicion of "why is she trying sooo hard to sell this > impression?" I know why. Notice what Curtis has done here: He has shifted the context from the issue of dishonesty on Share's part that I and others have been pointing out to an implied accusation of his own: dishonesty on my part. What's that called when a magician does it, Curtis? Misdirection, I think. Let's shift the context back to where it was: There is a great deal of *actual evidence* of Share's dishonesty in her posts that she has been unwilling to address. (Not to mention that the same might be said of you, but let's leave that aside for now.) Where's the evidence of dishonesty in my posts, Curtis? When have I ever been unwilling to address accusations of dishonesty on the rare occasions when somebody has tried to make one? > > (I'm not sure she's ever gone *quite* so far as equating > > calling Robin a psychological rapist with "having a non > > complimentary feeling" about him. Maybe she'll start now, > > though.)> > > When did she say that, was it within this calendar year? (See the attempted context-shift?) October 1, 2012, seven months ago. And she has reiterated it and defended it vigorously whenever it's been questioned. But at least she's never referred to it as "having a non complimentary feeling" about Robin. > > Curtis to Share: "Your playfulness in the face of > > the barrage of ill-intentions and unfriendliness > > is your jiu-jitsu, your mojo, and ultimately your > > sanity preserver." > > > > Exactly. It keeps that ugly, ill-intentioned, unfriendly > > ol' reality at bay so she doesn't have to deal with it > > and can remain safely and obliviously ensconced in her own > > comfortable Disn--er, ShareWorld with its population of > > colorful cartoon characters.> > > Oh I get it, then all this constant badgering of her > is due to your better grip on "reality" and you are > just trying to help her then. CONTEXT SHIFT ALERT!!! (You may have noticed that I'm not the only one who holds this opinion of Share or who objects to her accusation. Oh, wait, I forgot, the others are all under my control and take a dim view of Share in hopes of a pat on the head from me. Everyone would just love Share and hate Robin if it weren't for me. Right, Curtis?) If my "badgering" helps her, that's all to the good. But my intention is get her to, in effect, unsay that accusation, to retract it, if not to apologize for it. And failing that, to make it clear to anyone who might happen to do a search for "Robin Carlsen" that there is good reason to wonder whether the accusation had any substance to it, or whether it was an especially nasty, malicious, and potentially very damaging bit of slander. There is, in fact, considerable evidence for lack of substance, which leads one to wonder why it was made in the first place. > I had it all wrong, I thought that you were just > being Judy and running the Judy routine FOREVER > about a comment she made about one hundred years > ago. Seven months ago. Let me do my own context-shift here: Given Curtis's animus against Robin, it isn't exactly surprising that he would be supporting Share. After all, he was the first to introduce--publicly--the notion that Robin had been trying to violate Share's boundaries: "Now I can also understand why Robin was so surprised. He only started to put in the lever and hadn't applied any pressure yet, but he got called out immediately." There's more to this intervention by Curtis on Share's behalf, but let's not introduce any more complications right now. Suffice it to say that either Curtis hadn't followed their exchange, or that he had but wanted to spin it in Share's favor, because the actual exchange-- the posts themselves--do not support his interpretation. I'm just leaving Curtis's final context-shifting attempt on its own to feed into itself. > But if she is not facing the "reality" you think she SHOULD, then by all > means please continue the well-intentioned good work that you do so well. It > is all very inspiring. > > Note to Share: > > Judy is just trying to HELP you through therapeutic verbal insults. Please > make the requested reality adjustments immediately. > > Glad we settled things. I don't suspect you will have any problems with > Share's lack of "reality" conformity from now on. > > So can you tell me again about how honest you are? And how important honest > is to you? And how you find that other people are really dishonest because > they don't have the same special relationship with honesty that you have? > > I can never get enough of that.
