--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want to make good art, you must first have > > > > > > > integrity, Share. To have integrity, you must be able > > > > > > > to take responsibility, to be accountable for what you > > > > > > > say, to look reality in the face without flinching. > > > > > > > > > > > > You see Share, most people think of integrity as being > > > > > > true to your own values. But here Judy is helping you > > > > > > understand that Judy's "integrity" is being accountable > > > > > > to Judy's version of "reality". Taking responsibility > > > > > > for any version of "reality" she wants to thrust at you, > > > > > > without your permission. > > > > > > > > > > Share is going to have some serious competition from Curtis > > > > > for the "Master of Inadvertent Irony" title. > > > > > > > > > > The dishonesty here from Curtis--and this is distinctly > > > > > nonadvertent--is the notion that I'm the only one here who > > > > > is challenging Share's gross distortions of reality. That > > > > > is, in fact, Curtis's deliberate and calculated > > > > > contravention of the reality of the posts on this forum, > > > > > and he will do his damndest to foist it on us without our > > > > > permission *and in the face of the abundant evidence to > > > > > the contrary*. > > > > > > > > Small problem. I never said that or made that claim. > > > > > > Oh, Curtis. I'm the only one of Share's critics you've > > > been ragging on. It's a familiar tactic from you. > > > > You got that right, so what? We all make choices about > > who we interact with here about any topic. I have other > > things more interesting to discuss with some of the others. > > Context shift. > > > So your point is? > > As you know, the point is that it's dishonest of you to > pretend I'm the only one who has criticized Share for > dishonesty. Has nothing to do with "who we interact > with." You could easily have written the same posts to > me and included the others in your denunciations.
In what way did I "pretend" anything. You are making this up. I am calling you out because you were the one idiotic enough to post a quote that did the opposite of what you were trying to do. Framing it as a "denunciation" is just spin. > > > (Nice spin referring to it as a "tactic") > > Oh, it's definitely a tactic. You've used it before on > me--and Robin, depending on who you were attacking at the > time--with regard to my (or his) criticisms of you for > not sanctioning Barry for his rotten behavior. You wanted > to make it seem that it was just me (or Robin) who was > criticizing you, and that I (or Robin) was doing so only > because I (or he) had a bad relationship with Barry. If > you could paint me (or Robin) as a minority of one, it > would make my (or his) complaint seem petty. You are imagining all this. We post directly to each other all the time and only you try to make a case that omitting anyone else means something. It sounds desperate. It also comes from the opinion you share with Robin that I should be castigated for sins of omission for not running around scolding posters YOU think I should. > > In fact, there were quite a few folks criticizing you at > the time for refusing to address Barry's unpleasantness > generally. You and I had a long discussion about this. > It got pretty amusing; I had to correct you over and over > when you kept implying it was just me who was on your case. So should I get on your case for not mentioning the other people who post here who think you are a nut job? Is your not including them in this discussion a dishonest way of making it seem as if this is only me who has a problem with your posts? > > That attempt to isolate me (or Robin) is the same thing > you're doing here, and it's quite obviously intentional. I am able to "isolate" you. Verrrrry interesting, When did you start to have these feelings that you could be isolated on a board like this? > > > > > This is the Judy routine again, making up a distraction > > > > from her idiotic blunder of presenting a quote as > > > > clarification of what SHE means by integrity. > > > > > > > > > "This above all: To thine own self be true. > > > > > And it must follow, as the night the day, > > > > > Thou canst not then be false to any man." > > > > > > You're smarter than this, Curtis. The "blunder" and the > > > attempt to distract from the issue of Share's lack of > > > integrity are yours--except that they're deliberate.> > > > > She is being true to herself dopey, not to you. What part > > of that can't you understand? > > As I went on to point out: > > > > "Most people think of integrity as being true to your > > > own values." Just what the first line of the quote says. > > > > > > But ooooopsie! The second and third lines assume that > > > whatever those values may be, the foundational one is > > > honesty: if you are true to yourself, you can't lie to > > > others.> > > > > It certainly doesn't mean that then you should accept other > > people's values as your own because they are ragging on > > you in an internet forum. > > Except for the value of honesty, you are absolutely correct.> You have proven that your use of the term is highly unreliable. You overuse the concept as a bludgeon with contrivances like the one above or as an odd overselling of your own virtues in this regard. > > > That is the whole core concept of personal integrity, that > > you are solid in yourself so that when others try to come > > after you with their agendas you remain strong in yourself. > > Right again. But being "strong in yourself" requires that > you be honest with yourself. And if you're honest with > yourself, you'll be honest with others (as the quote says). > > > I see why you are tying to spin this. You are trying to > > sell the idea that YOUR concept of what her values are > > should supersede her own so she would be accountable to > > your notions. > > Whereas you would prefer that her values not include that > of honesty (as is the case now).> You are trying to elevate your opinion to the "honest" view. You do that a lot. > > > Your should have gone with co-dependence as a virture > > rather than integrity to sell what you are pitching. > > Weak... > > > > Share has lied to others. (This is a matter of record, > > > preserved in the FFL archives, not just "Judy's > > > reality.") Thus she has not been true to herself.> > > > > Yeah, you've run this routine on me too often for me to > > buy it. I know what constitutes lies for you and I don't > > buy due to my strong sense of personal integrity. > > (Whoops, another coffee bath for my keyboard.) > > Well, I certainly wouldn't expect you to buy--or at least > to admit you were buying--the lies of yours I've pointed > out, so that's kind of a silly objection. > > In this case I'm talking about direct factual contradictions > between Share's posts at different times, i.e., "A" in one > post and "not-A" in a later post. One or the other has to > be a lie.> Well lets see you practice what you preach about your charge of dishonest on my part for not mentioning other people in my post to you. That would be a start of an inkling that you have a clue what the term refers to. > > > > And therefore she lacks integrity. > > > > > > Your very first attempt to defend her, back on September > > > 9, was in response to a post of hers in which she had > > > lied. I told you that at the time, but you ignored my > > > warning. > > (Notice that Curtis isn't touching this, and for good > reason.) Because I don't give a shit about every one of your accusations maybe? > > > > > So not only was there nothing dishonest in my post about > > > > YOU and what YOU have written, it was dishonest of you to > > > > suggest that it was my intention to say you were the ONLY > > > > one. They have their own reasons for yapping at Share's > > > > tail, but I was not addressing them. > > > > > > (Context shift!) > > > > That thought stopper no longer works Judy. > > Not a thought-stopper, of course. I'm just letting you know > that I recognize it when you do it. > > > Of course pointing out your bullshittery is a context > > shift from what you are pitching and I am not buying. > > This in itself is a context-shift, as we see below: > > > > Their motives are not the issue, Curtis. The issue is what > > > they've been criticizing, prominently including Share's > > > dishonesty, the very same issue I've been pointing out. Yet > > > I'm the only one you've been attacking for doing so.> > > > > Yep, that is my choice. I guess it just sucks to be you, huh? > > Curtis, I'm delighted when you get so rattled that your > dishonesty becomes obvious. So again you are accusing me of dishonest because I am addressing a post to you for what YOU wrote in stead of making it a mass pile of accusation about other people. OK then you get the same. Other people also believe that you are a malicious troll out for out for Share's blood. You have not addressed any of them so you are being dishonest with me in this post making it seem as if I am the only person who has trouble with how you have behaved with Share. Stop being dishonest Judy and in every post address every person who shares my views. > > > > > You are trying to make Share accountable to you and your > > > > skewed standards > > > > > > I know honesty is a "skewed standard" to you, Curtis, but > > > I don't think you'll find much agreement on that.> > > > > Oh Snaaaaaaap! > > > > > > and Share is fulfilling the meaning of the quote you posted, > > > > but somehow missed the meaning of. She is being true to her > > > > own self rather than conform to the pressure from you for > > > > her to lose her integrity and conform to your ideas of what > > > > is right for her. > > > > > > Perfect, thank you, Curtis. Your purported understanding > > > of the quote would rewrite it to say: As long as you're > > > true to yourself, you can lie to others all you want.> > > > > So very dim. It means that when you are true to yourself > > you can't be untrue to others. > > Yup. What I've been saying all along. > > > You are convolting its meaning to fit your agenda. That > > doesn't mean it is right in all cases, it is a proverb > > type statement. Of course you COULD lie to people. > > And if you did, it would mean you lacked integrity. > > > But they are pitching the virtues of being true to yourself > > as having effects on how you will deal with others. > > Exactly. How have I "convoluted its meaning" again? > > > It is a bit over-generalized which is the nature of such > > pretty statements about human nature. But you chose it > > and it does not say what you think. > > It says exactly what I think, if it says what you say it > does above. > > > > Again, I don't think you'll get many folks to go along > > > with that interpretation of the quote.> > > > > Invoking the invisible "they" is so lame. > > <snicker> Sucks to be you, Curtis. You're the only guy on > FFL, at least, who doesn't think honesty is required for > one to have integrity.> You suck at concepts like the post you quoted. That is why you idiotically posted it. I am not going to straighten it out for you. > > > > > So you got caught in your own content free attack routine by > > > > defining a term used to try to shame someone, but idiotically > > > > missing the point of your own quote. > > > > > > Excellent. You convict yourself from your own keyboard. > > > This one's going to come back to haunt you, Curtis. > > > > And the content-free threat, more lameness. > > Hardly content-free, Curtis. I will use it against you > whenever I get the chance. And I would notice that version of unpleasant unfriendliness from the rest of your crap how? > > > > > And that is because you don't believe in actual integrity, > > > > you are trying to sell the idea of accountability to YOU > > > > with your unfriendly filter. You are trying to get Share > > > > to abandon her integrity and bow to the mighty Judy. > > > > > > As noted, I'm trying to get Share to be *honest*, with > > > herself and the rest of us, to *fulfill* the instruction > > > in the quote. > > > > And you are in a position to know if she is being honest > > to her self? > > I know she is not being honest with others. And as you > just said (correctly), "[The quote] means that when you > are true to yourself you can't be untrue to others."> Very,very dim. You never would have made it through the first introductory course in philosophy. You can't see ideas outside your manipulative use of them in your attacks. The concept is not reversible and in fact that makes it idiotic as a pretty phrase. > > IOW, if she is being dishonest with others, she isn't > being true to herself. > > Unless honesty is not among her values. > > Although most people would say honesty is required for > integrity. Virtually synonymous with it, in fact. > > But not you. > > > HER SELF? > > > > HER self? > > > > Her SELF? > > > > Grandiosity and ill intentions. > > > > > > You don't want her to be honest even if she were capable of > > > it, because that doesn't suit your agenda of sliming Robin > > > with the "psychological rapist" label (and sliming a bunch > > > of us for defending him, except that you've dishonestly > > > pretended it's only me who is doing so> > > > > Gunna repeat it AGAIN huh? This is getting comical. I thought > > the phrase was apt and said so. I have been the target of his > > invasively unfriendly routine. > > I'm not interested in your characterization of what he > did with you. Different discussion. I'm interested in > what Share did to him. > > Did you ever read the initial exchange between Share and > Robin that eventually generated the "psychological rape" > accusation? Just curious. What was it he said that she > took exception to and ultimately described as > "psychological rape," do you recall?> Let me get a set of sharpened chopsticks to drive into my eyeballs. That may help make it stop. > > > > > > > > > I can see why you took this cause to heart because you aspire to > > his level of mind fucking. But you just don't have the tools. > > > > > > > > > Small problem, Share has your number. So you are getting > > > > blown off masterfully while you remain growling in your > > > > little junkyard. > > > > > > A whole lot of keyboards just got ruined. (Fortunately mine > > > is still working because I use a plastic cover on it. Just > > > a matter of wiping up the coffee.) > > > > I'm a fan of that reference myself so lets end with a high five for that. >
