--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > I already posted why I thought the term was accurate back > then. You seem to have a conveniently selective ability > to access the archives.
Well, I sure was right about not getting a straight answer. Heh. Share did not use the term "psychological rape" "back then." She did not use it until eight weeks later. I'm asking if you read *the original post of Robin's* that she later called "psychological rape." The first post I could find of yours on the Share-Robin controversy (and I've quoted it a couple of times, so you know I've seen it) was not about the initial post that Share eight weeks later said was "psychological rape," but rather was in response to one from Share several days later (in which she declared she did not "suffer or feel insulted," nor did she think Robin was being "hurtful or cruel"): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319512 I could not find any posts from you in which you specifically addressed the initial post of Robin's, made in early September, that Share claimed (eight weeks later) had "psychologically raped" her, nor what she had specifically objected to in that post. (Not only that, I could find no posts from you that addressed her "psychological rape" charge when she did get around to making it on October 1.) Bottom line, I can find no evidence in the archives that you ever actually read that initial post. If there's something I've missed, you're going to have to give me the link, or post number, or date, or a searchable phrase. Otherwise I'll continue to assume you never read the post that started all this. I did find something fun while I was looking, though-- an exchange between Curtis and Ravi: Ravi wrote to Share: > > I always love your support, concern, love but please don't > > sully, taint my reputation by comparing me with Curtis who > > is the moral leadership for all the veiled, concealed > > misogynist, homophobic agenda on this list Curtis commented: > OK troll I mark this phrase out as one you have been > repeating again and again for the purpose of hurting my > online reputation. I challenge you to make your case for > this charge. Tell everyone the reasons you have for > making it about me over and over again so that they > can decide why you are repeating this phrase on every > post were you mention my name. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319280 Seems like Curtis was quite concerned about his online reputation, doesn't it? I guess he didn't feel his work here is enough of a statement about what he is about for Ravi's description of him to be no more than a tiny blip on his body of work. I didn't look any further to see whether Ravi gave his reasons for calling Curtis a misogynist homophobe. But Share has never provided an explanation for why she considered Robin's post "psychological rape" despite repeated requests. You'd think Curtis would have wanted to see one before declaring it "apt," but apparently not. So Curtis has presumably not seen the post that generated Share's "psychological rape" charge, nor has he seen any explanation for why Robin's post justified it. Yet he has staunchly and repeatedly defended Share's use of the term. I find that remarkable. I guess if I had been a philosophy major, I could come up with a way to work in a question about Curtis's epistemology in this situation, but I wasn't, so I won't try. Oh, I almost forgot. Notice that Curtis hasn't acknowledged or retracted his false accusations about me made in the exchange below: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Curtis, you'd do yourself a favor if you just quit when > > the going got tough, as you so often have with me, before > > your increasingly feeble arguments degenerate into > > something approaching meaningless word salad, like this > > one. > > > > As you know, I've never said "rape" was an unacceptable > > term for describing someone's writing here. It's fine > > when used with an appropriate modifier; and when the > > term as modified *actually applies to the writing being > > described*. > > > > I'm going to ask you again, see if I can get a straight > > answer this time (I doubt it, but let's take a shot): > > > > Have you ever read the post Share characterized (four > > weeks after it was written) as "psychological rape"? > > > > What was it about that post, specifically, that Share > > found so objectionable? > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > No, surprises here. > > > > > > Nice to see that now the term rape IS now an acceptable term for > > > describing someone's writing here when you and Ann use it. I knew your > > > whole routine,with Share was phoney. > > > > > > Another contrived put on to get someone, followed up by hypocrisy. > > > > > > No surprises. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > (Ann, see a note to you below my response to Curtis.) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > Meanwhile Ravi, whose intent was actually to make a racist > > > > > > > statement, carefully setting it up so the intent would not > > > > > > > be missed, got off scott-free because the L'll scamp is > > > > > > > just so adorable. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > > See, to deflect criticism for not speaking out against > > > > > > the atrocious behavior of his allies here, Curtis makes a > > > > > > virtue of choosing his battles. But the folks he doesn't > > > > > > like are not accorded the privilege of doing the same, at > > > > > > least if they're to avoid his withering scorn.(*) > > > > > > > > > > It is just that you can't have it both ways. My objection > > > > > to the bullshittery of accusing me of not running around > > > > > after everyone else and scolding them is that we all do it. > > > > > In fact we must choose our battles. > > > > > > > > > > And here you prove my point and your own hypocrisy for > > > > > constantly challenging it when I bring it up. > > > > > > > > (Says Curtis, wiping the sweat from his brow and heaving > > > > a huge sigh of relief because he thinks he finally found > > > > something in my post he can actually respond to.) > > > > > > > > > So you in fact you DO pick your battles just as I do, and > > > > > from here on out the contrived disingenuous routine of > > > > > blaming anyone for not going after someone else here for > > > > > an equally *egregious offense* will STOP. > > > > > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > > > *sound of trap snapping shut* > > > > > > > > Wrong. Ravi's "offense," such as it was, was not in the > > > > same *universe* as Barry's constant flood of vicious > > > > invective and lies directed at FFL members he doesn't > > > > like (such as his recent suggestion that I was abused > > > > by my father, only the latest of many stupidly wrong, > > > > vile personal attacks). > > > > > > > > Curtis is pushing a false equivalence, as I knew he > > > > would. > > > > > > > > Curtis has ignored Barry's disgraceful treatment of FFL > > > > members for *years*. I've taken after Ravi when I > > > > thought it was appropriate. But it's rarely called for > > > > with Ravi; he's a basically nice guy with a sharp tongue > > > > and a clear and just sense of who here deserves to feel > > > > its sting. > > > > > > > > Barry is a sadistic bottom-feeder who does his damndest > > > > to hurt people not because they deserve it but *because > > > > he enjoys it*. > > > > > > > > On one occasion, I didn't criticize Ravi for a very > > > > nasty personal attack against Curtis, to give Curtis a > > > > taste of his own medicine. Curtis did not like it at > > > > all and exploded with rage. > > > > > > > > Curtis and I "pick our battles" *very* differently. > > > > Curtis long ago chose *never* to do battle with Barry, > > > > no matter how egregious his offenses, because he > > > > doesn't want to lose Barry's fawning support. > > > > > > > > And he's doing battle for Share because her patently > > > > dishonest attacks on Robin serve his purposes of > > > > painting Robin as a villain for criticizing him. > > > > > > > > I'm not going to go into Ravi's comments about black > > > > people in this post because that's not my point. > > > > Suffice it to say I didn't care for them much, but I > > > > didn't find them nearly as offensive as Curtis did. (I > > > > don't think Curtis's outrage was altogether faux, but > > > > his main interest was having something to pound Ravi > > > > with.) If Curtis wants to discuss Ravi's comments on > > > > their own terms in another thread, fine. Lots of > > > > shades of gray to examine there. > > > > > > > > In the meantime, I stand by my remarks about Curtis's > > > > hypocrisy. His "pick one's battles" mantra is far from > > > > the only instance thereof. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > > Or, for Curtis, maybe not so sad. Nothing wrong with having > > > > > > a chuckle at the exploits of these rapists, eh, Curtis? Even > > > > > > if the joke *was* just a wee bit lame, it conveyed the > > > > > > "obvious level of horror" of what they did just fine, as long > > > > > > as you didn't take it literally. Come on, people, lighten up! > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean, if you can't joke about rape, what *can* you joke > > > > > > about? > > > > > > > > > > Judy, there is no hope here. Seriously. You have fought the > > > > > good fight, you have unwaveringly tried to show falsehood > > > > > where there has been falsehood. You have backed up and > > > > > documented and repeated the facts, events so many times now > > > > > that it is obvious that those who refuse to see will continue > > > > > to do so. > > > > > > > > I like to push 'em a bit, not because I think there's > > > > any hope of their changing for the better, but because > > > > being pushed tends to trigger them to uncover even more > > > > of the ugliness of their characters--just how deep the > > > > hole into the pile of shit, as you put it, reaches--and > > > > this is good for *other people* to know. > > > > > > > > > The important part, for me, is not about any given event per > > > > > se. It is becoming a sort of sick fascination watching certain > > > > > people dig a hole into a pile of shit with seemingly no bottom. > > > > > This example of the depths to which certain individuals will go > > > > > is truly revelatory for me. FFL represents a kind of microcosm > > > > > of human fallibility (with myself right in there too). This is > > > > > not about being holier than thou. It is about what human beings > > > > > do to avoid what is real and what is important. For Curtis to > > > > > object like he did to Ravi about his "black people" comments > > > > > and overlook Share's outrageous attempt to be light hearted > > > > > and funny with a dismissive wave of his hand is positively - > > > > > well, I don't know what to call it, but whatever it is it ain't > > > > > pretty. Share will see it as support of herself (I am not sure > > > > > what she thinks they are supporting as somewhere inside of her > > > > > she must recognize the insensitivity of her "lame joke", doesn't > > > > > she?) but she is missing the boat. She is just a handy tool for > > > > > Curtis and Barry to attack you and now me. Can someone > > > > > be "opportunistically raped"? > > > > > > > > I think that's what Curtis did to Robin, actually. And now > > > > he's using Share to justify it. > > > > > > > > > >
