"Yes Judy you are right about everything..."(backs slowly out of the
room) "really, everything is just fine,  Thank you" ( I find the door
knob without taking my eyes off of her and slip out the door backwards.)


Then the sound of rapid footsteps and a car door opens and closes.
The car is heard laying rubber half way down the street.

The end.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > I still would like to know what upset you about my post.
> I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis.  Mildly disappointed,
> but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said
> to start with.
> OK, Curtis, let's go over it again.  Let's see whether
> you can actually address what I've already said.  I'm
> betting you won't:
> > > > > My meta comment on my feelings about the value of our previous
> > > > > postings was meant as a positive .  Rick had it right.
> Note that what Rick said was that he thought you
> had paid me a compliment.  You say he "had it right."
> > > > Sorry, but I don't buy it.  If you're interested in
> > > > knowing why, I'll tell you, but I suspect you're not.
> > >
> > > I was surprised when you reacted so strongly to my message.
> > > It was not meant to offend you, quite the opposite.
> >
> > Here's what you wrote:
> >
> > "Nice to hear from you Judy. I look back on the AMT days as an
> > important experience for me.  There were times when I felt
> > misunderstood and very frustrated, but that stressful dynamic was
> > the reason I kept at it so long.  It was incredibly useful for me to
> > articulate my thoughts about the movement in such detail, and it
> > never would have happened without me being so pissed off at your
> > messages."
> >
> > Please explain the basis on which you believe I
> > should have taken this as a sincere compliment.
> You didn't respond.  If it's so obvious that it was
> a compliment, as Rick said and you confirmed, why
> couldn't you just explain what the compliment was?
> > Perhaps this version will make more sense:
> >
> > The reason I kept posting was because of you.  Posting was a good
> > thing for me.
> >
> > Got it?
> So where's the compliment?
> How is that some kind of attempt at reconciliation,
> as Shemp claims?
> (You said this over and over again back on alt.m.t,
> of course, so there's nothing new here.)
> Next, let's restore what I was responding to that
> you go on to quote:
> > > > I thought you  could relate to what I was saying. It must have
> > > > been frustrating for you on AMT too, but I assumed you are
> > > > happy you got your points across in the end.
> > "Does what you wrote that I quoted above describe
> > my having gotten my points across?"
> >
> > No.  But if you had related to what I wrote in the way I expected,
> > you might have thought "Yes I got my points across also, even though
> > the discussions were difficult".  That was my expectation in writing
> > it.  That it would piss you off never crossed my mind.
> Why on *earth* should I have thought you were
> suggesting I got my points across?
> For that matter, why on earth should I imagine on
> the basis of our alt.m.t exchanges that I got my
> points across?  The exact opposite was the case.
> > "My problem with you, Curtis, was (and is) your
> > > gross intellectual (and even factual) dishonesty.
> > >
> > > With people like you, it's never entirely clear
> > > whether they're *intending* to mislead and deceive,
> > > or whether they've done such a snow job on
> > > themselves that they genuinely believe their own
> > > misrepresentations.  So I'll have to give you the
> > > benefit of the doubt on that point."
> >
> > Excellent example of why it was so hard to continue posting on AMT.
> Ah, so it wasn't hard because I was getting my
> points across.  It was hard because my posts were
> pissing you off.
> Of course, on alt.m.t, I didn't start calling you on
> your dishonesty for quite a while, until it had
> become blatantly obvious you had no intention of
> being straightforward.  It didn't take as long here
> because it was so clear the old pattern was repeating
> itself.
> > Very condescending and unfriendly.  Starting  a sentence with
> > "people like you" is demeaning and rude.  You have no reason to
> > call me a liar and someone who has done a "snowjob" on themselves,
> That would be "or," Curtis, not "and."
> > whatever that means, based on what I have posted here.
> Well, yes, I do, and this present exchange is a
> perfect example.  It's also *exactly* the sort
> of thing you pulled repeatedly in our discussions
> on alt.m.t: sidestepping, shifting ground, never
> addressing the point.
> > My problem with you, Curtis, was (and is) your
> > > gross intellectual (and even factual) dishonesty.
> >
> > I invite you to show me where I have been intellectually or
> > factually dishonest in my posts here.
> No clearcut factual dishonesty here, so far as I
> know, but plenty of intellectual dishonesty, as I've
> just demonstrated.  Plenty of factual dishonesty on
> alt.m.t, though.
>  Or perhaps an area where I am  doing a
> > "snowjob on myself".
> Read what I wrote again.  I said I couldn't tell
> whether you were deliberately attempting to
> mislead readers or whether you'd talked yourself
> into believing what you were saying.
> But a real good bet is your remark above, "That it
> would piss you off never crossed my mind."
> And one more time: What pisses me off is not insults
> per se, it's *dishonesty*.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Maharishi university of management Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi


Reply via email to