between February 1997 and November 1997.
THAT'S ALMOST 10 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!!!!!!
Maybe the poor bastard is a different person? Maybe he's changed
(assuming that he was this horrible person that you paint him out as
being)?
Why in heaven's name can't you give it up, Judy?
Do you not see your obsessive post (below) as being a tad bit kooky?
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "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:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
