wrote:
>
> Google Groups tell us that your exchanges with Curtis happened
> between February 1997 and November 1997.
>
> THAT'S ALMOST 10 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!!!!!!
Actually I was I who told you when those exchanges
took place, before Curtis ever showed up here, in
response to a request from Sal. I even provided a
URL for one of the threads.
Did you think you had made some kind of revelatory
discovery, Shemp?
> 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)?
What an astonishing comment given the exchanges
between Curtis and me here.
I don't know whether he's a "horrible person." All
I know of him are his posts. For all I know he's
a saint except when he gets into a challenging
exchange on an electronic forum.
> Why in heaven's name can't you give it up, Judy?
Why can't *I* give it up?? Another mindboggler.
As I've already pointed out to you, I had been
*discouraging* Curtis from digging it all up again,
but he insisted.
> Do you not see your obsessive post (below) as being a
> tad bit kooky?
You mean, the post in which I was responding to Curtis's
request that I explain why I didn't respond positively
to his "compliment" post?
Look at the very first quoted line below:
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues"
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I still would like to know what upset you about my post.
Now go take your medication, Shemp.
> >
> > 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.
