because you prefer to rest comfortably in your
assumptions, but I want it on the record anyway.
--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Emailed to me on the side by Judy:
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 00:32:41 -0000
> To: Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Clean up your act, please
>
> Rick--
>
> "Anyway, she's been trying unsuccessfully to goad him
> into an argument."
>
> I would like you to retract this blatantly erroneous
> characterization publicly, please.
>
> Otherwise I can only assume that you made it knowing
> it was erroneous.
>
> Judy
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------
>
> Sorry, Judy. That was my impression. It may be erroneous, but
> nothing so far has reversed it. Could others chime in on this
> please? Was I off the beam?
One person, Mike Hutchinson, has had the guts to
come out of lurkdom and buck the mob mind, apparently
because he actually read the posts in the exchange.
> Who seems to be the aggressor here? I admittedly haven't read all
> the posts, so maybe I happened to read a selection that gave me a
> wrong impression. But my impression was, and still is, that Curtis
> was being courteous and letting bygones be bygones, while you were
> trying to reignite an old feud.
>From my initial post to Curtis:
"I'm glad you're doing something you enjoy--and are
clearly damn good at--and it certainly is a pleasure
to encounter you again in that very positive context
(which, you'll have to admit, is a lot different from
that of our previous encounters on alt.m.t)."
That sound like trying to reignite an old feud to
you, Rick?
> His comment that getting pissed off by your posts resulted in a
> healthy exploration of assumptions an judgments was a compliment,
> not an insult. He was thanking you for being his "petty tyrant" (a
> term from the Carlos Castañeda books).
First, depending on the context, to cast someone in the
role of Castaneda's "petty tyrant" may or may not be a
putdown, but it is by no means a compliment. To
publicly thank someone for being a pain in the ass is
snarky in the extreme and about as insincere as it
gets.
Second, Curtis did not say anything about a "healthy
exploration of assumptions." Here's what he said:
"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."
He didn't *explore* his assumptions and judgments;
rather, he got better at *articulating* them in
the face of my challenges. The assumptions and
judgments not only didn't change, they hardened.
You'd have had to have closely followed our exchanges
on alt.m.t, however, to get the full impact of that
statement and know how astonishing it is that he
could actually feel *pleased* with what he had
accomplished.
That, along with the snarkiness of his "compliment,"
was the basis on which I realized he had not changed
a bit. I told him that, very briefly, and as far as
I was concerned, that was the end of it.
But he insisted on pursuing it. Note that in his very
first post to me here, he said, "In fact your posts
about me lately were a big reason I decided to drop
in for a while."
The person who wanted to settle old scores was not
me but Curtis.
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.
