[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. Barry baby - it's OK - all of us here by now, know you read every single message, you need to stop this Message View drama, looks pretty - what's the word I'm looking for - aah emotionally stunted. My old man's post was brilliant BTW and I dare either you or Curtis to respond to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to cite posts five years back. And with every single 50-battle week, demonstrating that they're *all* meant as a distraction, to keep people from noticing that she doesn't have anything else to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy. Sounds like you've been on the losing end of an argument with Judy a time or two, Steve. Exactly how did she so handily annihilate you with her superior logic? Here's the thing, Steve,(Curtis can chime in here), it's not possible to be logical about anything unless you have command of the facts. You may have noticed, I certainly have, that the only time Judy nails you is when you don't have command of the facts and you end up making false statements. If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy. Sounds like you've been on the losing end of an argument with Judy a time or two, Steve. Raunchy, you're kidding right. Everyone has been on the losing end of the arugument with Judy without exception likely beginning with her first post. Please don't state something some obvious. I hope your subsequent points are a little more substantive. Exactly how did she so handily annihilate you with her superior logic? Okay, I goofed. In many cases the correct term would be twisted as it pertains to logic. Er, her logic. Here's the thing, Steve,(Curtis can chime in here), it's not possible to be logical about anything unless you have command of the facts. Facts are funny things. That can be used in a context where they can indicate different things. The unemployment rate is 8.1%. Romney: This is an unacceptable and a sign of continued failed economic policy. Obama: The unemployment rate is on a steady decline. It shows we are on the right track to economic recovery. You may have noticed, I certainly have, that the only time Judy nails you is when you don't have command of the facts and you end up making false statements. Except that so much of what we discuss here are opinions. Most of the time what we discuss here are opinions. I think the objection is that Judy often states her opinions as fact. And then there is what I have called her ace in the hole where she can know what you actually mean to say, or how you actually feel, even if you state the contrary. If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph. Of course I would want her to stand up for me in that situation. And in many cases I have seen her do that for me and others. But in many other instances I have seen her display tremendous partisonship in disputes where, at least in my opinon, the truth is far away from the position she is taking. Again, just my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNcDI_uBGUo
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
R: If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph. It's an interesting example that you bring up here Raunchy. I believe you have taken the position that there are people (here) who don't deserve to have the record corrected when a misrepresentation has been made against them. Or at least by the person who made the misrepresentation. And that is exactly the point I am making. How strong can one's committment be to truth, when it is so often trumped by personal animosities? S: Of course I would want her to stand up for me in that situation. And in many cases I have seen her do that for me and others. But in many other instances I have seen her display tremendous partisonship in disputes where, at least in my opinon, the truth is far away from the position she is taking. Again, just my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdcpWXPaDY
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ-E4bvrA1Ufeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls. Susan: Very well put, Barry. Nice writing. I always like your point of view. You put a lot of thinking into your posts, and it shows. Also the travelling you have done. There are a lot of people on FFL who seem to want to stir things up. It's nice there are a few persons, like you and Curtis, who tell it like it is. You have such interesting things to say. I always learn something when I read one of your posts. Do you know anything about this Louis person? I thought he said some things about Robin that Robin needed to hear.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. First of all, dear Barry, what are you talking about? Not that you will answer because you only speak to interesting people but you have left me scratching my fair head on this one. But I will ask a few rhetorical questions as others will be reading this since you will, no doubt, be busy photographing gravestones or watching the clock to make sure your dog is pooping on schedule. Since when is interacting with someone categorized as being victimized? Attention vampire has no meaning for me, what does it mean to you? That when someone writes something they expect it may be read by a few other posters? Does it mean the writer is 'thirsty' for attention and writes all the time to assert their dogmatic opinions and continually berate others for their stupidity and obvious lack of sophistication and worldliness, or worse, their idealism? Take a look in the mirror Count, because that ain't me. And since when are you the granter of rights and freedoms on this forum? To say someone doesn't have the 'right' to expect a reply to something posted here? I demanded nothing by the way, but if Robin wants to well, gee, how outrageous. Just about as outrageous as your mock outrage here, dear Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I resubmit my definition, which I think does more justice to the way the word is used here than any other. Irony (noun) Saying what you really mean, and which you know to be true, while pretending that it's not true, and that you mean the opposite. Synonym: having no balls. I think he was referring to the word obfuscating, not irony.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. Saw this flash by in Message View and had to comment that this is insanity. Neither Ann nor Robin has either the ability or the right to make such a post. They're both just attention vampires hoping they can suck yet another victim into interacting with them. And what they're both upset about is that it isn't working. RESPONSE: I take it back, Barry. I didn't explain myself. But I think Curtis very smart to keep quiet in order to frustrate my designs on him (AV). I knew there was a reason for his silence after all the posts directed at him. I think he has chosen the high ground here. I can refute what you have said, Ann and Robin, but what comes first is my refusal to give you both the satisfaction of even *that*: thereby demonstrating something more important even than the truth: Don't feed the monkeys at the zoo.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy. Sounds like you've been on the losing end of an argument with Judy a time or two, Steve. Raunchy, you're kidding right. Everyone has been on the losing end of the arugument with Judy without exception likely beginning with her first post. Please don't state something some obvious. I hope your subsequent points are a little more substantive. Exactly how did she so handily annihilate you with her superior logic? Okay, I goofed. In many cases the correct term would be twisted as it pertains to logic. Er, her logic. Here's the thing, Steve,(Curtis can chime in here), it's not possible to be logical about anything unless you have command of the facts. Facts are funny things. That can be used in a context where they can indicate different things. The unemployment rate is 8.1%. Romney: This is an unacceptable and a sign of continued failed economic policy. Obama: The unemployment rate is on a steady decline. It shows we are on the right track to economic recovery. You may have noticed, I certainly have, that the only time Judy nails you is when you don't have command of the facts and you end up making false statements. Except that so much of what we discuss here are opinions. Most of the time what we discuss here are opinions. I think the objection is that Judy often states her opinions as fact. And then there is what I have called her ace in the hole where she can know what you actually mean to say, or how you actually feel, even if you state the contrary. If someone made a false or misleading statement about you, would you want to let it stand or would you want people to know the truth? Of course you would you want the truth. Dollars to donuts, Judy would be the first to defend your honor and you would thank her for it. In veritate victoria: In truth, triumph. Of course I would want her to stand up for me in that situation. And in many cases I have seen her do that for me and others. But in many other instances I have seen her display tremendous partisonship in disputes where, at least in my opinon, the truth is far away from the position she is taking. Again, just my opinion. As they say, You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Furthermore, it's just plain sloppy to confuse the two. If you're going to claim that the truth is far away from the position Judy is taking, in other words, implying that she not telling the truth, then you better back that up with facts and not your OPINION.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: M: Did the *attack the confidence* formulaic routine work well for you when you were surrounded by 20 somethings Robin? How has it been working for you lately? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ANN: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. RESPONSE: If any reader examines what Curtis has said here, there is a kind of hidden a priori psychology. And what is that a priori? That somehow the force and imperiousness of the personality of Curtis can be a substitute for any contact with the truth of the matter. Notice that Curtis perfectly deprives the impartial reader of any chance to subject this difference of point of view to a fair hearing *independent of the peremptory and despotic authority of Curtis*. Curtis takes on the entire burden of the proof of his argument here--in the absence of any possibility of having this matter adjudicated by a context within which Curtis himself exists. Curtis annexes the context of truth through sheer dint of will and personality. It is certainly a spectacular phenomenon to witness [Hold it, Curtis: I will have no respect for you whatsover *if you use the very mechanism I am describing here to evade facing the inevitability of my analysis*--So STFU--unless you are prepared to address my argument on its own terms]: Curtis lords it over everyone, and kills the possibility of a context which is opposed to Curtis getting a hearing. You see, Curtis is so scrupulously sensitive to the truth, that he knows how important it is to keep that truth from undermining or refuting him. So he just banishes it from existence and appropriates the context totally with the force of his personality. But of course all this is hidden from view. Look: There is some disagreement between this person (whom Curtis is addressing here) and Curtis. But instead of taking on the most generous and sincere motive which could lie behind the comments this person has made to Share Long, Curtis would judge them out of court categorically: as if to say: I have caught you in an utterly dishonest and manipulative form of behaviour, and you had better just own up. You are judged and sentenced; the execution awaits my discretion. I wish those readers at FFL who seek some form of contact with reality, with what is the case, will see that Curtis operates under a set of ruthless and intolerant rules. His judgment does not suffer from some subjectively experienced doubt when he makes his argument. But this is because he simply eliminates all of the reality which existed inside the context where the issue is being controverted, and substitutes his own context, which will not permit any appeal to a truth which Curtis has determined is a moral and intellectual inconvenience to him. Curtis has a secret ex cathedra way of writing. One does not notice it; one is influenced by the illusion that his confidence *must mean he is in contact with the truth*; but as it happens, in disputation at least, Curtis's confidence and authority is directly proportional to the truth which he is denying entrance into the discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: As they say, You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Furthermore, it's just plain sloppy to confuse the two. If you're going to claim that the truth is far away from the position Judy is taking, in other words, implying that she not telling the truth, then you better back that up with facts and not your OPINION. Okay Raunchy, there are facts that are not open to interpretation and those that are. There are physical facts which cannot be disputed or which don't leave room for interpretation and facts that do. So and so killed someone. Did he do it in self defense or did he do it in a premeditated fashion out of anger or revenge? So you are telling me that the conclusion for something like this is clear cut. I think this the fault line we often see here. Some people are satisfied offering an opinion on something like this, and others will insist that their interpretation of this fact, is the correct interpretation. I think it may be you who are confusing the issues Raunchy. If you are going to go into the pretzel mode, you might need to work on it a little more.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Hi Ann, My short response was written to you while in line at Starbucks on my phone before my show. I actually botched your opening line to Share which I was trying to send back to you so you might see how I saw it, a bit condescending. She has been getting a lot of that from people here lately so I thought I would chip in. I understand that you are not trying to sound like Robin and are not a student of his philosophy. I said that because it seemed to be from his playbook to get under someone's skin presumptively as I thought you had with Share, asking her to go back and find another way to express herself that might express who she really is better than she had. It implies that someone outside might know her mind and heart better and she needs to work on herself a bit to catch up with this insight. I consider it a weird boundaries violation ala Robin. Perhaps the connection was unfair of me given your history. Judy pulls this on people too so I could have used her. In my perception, you and Judy and Raunchy have been ganging up on Share. I don't think she deserves that. I also understand that this is not how you are viewing all this. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: The thing is dear Ann... Yes? Tell me more. But if I am not to run out of posts by Monday night, at this rate I need to cover more ground here. I found your comment below something I would like to address, quickly: I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (And here this is a direct quote from you complete with quotation marks, let there be no mistake.) Now, I take this comment of yours to mean that what I wrote to Share reminds you of what Robin would have said. That is the only conclusion I can come to from your assessment. But here is the thing. Robin does not hold a patent on how he lives his life and how he in turn chooses to articulate that here in his interactions with others. You assume because I said what I said to Share that I have borrowed, incorporated, embodied Robin or, at least, his philosophy. However, you would be wrong. I will not speak for him but I will for myself when I say that the impulse and the belief behind that impulse is something that I have come to know is true in my own life. This is a discovery not a stolen idea, a borrowed life list of rules, a plagiarized page out of Robin's Book On Reality. It is something I have come to understand and believe. If it sounds familiar then how is this different from the fact that there are undoubtedly more than one or two people on this planet that can essentially perceive certain realities about life to be true? Do you forget, I have not been around Robin for 26 years? Do you imagine I keep copies of his old books at my bedside so I can stay clear and fresh on his former writings and beliefs? Do you think I wish to follow him once again as some beacon of realized knowingess? And perhaps more importantly, do you see me as some mimicing, mindless drone who has no original ideas of her own? Because if you do we really need to have that coffee in that cafe somewhere. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: M: Did the *attack the confidence* formulaic routine work well for you when you were surrounded by 20 somethings Robin? How has it been working for you lately? Robin: That's an unfair dig, Curtis. I think I never thought of applying it to *that* context--but, now that you bring it up, I sort of wish I had. A little late in the game now, I suppose. The universe computing through my Unity Consciousness didn't really make that one of its priorities. But I am wondering: at 68, do you think it would work for me? Now I realize I have stepped out of my usual mode of robin singing here, but I think there still is enough lust in there to want to give this a try. Ladies: be warned. 20 somethings: God, that would be nice, Curtis! No, the power surge you get in enlightenment, that more or less trumps everything else. But now that I have given up the field of all possibilities, I am thinking retrospectively of *that* possibility. And I think I blew it, Curtis. I think I blew it. Sorry, all your gals *who could have been*. I knew you'd find some way to get under my skin, Curtis. Faces and eros: There has to be someone behind this, don't you think? Platonically yours, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ANN: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. RESPONSE: If any reader examines what Curtis has said here, there is a kind of hidden a priori psychology. And what is that a priori? That somehow the force and imperiousness of the personality of Curtis can be a substitute for any contact with the truth of the matter. Notice that Curtis perfectly deprives the impartial reader of any chance to subject this difference of point of view to a fair hearing *independent of the peremptory and despotic authority of Curtis*. Curtis takes on the entire burden of the proof of his argument here--in the absence of any possibility of having this matter adjudicated by a context within which Curtis himself exists. Curtis annexes the context of truth through sheer dint of will and personality. It is certainly a spectacular phenomenon to witness [Hold it, Curtis: I will have no respect for you whatsover *if you use the very mechanism I am describing here to evade facing the inevitability of my analysis*--So STFU--unless you are prepared to address my argument on its own terms]: Curtis lords it over everyone, and kills the possibility of a context which is opposed to Curtis getting a hearing. You see, Curtis is so scrupulously sensitive to the truth, that he knows how important it is to keep that truth from undermining or refuting him. So he just banishes it from existence and appropriates the context totally with the force of his personality. But of course all this is hidden from view. Look: There is some disagreement between this person (whom Curtis is addressing here) and Curtis. But instead of taking on the most generous and sincere motive which could lie behind the comments this person has made to Share Long, Curtis would judge them out of court categorically: as if to say: I have caught you in an utterly dishonest and manipulative form of behaviour, and you had better just own up. You are judged and sentenced; the execution awaits my discretion. I wish those readers at FFL who seek some form of contact with reality, with what is the case, will see that Curtis operates under a set of ruthless and intolerant rules. His judgment does not suffer from some subjectively experienced doubt when he makes his argument. But this is because he simply eliminates all of the reality which existed inside the context where the issue is being controverted, and substitutes his own context, which will not permit any appeal to a truth which Curtis has determined is a moral and intellectual inconvenience to him. Curtis has a secret ex cathedra way of writing. One does not notice it; one is influenced by the illusion that his confidence *must mean he is
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS: The thing is dear Ann... RESPONSE: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. M: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. M; Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? R:He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. R: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. R: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it M: You are being an asshole here Robin. R: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. M: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. R: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. M: Holy shit, no you diii-int! You never answered me about why you repeated this charge a hundred times in your last posts, what was up with that. Did you know you were? Do you know you are now? Are you aware of the number of times you have repeated this charge? R: And in this sense, in saying what he has said to Ann here, he gives the impression he has essentially had the last word. But has he? M: No Robin that will always be you. R: He has said nothing. He has systematically and sedulously and deceitfully made certain that the potency and thoughtfulness of Ann's post to Curtis is entirely robbed of its intrinsic merit. This, by force of personality and will. Curtis legendary status among certain posters and readers here enables him to escape from the demands of truth and honesty which are incumbent upon the rest of us. And my thesis can only be denied by Curtis *through the very same M.O. as I have described here*. M: You really need to get that head out of your ass Robin. At your age that has to exacerbate constipation issues, and it can't be helping your complexion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor =
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS1: The thing is dear Ann... ROBIN1: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. CURTIS2: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. ROBIN2: Bullshit, Curtis. ROBIN1:It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. CURTIS 2: Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? ROBIN2: You are culpably selective and tendentious here, Curtis. You are proving my thesis. ROBIN1 :He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. CURTIS 2: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. ROBIN2: No, no, Curtis. It is not who is the arbiter of truth. Newton and Copernicus were not arbiters of the truth. The question is: Does what I am saying here explain your behaviour, Curtis. And I believe it does. But you, you *know* it does. Or am I wrong here, Curtis? Why not this response: Robin, what you are saying about me is not true. I do not avoid the truth, and I do not understand on what basis you can make such an outrageous and demeaning and trangressive statement. Shut up, Robin. You are wrong. But that would be taking too much of a chance. It's the metaphysic of your M.O., Curtis, and I have been describing it for some time now. You have never addressed the question--and you never will. This is the secret to understanding you, Curtis. You will not go anywhere near where reality might make trouble for you. ROBIN1: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it CURTIS2: You are being an asshole here Robin. ROBIN2: Explain how my assholeness is a more salient fact than what I am describing as the truth of how you act, Curtis. ROBIN1: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. CURTIS2: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. ROBIN2: Have I misjudged you, Curtis? I think Xeno's estimation of you significant. But you are making me lose confidence in you. This won't do at all. I am getting very angry with you, Curtis. Please stop with the names. ROBIN1: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. CURTIS2: Holy shit, no you diii-int! You never answered me about why you repeated this charge a hundred times in your last posts, what was up with that. Did you know you were? Do you know you are now? ROBIN2: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. I have said things about you; you have not denied them. This is an admission of your concealed
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@... wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS1: The thing is dear Ann... ROBIN1: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. CURTIS2: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. ROBIN2: Bullshit, Curtis. ROBIN1:It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. CURTIS 2: Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? ROBIN2: You are culpably selective and tendentious here, Curtis. You are proving my thesis. ROBIN1 :He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. CURTIS 2: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. ROBIN2: No, no, Curtis. It is not who is the arbiter of truth. Newton and Copernicus were not arbiters of the truth. The question is: Does what I am saying here explain your behaviour, Curtis. And I believe it does. But you, you *know* it does. Or am I wrong here, Curtis? Why not this response: Robin, what you are saying about me is not true. I do not avoid the truth, and I do not understand on what basis you can make such an outrageous and demeaning and trangressive statement. Shut up, Robin. You are wrong. But that would be taking too much of a chance. It's the metaphysic of your M.O., Curtis, and I have been describing it for some time now. You have never addressed the question--and you never will. This is the secret to understanding you, Curtis. You will not go anywhere near where reality might make trouble for you. ROBIN1: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it CURTIS2: You are being an asshole here Robin. ROBIN2: Explain how my assholeness is a more salient fact than what I am describing as the truth of how you act, Curtis. ROBIN1: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. CURTIS2: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. ROBIN2: Have I misjudged you, Curtis? I think Xeno's estimation of you significant. But you are making me lose confidence in you. This won't do at all. I am getting very angry with you, Curtis. Please stop with the names. ROBIN1: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. CURTIS2: Holy shit, no
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: As they say, You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Furthermore, it's just plain sloppy to confuse the two. If you're going to claim that the truth is far away from the position Judy is taking, in other words, implying that she not telling the truth, then you better back that up with facts and not your OPINION. Okay Raunchy, there are facts that are not open to interpretation and those that are. There are physical facts which cannot be disputed or which don't leave room for interpretation and facts that do. So and so killed someone. Did he do it in self defense or did he do it in a premeditated fashion out of anger or revenge? So you are telling me that the conclusion for something like this is clear cut. I think this the fault line we often see here. Some people are satisfied offering an opinion on something like this, and others will insist that their interpretation of this fact, is the correct interpretation. I think it may be you who are confusing the issues Raunchy. If you are going to go into the pretzel mode, you might need to work on it a little more. Pretzel mode happens to people who state an opinion as if it were fact. That's what you did by implying Judy doesn't tell the truth and exactly why she so easily kicks your butt in an argument.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS: The thing is dear Ann... RESPONSE: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. M: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. M; Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_BWG5tYoLAfeature=related R:He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. R: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. R: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it M: You are being an asshole here Robin. R: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. M: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. R: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. M: Holy shit, no you diii-int! You never answered me about why you repeated this charge a hundred times in your last posts, what was up with that. Did you know you were? Do you know you are now? Are you aware of the number of times you have repeated this charge? R: And in this sense, in saying what he has said to Ann here, he gives the impression he has essentially had the last word. But has he? M: No Robin that will always be you. R: He has said nothing. He has systematically and sedulously and deceitfully made certain that the potency and thoughtfulness of Ann's post to Curtis is entirely robbed of its intrinsic merit. This, by force of personality and will. Curtis legendary status among certain posters and readers here enables him to escape from the demands of truth and honesty which are incumbent upon the rest of us. And my thesis can only be denied by Curtis *through the very same M.O. as I have described here*. M: You really need to get that head out of your ass Robin. At your age that has to exacerbate constipation issues, and it can't be helping your complexion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Pretzel mode happens to people who state an opinion as if it were fact. That's what you did by implying Judy doesn't tell the truth and exactly why she so easily kicks your butt in an argument. Fine, whatever you say Raunchy. But thank you for not bringing up this notion again of how we must be honest with ourselves and others when on a public forum. Because you certainly are not the person to pontificate on that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. CURTIS: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. ROBIN: Troll here Robin: Well, as long as the big fish are biting, I will, Curtis. Thinking of using my Max Squid now, instead of a lake troll. Thanks for showing me the spot where I should drop my line. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: CURTIS1: The thing is dear Ann... ROBIN1: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. CURTIS2: No one must not. One might not know it was a short response I did on my phone while standing in line at Starbucks before my show. One might even ask me if one was confused about the intent instead of going off on this rant. I wanted Ann to experience this line directed toward her to understand where I was coming from. ROBIN2: Bullshit, Curtis. ROBIN1:It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. CURTIS 2: Requires? You really need to get over yourself Robin. You are the guy who has been answering posts with enigmatic Youtube videos. Does this requirement only apply to me? ROBIN2: You are culpably selective and tendentious here, Curtis. You are proving my thesis. ROBIN1 :He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. CURTIS 2: Right and you are the arbiter of truth., gotchya wise man. ROBIN2: No, no, Curtis. It is not who is the arbiter of truth. Newton and Copernicus were not arbiters of the truth. The question is: Does what I am saying here explain your behaviour, Curtis. And I believe it does. But you, you *know* it does. Or am I wrong here, Curtis? Why not this response: Robin, what you are saying about me is not true. I do not avoid the truth, and I do not understand on what basis you can make such an outrageous and demeaning and trangressive statement. Shut up, Robin. You are wrong. But that would be taking too much of a chance. It's the metaphysic of your M.O., Curtis, and I have been describing it for some time now. You have never addressed the question--and you never will. This is the secret to understanding you, Curtis. You will not go anywhere near where reality might make trouble for you. ROBIN1: So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it CURTIS2: You are being an asshole here Robin. ROBIN2: Explain how my assholeness is a more salient fact than what I am describing as the truth of how you act, Curtis. ROBIN1: --so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. CURTIS2: Plenty of posters write short lines to express a perspective concisely. Concisely Robin, you might want to consider that concept. ROBIN2: Have I misjudged you, Curtis? I think Xeno's estimation of you significant. But you are making me lose confidence in you. This won't do at all. I am getting very angry with you, Curtis. Please stop with the names. ROBIN1: Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. M: That was kind of a startling admission wasn't it? Presumptive unfriendliness goes torrettes. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra maskedzebra@ wrote: I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. Actually, that's what reporters have been doing with Romney concerning the tax returns he has refused to release, just for one recent example in public life. Romney's excuse that he doesn't owe it to anybody to release the returns hasn't gone over too well. The reporters haven't been calling him names, but pundits sure have been, as has the Obama campaign. Come to think of it, it's also a tactic Barry has used many times: posing a question to someone, then if they don't respond, repeating the question over and over and calling them cowardly because they haven't answered him. I can think of several instances right off the bat; I suspect we all can. Gee, do we have yet another demonstration here of Barry's incomparable talent for inadvertent irony?
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out. It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. authfriend: Actually, that's what reporters have been doing with Romney concerning the tax returns he has refused to release, just for one recent example in public life. Romney's excuse that he doesn't owe it to anybody to release the returns hasn't gone over too well. The reporters haven't been calling him names, but pundits sure have been, as has the Obama campaign. Come to think of it, it's also a tactic Barry has used many times: posing a question to someone, then if they don't respond, repeating the question over and over and calling them cowardly because they haven't answered him. I can think of several instances right off the bat; I suspect we all can. Gee, do we have yet another demonstration here of Barry's incomparable talent for inadvertent irony? Barry said he would put his money on it, but when I accepted his wager and raised him $500, he wouldn't put his money where his mouth was, and he didn't fold, and he refused to show his hand, so Barry owes all of us big time by now, for fibbing. LoL!
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
tourquoiseb: It's the *presumption* of this that blows my mind. That Curtis or anyone else owes him a response in which he addresses what he says about him. And that if Curtis doesn't do what he's being told to do, he's just going to keep calling him names until he does. That's what children throwing tantrums do. That's what chronic abusers do. That's what people suffer- ing from Narcissistic Personality Disorder do. That's what attention vampires do. That's what Robin does, it's what Judy does, and in a saddening trend it's what Ann is starting to do. It's NOT what normal people do. What would you do if some guy on the street walked up to you, yelled a bunch of disparaging things about you in your face, and then stood there demanding that you *debate* these things with him, and in detail? Wouldn't you be kinda tempted to point up to the sky and say Look...is that a UFO? ...and then run away? And yet put people on an Internet forum and they start to think that they can demand things of others that they would never dare to demand of them in real life. So, it's all about Barry. LoL! Share, I tried to warn you. I will repeat what is obvious as long as you try to bullshit your way out of addressing what I say about you, Curtis. M: You have now defined yourself as a troll here Robin. Got it. Over and out.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. I think we may need a ruling from the judges on this one, as to whether the use of quote marks around your own words indicates an attempt to imply they're someone else's. That sounds like a fairly strong charge to level against someone without the opinion of an expert. Couldn't they just be italics? Is there an editor in the house? Oh wait...there was one, back on July 31, 2007: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other people's writing for a living, you might figure out that a very common usage of quotation marks, in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as a way of highlighting words and phrases. Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a common or even an accepted substitute for italics. What you and many others use is asterisks, as you just did above. Only the truly paranoid would see them as an attempt to quote *them* every time they're used. :-) Nope. You've been using quote marks around your own words in an attempt to imply they're someone else's as long as I've known you. It's just one of your many dishonest tricks. :-) From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   I could not find by search Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that in any post by you Share until you quoted it here; it first appeared in post #320794 by authfriend. The closest I could find you saying anything resembling this is post #320421 where you wrote: Sorry, Richard but IMO Barry's not schizo. Barry is simply like the rest of us, a mix and positive and negative. Judy too. And yes it's often perplexing to me. But I rarely find it helpful to pull out DSM IV labels (not sure that's the right number) to bolster one's argument. None of us are trained therapists, right? And it's not helpful when Turq does it either. Just in case someone was going to waste a post bringing that to my attention! From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? I would be utterly flabbergasted if anyone here read what I put in quotes and thought I was quoting something you actually said, Share, it's so far from what anybody could conceive of your ever saying. It's too honest. That sentence in quotes represents my impression of why you really want any further discussion of what went on here in public to take place privately. It isn't that you want to spare the forum negativity; that's just the saintly mask you'd like to put on it. Rather, you want to spare *yourself* the discomfort of being forced to face up to your behavior in public. Call it the voice of your conscience, what your conscience would be telling you is your real motivation if you could hear it, if you were to take your fingers out of your ears. That's why I put it in quotes. The evidence is public: You have made factual mistakes and have told falsehoods, but you haven't owned up to them when they've been pointed out to you. Would you like me to list some of them? I'll be happy to do that if you want to challenge that assertion. Most of them are from what you've said in your discussions with me that I've already called you on, so they shouldn't come as a surprise. PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. You're both, Share. You aren't the only such dormouse on FFL; it wasn't you I had in mind when I wrote the phrase. But it fits. What happens is that when someone insists that the dormouse wake up and face reality, she becomes enraged and does everything she can to obfuscate the reality, including fighting dirty. I'll give you one example: You were already pissed off at me for having taken you to task for some other crap. Barry's dumb angry cunts post came up, and you suggested, oh-so- sweetly, that I should try forgiving and forgetting. But you knew, because you had been told, that it's not me who brings it up constantly, but Barry. All I do is defend myself against his misrepresentations. You thought you could shame me for perpetuating that controversy when you knew I wasn't responsible. That's what I call obfuscating reality and fighting dirty. There are plenty more examples, but that one is especially clear-cut. It's not entirely clear to me that you're even aware of what you're doing, though. I think for you the process of editing reality takes place so automatically and so quickly that the original reality gets overwritten, and you no longer have access to it. The version you've edited to suit yourself *becomes* the reality for you. But somewhere down deep, your psyche knows what you've done. And it drives you to do your damndest to avoid dealing with it in public. Do you engage in similar avoidance in private? I would guess you find it easier in private, because you're confronting only one person. In public, you never know who- all is going to pipe up and call you to account so everyone else becomes wise to your tactics. Your attempt to accuse me of obfuscation in the post I'm responding to, when you know damn well nobody would think I was actually quoting you, is the very most recent example.  BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. I think we may need a ruling from the judges on this one, as to whether the use of quote marks around your own words indicates an attempt to imply they're someone else's. That sounds like a fairly strong charge to level against someone without the opinion of an expert. Couldn't they just be italics? Is there an editor in the house? Oh wait...there was one, back on July 31, 2007: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other people's writing for a living, you might figure out that a very common usage of quotation marks, in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as a way of highlighting words and phrases. Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a common or even an accepted substitute for italics. What you and many others use is asterisks, as you just did above. Only the truly paranoid would see them as an attempt to quote *them* every time they're used. :-) Well, now we know Barry must be thinking Share is truly paranoid. Actually this exchange was about a completely different type of situation, as Barry knows. If anybody wants me to explain further, I'll be happy to do so. Nope. You've been using quote marks around your own words in an attempt to imply they're someone else's as long as I've known you. It's just one of your many dishonest tricks. :-) From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ANN: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. RESPONSE: If any reader examines what Curtis has said here, there is a kind of hidden a priori psychology. And what is that a priori? That somehow the force and imperiousness of the personality of Curtis can be a substitute for any contact with the truth of the matter. Notice that Curtis perfectly deprives the impartial reader of any chance to subject this difference of point of view to a fair hearing *independent of the peremptory and despotic authority of Curtis*. Curtis takes on the entire burden of the proof of his argument here--in the absence of any possibility of having this matter adjudicated by a context within which Curtis himself exists. Curtis annexes the context of truth through sheer dint of will and personality. It is certainly a spectacular phenomenon to witness [Hold it, Curtis: I will have no respect for you whatsover *if you use the very mechanism I am describing here to evade facing the inevitability of my analysis*--So STFU--unless you are prepared to address my argument on its own terms]: Curtis lords it over everyone, and kills the possibility of a context which is opposed to Curtis getting a hearing. You see, Curtis is so scrupulously sensitive to the truth, that he knows how important it is to keep that truth from undermining or refuting him. So he just banishes it from existence and appropriates the context totally with the force of his personality. But of course all this is hidden from view. Look: There is some disagreement between this person (whom Curtis is addressing here) and Curtis. But instead of taking on the most generous and sincere motive which could lie behind the comments this person has made to Share Long, Curtis would judge them out of court categorically: as if to say: I have caught you in an utterly dishonest and manipulative form of behaviour, and you had better just own up. You are judged and sentenced; the execution awaits my discretion. I wish those readers at FFL who seek some form of contact with reality, with what is the case, will see that Curtis operates under a set of ruthless and intolerant rules. His judgment does not suffer from some subjectively experienced doubt when he makes his argument. But this is because he simply eliminates all of the reality which existed inside the context where the issue is being controverted, and substitutes his own context, which will not permit any appeal to a truth which Curtis has determined is a moral and intellectual inconvenience to him. Curtis has a secret ex cathedra way of writing. One does not notice it; one is influenced by the illusion that his confidence *must mean he is in contact with the truth*; but as it happens, in disputation at least, Curtis's confidence and authority is directly proportional to the truth which he is denying entrance into the discussion. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Uh-huh. It was, of course (as I suspect Curtis *does* know), a phrase I used. But not (as I said) to describe Share. Curtis (I suspect) thought he could con readers into thinking it was. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. I should have known she'd try to obfuscate it. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Does anyone else get the feeling that this word is being overused in a completely bogus way? Irony impaired can refer both to the inability to recognize irony when someone else uses it, and the inability to use it properly oneself. I suspect it's the second that raunchy has in mind here. (For reference, Robin has done an excellent job of exemplifying and/or explicating the term in a number of posts recently.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. M: Perhaps a review process is in order for Share. She could send you her posts before posting them, and they could be evaluated for how much they do justice to her. I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (I hope that was just right.) Good one, Curtis. You got a twofer, a double play. You win the jackpot, a trip to Obfuscating Rehab for the irony impaired. Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. Here was your intent tell: Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Now you are just making shit up. If I got it wrong sorry, if I didn't what is all this fuss about? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Uh-huh. It was, of course (as I suspect Curtis *does* know), a phrase I used. But not (as I said) to describe Share. Curtis (I suspect) thought he could con readers into thinking it was. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
The thing is dear Ann... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
Curtis baby - this is not working out. I think you should create another African American character and write a beautiful, touching piece to resurrect yourself as a secular, progressive. Oh wait, you did create a beautiful character - an autistic African-American boy - to resurrect yourself and that failed, oh boy what other character can beat John Paul, OMG you are screwed - never mind - sorry. Love ya - Ravi. On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** Now you are just making shit up. If I got it wrong sorry, if I didn't what is all this fuss about? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Uh-huh. It was, of course (as I suspect Curtis *does* know), a phrase I used. But not (as I said) to describe Share. Curtis (I suspect) thought he could con readers into thinking it was. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
raunchydog quoting Judy: I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein It sounds so good doesn't it. Who could argue with that in theory. But put into practice by Judy, it just doesn't play out that way does it. But she will continue, with her fifty posts a week, fighting every battle large and small. Okay, medium and small. Alright, alright. mostly all small. And winning each one. Okay, vanquishing each opponent. Alright, alright, annihilating any opposition with her superior logic and ability to site posts five years back. But that's our Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: CURTIS: The thing is dear Ann... RESPONSE: One must assume, since this is all that Curtis has said to Ann, that this retort is sufficient to utterly destroy the substance and effect of what Ann has written to Curtis. It is not. Ann has written a response to Curtis which requires that Curtis enter into it. He refuses because his bloodhound instincts for the smell of truth have warned him: Do not go there. It is dangerous. So what does he do instead? He capsizes the context to make it seem as if, in this ironic turning of a phrase of Ann's (in her addressing Share Long), *he has entirely dealt with the context of what Ann has said to him*. But there is a catch to this that most FFL readers will miss (Raunchy not one of them): Had anyone other than Curtis responded to someone as Curtis has here, *that person would lack the force of personality and will to make this response stand as in any way adequate to the challenge presented by Ann*. But because it is Curtis who has written it, it has that Manly Halo Good-Guy-That-I-Am-Always strength inside of it--so, although ineffectual in the person of anyone else on FFL, with Curtis, it almost works. For at the very least, one has the illusory impression that Curtis has answered Ann. Which he has not. Do you see? This is a form of manipulation and deceit that is manifestly unfair to Ann and a form of insidious seduction of the reader. Consider this thought experiment: *Someone other than Curtis has written each one of the posts to Ann today* [that Curtis has in fact written]. Ann has responded as she has. Now consider that this X person (someone other than Curtis) responds to Ann's last post with this one sentence: The thing is dear Ann.. Think: How well would this go over? It would be a dying balloon. Almost embarrassing. [And note how Curtis has made of Ann's original approach to Share as if sneeringly condescending and foul--but it was not this inside Ann's heart: such is the power of Curtis's appropriation of the truth.] But Curtis has a mystique (most balanced intellect among all of us--Xeno) and a character which gives to his words some power they otherwise would not have. And this of course is the point of my earlier post: Curtis is fanatically determined not to let reality wrest control of the context. He will possess that context at all costs. And in this sense, in saying what he has said to Ann here, he gives the impression he has essentially had the last word. But has he? He has said nothing. He has systematically and sedulously and deceitfully made certain that the potency and thoughtfulness of Ann's post to Curtis is entirely robbed of its intrinsic merit. This, by force of personality and will. Curtis legendary status among certain posters and readers here enables him to escape from the demands of truth and honesty which are incumbent upon the rest of us. And my thesis can only be denied by Curtis *through the very same M.O. as I have described here*. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. I should have known she'd try to obfuscate it. I'd forgotten the form Translation: for subtext: amplifying unspoken words, turning up the volume to clarify the message. IMO Share disliked the content of the quote quote. Rather than confront the issue, she called attention to the quotation marks, which is a safe bet for not owning up to anything you've called her on. Except that doesn't work out too well on a forum that provides little in the way of an escape hatch from yourself. The only way out is having enough courage and integrity to face the little gremlins in your psyche working real hard to keep you from knowing yourself...self and Self. FFLife is the perfect place to banish your gremlins and own your strengths and weaknesses. Where else can you get this much therapy for free? Over the years, we've come to know each other so well that the mirrors we hold up to each other, whether true or distorted are a unique blessing when used for self-reflection, a blessing some of us more or less embrace. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
This is a keeper Curtis along with your other gem Don't you start now Emily. Man - why can't get these women just SHUT UP and be like the Sals and Susans - I feel for you 'bro. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: The thing is dear Ann... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. Here is the thing, dear Share, although you have obviously taken exception to the metaphor of the dormouse as pertaining to you, it was a rather charming, in an interesting way, image and not one to get overly excited about. (See my photo of a rather adorable dormouse). On the other hand, I know you can do better in your description of Judy so that it encompasses not only your feelings (which seem to be hurt) as well as a degree of truthfulness and therefore potency without the ugly-esh negativity. I say this because I don't really sense that your rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter phrase as doing you the justice it could if you were to dig a little deeper to find the one that is just right. The one that fits your feelings right now but doesn't do you an injustice. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity. Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that.
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: The thing is dear Ann... Yes? Tell me more. But if I am not to run out of posts by Monday night, at this rate I need to cover more ground here. I found your comment below something I would like to address, quickly: I think there is more than a little Robin left in you Ann. (And here this is a direct quote from you complete with quotation marks, let there be no mistake.) Now, I take this comment of yours to mean that what I wrote to Share reminds you of what Robin would have said. That is the only conclusion I can come to from your assessment. But here is the thing. Robin does not hold a patent on how he lives his life and how he in turn chooses to articulate that here in his interactions with others. You assume because I said what I said to Share that I have borrowed, incorporated, embodied Robin or, at least, his philosophy. However, you would be wrong. I will not speak for him but I will for myself when I say that the impulse and the belief behind that impulse is something that I have come to know is true in my own life. This is a discovery not a stolen idea, a borrowed life list of rules, a plagiarized page out of Robin's Book On Reality. It is something I have come to understand and believe. If it sounds familiar then how is this different from the fact that there are undoubtedly more than one or two people on this planet that can essentially perceive certain realities about life to be true? Do you forget, I have not been around Robin for 26 years? Do you imagine I keep copies of his old books at my bedside so I can stay clear and fresh on his former writings and beliefs? Do you think I wish to follow him once again as some beacon of realized knowingess? And perhaps more importantly, do you see me as some mimicing, mindless drone who has no original ideas of her own? Because if you do we really need to have that coffee in that cafe somewhere. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Oh yeah, and the doormouse thing is just totally condescending, there is no other way to spin that. It's dormouse, not doormouse (dor = sleep). Always appreciated. And of course, as Curtis knows, the phrase wasn't used to describe Share (except by herself). Actually I didn't, I just dropped in and must have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize to Judy if I was characterizing her as condescending for a term she herself didn't use. Here was your intent tell: Intent tell, what a charming bit of psychobabble. NLP, I assume? No, it is my own collage of the poker term as it applies to writing. It sounds so much edgier than foreshadowing. OK, since I was the one who composed the message to Share I think I am the expert here. I could have written the sentence beginning with the usual, Dear Share. The fact that I wrote those two words after a few opening words does not, for me, change my intent of the letter to Share. I don't want to hurt Share or to speak condescendingly to her (although I have admitted times when I do give her a nudge or two about her many spiritual pursuits and activities) but this was not the case in my post today. I truly wanted to impart to her exactly what I said. In a nutshell, she could be doing herself a disservice in her knee jerk reaction to the dormouse statement by taking the first angry, negative thing that comes to mind when retaliating to Judy. I believe Share to be someone who would prefer to think of herself as someone who does not fall into any easy traps of flinging abuse around when there are other more thoughtful, cogent means to get her feelings across. And Curtis, your post to me this morning revealed something, personally to me, that I had only so far witnessed from afar in your dealing with others here. I shall just leave that one hanging, take it as you will. Here is the thing, dear Share, You kinda know what's coming after that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful,
[FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as I did not write those words. Or even think them. Maybe herself? Or someone from another decade? PS I'd rather be a supposed pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse than a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter. BTW, The previous sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster.   You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext, that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to her attention. She really hates that. What I normally do is put Translation: before the proposed subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said (Especially when...) rather than supplying subtext for what she had said, so Translation: didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes. I should have known she'd try to obfuscate it. I'd forgotten the form Translation: for subtext: amplifying unspoken words, turning up the volume to clarify the message. Right. It *is* somebody else's idea of the subtext, of course; there's no guarantee it's really what the first person has in mind (unless they cop to it). In this case, though, the notion of taking things private for the sake of sparing the forum negativity strikes me as a particularly transparent excuse. If she'd said, for example, because I just don't want to talk about it in public any more, that would at least have been honest, and I wouldn't have spoken up. Instead she tried to make it sound as though she were doing everybody else a favor out of consideration for *their* feelings. Ick. IMO Share disliked the content of the quote quote. Rather than confront the issue, she called attention to the quotation marks, which is a safe bet for not owning up to anything you've called her on. Right, that's what I think too. Same as when she got all outraged over my butting in, suggesting that it was the fact that I had done so at all that she thought was so reprehensible. But Curtis had also butted in, and she seems to have retained her high opinion of him. Thing is, he'd butted in on *her* side, against Robin, and I'd butted in on *Robin's* side. So clearly it was what I had said to her that got her so angry, not the fact that I had butted in. Except that doesn't work out too well on a forum that provides little in the way of an escape hatch from yourself. The only way out is having enough courage and integrity to face the little gremlins in your psyche working real hard to keep you from knowing yourself...self and Self. FFLife is the perfect place to banish your gremlins and own your strengths and weaknesses. Where else can you get this much therapy for free? Over the years, we've come to know each other so well that the mirrors we hold up to each other, whether true or distorted are a unique blessing when used for self-reflection, a blessing some of us more or less embrace. Beautifully said. Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open. Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the truth. I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life, including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we ever be honest with ourselves? ~J. Stein From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy everyone -- writing for the Church of $cientology  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in this disagreement. If anyone has questions or concerns about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my request is that you email me directly for sake of sparing the forum any further negativity.
