[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
...footprints that lead to the swings and slides. Now they're 'swinging and sliding' down the rabbit hole. LoL! Ravi Chivukula: So it's all about swinging and sliding down rabbit holes. Go figure! LoL! It's all about the rabbit hole - not how you get there. You could fall, slide, spin, or wiggle your way in. LoL! Here's what happened to this poor bastard that 'fell' down the rabbit hole. He posted to Usenet several years ago and got beat up real bad by Judy. Apparently this guy, Joe Kellett, was down the rabbit hole with Curtis and Barry for a long time. Go figure. 'Falling Down the Rabbit Hole With Joe' http://www.suggestibility.org/ No Curtis baby - you have totally disarmed me with that baby Krishna comment. It will take me several days to recover if at all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Oh my God, I can't believe I'm just answering you! Well, out of town most of yesterday. Anyway, I'm good thanks. How about you? I think one has to be a woman to grok the offensiveness of the c word. Not sure if there's any word comparable in the male world. I'm glad you participate here too, lurking no more (-: From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! Hey Share, como sa va? I understand how you might be offended by Barry's comment. I mean out of context it appears far worse than it is, at least IMO. But the crudeness of the comment does not seem to be the issue, at least with Raunchy and Judy. The issue is whether or not it is a death threat. And they are trying to make the case that it is, and I'm afraid they have fallen short in that regard. Oh, I'm glad you participate here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I would not call it a death threat. But extreme vicious. OTOH, I climb on no bandwagons but ones of my own choosing. If that's doubling down, then so be it. I understand that this has been going on for years. For me, only a very short time. Hoping that enables me to add compassion and reasonableness and unbiting unbaiting humor. And I'm probably gonna make more mistakes along the way.   PS Too late! I'm sure I've already been a laughingstock. So far I find that I can live with it. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yep, I can be an idiot sometimes. But I think your dumb c joke was well over the vicious line. As was your post about Judy's gig which I replied to earlier... Would you characterize it as a death threat? They did. And, when numerous posters here suggested what laughingstocks they were making of themselves by so claiming, they doubled down, and have continued to do so to this day. My riff may well have been vicious, but then you weren't there to see what both of these women posted day after day during the last election season with their obsessions about Obama and his supporters. And it was all a long shaggy dog story leading up to the punchline of the joke, a riff on Liar, liar, pants on fire. Methinks you're doubling down a bit yourself. If you deny this, climb on board the Raunchy- Judy bandwagon and call my joke a death threat too. And become a laughingstock yourself. YOU haven't been the target of Judy's obsession for years. Curtis and I have, as have Vaj and many others here. But mark my words, you *will* be if you continue to commit the Cardinal Sin of liking people she doesn't want you to like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Robert babajii_99@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ ...wrote: So, take a break; a pepsi break,my good freind... Read in the Bagavad Gita as Krishna says to Arjuna, 'Know Anger to be the Enemy here on Earth; and the need to over come our anger and hatred toward each other...so we may 'See' clearly, my great warriour one... R. Babaji - Thank you so much for your concern - Anger, hate is just on the surface, something to playfully indulge in. I'm forever on a break, always relaxed - don't drink Pepsi though - Coffee a Smoke..singing to my beloved. http://youtu.be/pPxyTFwOW0Y
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: R: Goofing up, M: I didn't say that, I meant what I said about your use of words. R: getting a bit carried away doesn't cut it Curtis. M: Well that is as far as I was willing to go, however after reading this I am not so sure. R: Oh no - sleight of hand again Curtis, the term I used was threaten and not threat, there's lot of difference - and threaten is not an inflammatory word, did you not read the various meanings of the word threaten? M: This is probably not your best route with me Ravi. I have a home court English as a first language advantage here and I'm not buying your explanation, sorry. R: You are completely clueless to your behavior - how you manipulate, twist context, facts M: Examples would help more than vague assertions on parade. You may not have a good grasp on what the word fact refers to. R: to bully, M: I have not power differential with anyone here that would allow this. Bulling is a serious charge and I don't take it lightly. I don't have any power over you Ravi, we are just talking here. R: avoid answering real questions M: Which questions exactly? Your rhetorical ones? Give some examples. R: and cry wolf. M: Here we will have to agree to disagree. I have real issues with your behavior here. R: Curtis Reality of Things as my old man called it and 7 layered deception, progressively baser, cruder, grosser as I call it. M: Are you trying to sound like one of those mystic yogi guys cuz I've kinda been there and done that. If you are trying to communicate more than gibberish, try defining the 7 levels of deception for us. Oh one more thing. Sal never threatened or made a threat to Emily in that email. I don't want you to miss that point in all the fun we are having with the yogi word salad talk. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:19 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: I really believe that you shouldn't have said that about Sal's post and I don't find your explanations convincing. The false comparative about physical harm doesn't fly either. The term threatis an inflammatory word and you chose if for that reason. But I read it and it was not a threatening email. It was much like so much of what goes on here every day. But if you want to goof on me for drama queening the whole thing up too far, I can live with that. Perhaps I did get a bit carried away. Goofing up, getting a bit carried away doesn't cut it Curtis. Oh no - sleight of hand again Curtis, the term I used was threaten and not threat, there's lot of difference - and threaten is not an inflammatory word, did you not read the various meanings of the word threaten? You are completely clueless to your behavior - how you manipulate, twist context, facts to bully, avoid answering real questions and cry wolf. Curtis Reality of Things as my old man called it and 7 layered deception, progressively baser, cruder, grosser as I call it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Let's pretend Ravi didn't invalidate your point with his whole hey I was using the 4th definition of the term. routine and take a look at your claim. I think it will give you a chance to prove me as being wrong about the meaning of those words or the opposite of that. (A guy can dream can't he?) Let's see if the whole context actually does invalidate the meaning of the claim Sal threatened Emily in an email. (Not read by the accuser.) Of course Sal didn't threaten Emily in an email. Nobody, made that claim including Ravi, unless he's attempting to fit *your* claim that he did into *your* frame by playing the definition game with you. M: So I asked him what he meant and he cooked up a cockamamie 4th definition story, and you are blaming ME for playing a definition game? OK we both made our cases and I'm satisfied that anyone interested will understand where we've both been coming from. One clarification: RD: Nope. Of course you did: Curtis: Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. I can understand why you would think what you did if you read it in isolation, but not in context of what we've been talking about. I was always talking about Ravi claiming Sal's email was an online threat (in the 4th definition of the term even though that does not apply) and NEVER that he himself was making an online threat. If I had been making that case I would have said what the supposed threat was, right? This is how you would know I had introduced another topic. Well that whole exchange was weird, but in the end I get where you are coming from a bit better. Your impulse to save poor Ravi from himself prioritizes the way you think about things I believe. you were so busy concocting a cover story for him you missed that he was answering it himself in a completely different but equally bogus way. Then he switched to yours because that sounded better. Then he tried: Ravi: the term I used was threaten and not threat, there's lot of difference. M:All funny stuff from my perspective. I just asked him what he meant. You didn't both have to to go on bullshit autopilot. And I learned that in any communication on FFL, it is best to ask a person which definition of a word they are using, because it is often the more obscure one that they carefully selected for a precise meaning and in no way was just trying to cover their tracks after the fact. Or it was all just rhetorical irony, or something. And only certain posters know this. And what people say isn't what they mean, if they are calling something a death threat they are only joking...except when they are not, or after the whole concept of it as a death threat was proven conclusively to be bogus and it made them look silly for saying it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, Even though you are on the wrong side of this issue as usual Raunchy, this is a brilliant, funny line. R: but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'. M: Great case in point even though you had to go back how many years to find this? This statement was escalated into a death threat by you too goblins. It is an excellent example of what I am talking about. BTW the point that neither of you could fathom was that the too stupid to live was an enhancement on your stupidity, not any sort of threat. It implied that left to your own devices you couldn't survive in the world. It is derivative of the Darwin Award's perspective. Your twist back then was just as absurd as it is now. http://www.homebuilt.org/cmdrdata/jokes/03/0125.html Context, Curtis? Ya want some context to smack yous in da mouth or upside da head? http://youtu.be/MMsr-9rHelQ Ravi: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320388 It doesn't change a thing Raunchy. The contingency is on Judy making certain people behave in a way that he specifies. He IS claiming both that Sal threatened Emily and that I acted as a fool. The rhetorical question angle only applies to whether or not Judy made these actual events happen. So
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip And what people say isn't what they mean, if they are calling something a death threat they are only joking...except when they are not, or after the whole concept of it as a death threat was proven conclusively to be bogus and it made them look silly for saying it. I have to chuckle at this. All this time, I thought Judy and Raunchy were making the case that this was a death threat. I mean this has become FFL lore. Then suddenly yesterday, as best I could follow it, it was suddenly acknowledged as joke. At that point, I just kind of bailed out of the discussion. Judy said that I was missing some of the complexities of the issue, and she was absolutely right. Some things you're okay with not quite figuring out.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip And what people say isn't what they mean, if they are calling something a death threat they are only joking...except when they are not, or after the whole concept of it as a death threat was proven conclusively to be bogus and it made them look silly for saying it. I have to chuckle at this. All this time, I thought Judy and Raunchy were making the case that this was a death threat. I mean this has become FFL lore. Then suddenly yesterday, as best I could follow it, it was suddenly acknowledged as joke. At that point, I just kind of bailed out of the discussion. Judy said that I was missing some of the complexities of the issue, and she was absolutely right. Some things you're okay with not quite figuring out. Judy's first use of it that she posted is clearly not a joke. She wants us to run down the rabbit hole of, but Barry knew what it was that was a death threat without me mentioning it so it really was angle. This of course misses the more obvious point that it wasn't hard to guess what she was getting at, wrongly. The comedy angle is Raunchy's new one and my only apply to her recent posts. With the weight of evidence so strong on what was originally meant we wont be getting out of their spin cycle on this one. Remember the prime directive: we are never wrong and will never back down no matter how absurd our position becomes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: If I were hiring someone to work with school children, I seriously doubt I'd consider a person who describes his critics on an Internet forum as all too vividly lusting for the smell and taste of blood, let alone envisions them dancing with goblets of baby blood. Even used figuratively, that's sick imagery. M: And that would be your right, but you don't work in schools, and seem clueless about what goes on in young adult literature for the Twilight generation. They pour blood drinking imagery on their Coco Puffs. I am reading the Hunger Games right now to help me get into Middle Schooler's heads. It is about children being pitted against each other in a fight to the death as entertainment, and it the most popular book among the kids I teach. Ever see a Disney movie? First scene, the parent's get killed. What exactly did the witch have in mind for Handsel and Gretel? She was going to eat them. The way I am using figurative language here for dramatic effect IS what I teach. Although this was written for adults here, there is nothing I am ashamed of if another teacher was checking me out here. He or she would see that I am using figurative language to make a point, dramatizing the effect of what the word brutal invokes. It was exactly the kind of language use they want if put into the context of age appropriateness,which it was here. When Jon Stewart discusses Dick Cheney he often mentions him eating babies. It evokes heartlessness. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. So you are claiming that those words were used in the figurative way mine were? Did you figure I was planning to lead a team to Virginia to find you and beat you up, Curtis? Are you really saying you thought I intended you to be literally smacked in the mouth? My point had to do with claim about the email, this is diversion bullshit. Were they hyperbole, was that the intent? Was that clear from the context and the absurdity of the piece? Insatiable appetite for deception and cruelty was not hyperbole, nor was what I wrote absurd. Your faux outrage over my violent imagery is what's absurd in light of your remarks to raunchy and Robin. So you can defend your accusation that I have shown cruelty here. Let's see you make a case for that. I call bullshit. In Raunchy's case I was spelling out the visual representation of what the term brutality means. Speaking of being deceptive... Brutality in the context raunchy used it means grossly ruthless or unfeeling. That was an entirely appropriate use of the term to describe your accusations against Emily. It had nothing to do with the smell and taste of blood, as you well know. This is the kind of lack of ability to understand nuance that makes me wonder how you keep food on your table in your profession. I suppose there are some people here who, even after reading what I just said, will think the above is a reasonable comment, even though I've just demonstrated that my ability to understand nuance has exposed a particularly ludicrous attempt to deceive on your part. And the quotes I provided from your own posts expose your hypocrisy in objecting to my violent imagery. Your language in those quotes is far more unwell and disturbing than any language I've ever used here, figuratively or otherwise. You would have been *so*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: If I were hiring someone to work with school children, I seriously doubt I'd consider a person who describes his critics on an Internet forum as all too vividly lusting for the smell and taste of blood, let alone envisions them dancing with goblets of baby blood. Even used figuratively, that's sick imagery. M: And that would be your right, but you don't work in schools, and seem clueless about what goes on in young adult literature for the Twilight generation. They pour blood drinking imagery on their Coco Puffs. I am reading the Hunger Games right now to help me get into Middle Schooler's heads. It is about children being pitted against each other in a fight to the death as entertainment, and it the most popular book among the kids I teach. Ever see a Disney movie? First scene, the parent's get killed. What exactly did the witch have in mind for Handsel and Gretel? She was going to eat them. The way I am using figurative language here for dramatic effect IS what I teach. Although this was written for adults here, there is nothing I am ashamed of if another teacher was checking me out here. He or she would see that I am using figurative language to make a point, dramatizing the effect of what the word brutal invokes. It was exactly the kind of language use they want if put into the context of age appropriateness, which it was here. When Jon Stewart discusses Dick Cheney he often mentions him eating babies. It evokes heartlessness. Well said. I agree with every word, except the last two sentences. We all know that when Dick Cheney eats babies, he eats their hearts, too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
No Curtis baby - you have totally disarmed me with that baby Krishna comment. It will take me several days to recover if at all. Now I think you and Barry are two of the most sweetest, gentlest, kindest, naughtiest, playful people in the world. You are the baby Krishnas of FFL - sure the women may be abused as ugly, vindictive cunts too stupid to live but trust me you guys invoke nothing but maternal love in the Judys, Raunchys, Anns as their hearts are warmed, gladdened by your tiny fingerprints, handprints on their pots of curds and ghee, footprints that lead to the swings and slides. Their whole day is a breeze, reminscing your sweet memories as they exchange your heartwarming, playful, naughty abuses and insults. Love, Ravi On Sep 19, 2012, at 7:14 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: R: Goofing up, M: I didn't say that, I meant what I said about your use of words. R: getting a bit carried away doesn't cut it Curtis. M: Well that is as far as I was willing to go, however after reading this I am not so sure. R: Oh no - sleight of hand again Curtis, the term I used was threaten and not threat, there's lot of difference - and threaten is not an inflammatory word, did you not read the various meanings of the word threaten? M: This is probably not your best route with me Ravi. I have a home court English as a first language advantage here and I'm not buying your explanation, sorry. R: You are completely clueless to your behavior - how you manipulate, twist context, facts M: Examples would help more than vague assertions on parade. You may not have a good grasp on what the word fact refers to. R: to bully, M: I have not power differential with anyone here that would allow this. Bulling is a serious charge and I don't take it lightly. I don't have any power over you Ravi, we are just talking here. R: avoid answering real questions M: Which questions exactly? Your rhetorical ones? Give some examples. R: and cry wolf. M: Here we will have to agree to disagree. I have real issues with your behavior here. R: Curtis Reality of Things as my old man called it and 7 layered deception, progressively baser, cruder, grosser as I call it. M: Are you trying to sound like one of those mystic yogi guys cuz I've kinda been there and done that. If you are trying to communicate more than gibberish, try defining the 7 levels of deception for us. Oh one more thing. Sal never threatened or made a threat to Emily in that email. I don't want you to miss that point in all the fun we are having with the yogi word salad talk. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:19 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: I really believe that you shouldn't have said that about Sal's post and I don't find your explanations convincing. The false comparative about physical harm doesn't fly either. The term threatis an inflammatory word and you chose if for that reason. But I read it and it was not a threatening email. It was much like so much of what goes on here every day. But if you want to goof on me for drama queening the whole thing up too far, I can live with that. Perhaps I did get a bit carried away. Goofing up, getting a bit carried away doesn't cut it Curtis. Oh no - sleight of hand again Curtis, the term I used was threaten and not threat, there's lot of difference - and threaten is not an inflammatory word, did you not read the various meanings of the word threaten? You are completely clueless to your behavior - how you manipulate, twist context, facts to bully, avoid answering real questions and cry wolf. Curtis Reality of Things as my old man called it and 7 layered deception, progressively baser, cruder, grosser as I call it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Ravi Chivukula: ...footprints that lead to the swings and slides. Now they're 'swinging and sliding' down the rabbit hole. LoL! No Curtis baby - you have totally disarmed me with that baby Krishna comment. It will take me several days to recover if at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: If I were hiring someone to work with school children, I seriously doubt I'd consider a person who describes his critics on an Internet forum as all too vividly lusting for the smell and taste of blood, let alone envisions them dancing with goblets of baby blood. Even used figuratively, that's sick imagery. M: And that would be your right, but you don't work in schools, and seem clueless about what goes on in young adult literature for the Twilight generation. They pour blood drinking imagery on their Coco Puffs. I am reading the Hunger Games right now to help me get into Middle Schooler's heads. It is about children being pitted against each other in a fight to the death as entertainment, and it the most popular book among the kids I teach. Ever see a Disney movie? First scene, the parent's get killed. What exactly did the witch have in mind for Handsel and Gretel? She was going to eat them. The way I am using figurative language here for dramatic effect IS what I teach. Although this was written for adults here, there is nothing I am ashamed of if another teacher was checking me out here. He or she would see that I am using figurative language to make a point, dramatizing the effect of what the word brutal invokes. It was exactly the kind of language use they want if put into the context of age appropriateness, which it was here. When Jon Stewart discusses Dick Cheney he often mentions him eating babies. It evokes heartlessness. Well said. I agree with every word, except the last two sentences. We all know that when Dick Cheney eats babies, he eats their hearts, too. Makes sense to me since the heart is part of the body.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 6:41 AM, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Robert babajii_99@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ ...wrote: So, take a break; a pepsi break,my good freind... Read in the Bagavad Gita as Krishna says to Arjuna, 'Know Anger to be the Enemy here on Earth; and the need to over come our anger and hatred toward each other...so we may 'See' clearly, my great warriour one... R. Babaji - Thank you so much for your concern - Anger, hate is just on the surface, something to playfully indulge in. I'm forever on a break, always relaxed - don't drink Pepsi though - Coffee a Smoke..singing to my beloved. http://youtu.be/pPxyTFwOW0Y Thanks dear Raunchy - I enjoyed the longer version too ::-) - http://youtu.be/49tTzEifY6M
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us wrote: Ravi Chivukula: ...footprints that lead to the swings and slides. Now they're 'swinging and sliding' down the rabbit hole. LoL! So it's all about swinging and sliding down rabbit holes. Go figure! LoL! No Curtis baby - you have totally disarmed me with that baby Krishna comment. It will take me several days to recover if at all.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
dear Ravi, you can add me to the Curtis Susan Steven clique. Thank you, Share PS I really don't like to be in any clique but in this ongoing conflict between the absent Emily and Sal, hope you can see the irony in that, I choose to align myself with the clique that is overall being the most positive and sensible. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:05 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. It is also disturbing to see how much of the hatred she bears for you is based on simple JEALOUSY. No matter how hard she tries -- and lawdy, lawdy how she tries -- she can't get everyone to hate you. People still like you, and in fact, think of you as a nice person. NO ONE thinks of her that way. And she knows this, and knows that the only way she can get people to even be on her side is through the same deception and cruelty she accuses you of. Because those are the only tactics that work *for her* to get attention, she believes you must be using them, too. It never even *occurs* to her that people think you're a nice guy because you're a nice guy. That's how far gone into this hatred/jealousy thing she is. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. Even more interesting, since people are talking about what went wrong with Fairfield Life to make it all so nasty and contentious, she's been on such a hate-fest trying to smear Curtis that she only has eight or so more posts left for the week. She'll probably piss those away today with insane replies to Curtis' calm, measured, unaffected-by-the-crazy- person-stalking-him posts, and then she'll have to go silent for the rest of the week. Those who wonder what happened to FFL to make it so nasty, *pay attention* during the period when Judy can't post. See if it isn't quite a bit nicer then. Just sayin'... So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? Take your emotionally stunted, depraved, deranged, paranoid, delusional fantasies out of here Barry baby. You and Curtis are the ones that stink up this joint with your needy, whiny, drama-queeenery, your deception, manipulation, lying - man what a bunch of clueless, shameless fools - all you have is the village idiot Steve and equally idiotic Susan's support - wow what a clique..LOL..
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Agreed. There have been a few times during the last 2 weeks when Judy's language has been quite extreme. I hope whatever is causing this imbalance in her gets cleared up soon. Mainly for her sake but for ours too. From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:57 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? DNFTT Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:05 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. It is also disturbing to see how much of the hatred she bears for you is based on simple JEALOUSY. No matter how hard she tries -- and lawdy, lawdy how she tries -- she can't get everyone to hate you. People still like you, and in fact, think of you as a nice person. NO ONE thinks of her that way. And she knows this, and knows that the only way she can get people to even be on her side is through the same deception and cruelty she accuses you of. Because those are the only tactics that work *for her* to get attention, she believes you must be using them, too. It never even *occurs* to her that people think you're a nice guy because you're a nice guy. That's how far gone into this hatred/jealousy thing she is. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. Even more interesting, since people are talking about what went wrong with Fairfield Life to make it all so nasty and contentious, she's been on such a hate-fest trying to smear Curtis that she only has eight or so more posts left for the week. She'll probably piss those away today with insane replies to Curtis' calm, measured, unaffected-by-the-crazy- person-stalking-him posts, and then she'll have to go silent for the rest of the week. Those who wonder what happened to FFL to make it so nasty, *pay attention* during the period when Judy can't post. See if it isn't quite a bit nicer then. Just sayin'... So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? Take your emotionally stunted, depraved, deranged, paranoid, delusional fantasies out of here Barry baby. You and Curtis are the ones that stink up this joint with your needy, whiny, drama-queeenery, your deception, manipulation, lying - man what a bunch of clueless, shameless fools - all you have is the village idiot Steve and equally idiotic Susan's support - wow what a clique..LOL..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. For your information and that of other people, here are some quotes from a paper I found while researching an article recently on the Internet and its dangers called Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. A few quotes in it struck me as remarkably parallel to the situation you and others find themselves in on Fairfield Life. Highlighting mine: Stalking is a problem that affects millions of people and causes them great stress and diminishment of quality of life. Stalkers and obsessive pursuers clearly incorporate any means that facilitate their pursuit, and one of the increasingly available means of intrusion is the advent of cyberspace technologies. Taken broadly, cyberstalking is `the use of the internet, email, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person'... This quote is more to the point, relating the newer crime/complex of cyberstalking to an older, more established psychological profile of pathology, called ORI, or Obsessive Relational Intrusion. It echoes theories I didn't know existed in formal psychology, but interestingly have suggested here myself, especially about the cyberstalkers seeking a kind of intimacy that is lacking in their real lives, and going *most* crazy when this perceived sense of intimacy with the object of their obsession -- even though it's not real, and exists only the stalker's mind -- is interrupted, and their delusional sense of intimacy withdrawn. See if this sounds somewhat familiar to you, Curtis, both with regard to how Judy has reacted to you withdrawing from the endless arguments she once was able to lure you into, and with regard to how Robin reacted when you similarly cut him off at the pump, attention-wise. Highlighting mine: Stalking is closely related to a phenomenon referred to as obsessive relational intrusion (ORI). ORI is the unwanted pursuit of intimacy through the repeated invasion of a person's sense of physical or symbolic privacy. Most stalking is a form of ORI, but the two phenomena are not isomorphic. Some stalking, for example, is purely for the sake of terrorism or destruction, as with political or underworld assassinations. In contrast, ORI does not have to be threatening, as in a socially unskilled paramour simply annoying or pestering an object of affection. Despite these differences, research shows that even relatively mild efforts at such courtship often cross the threshold of threat and fear by virtue of their repetition, inappropriateness, timing, and/or oddity. Furthermore, most stalking cases evolve from prior relationships in which one party is pursuing efforts to re-establish intimacy, or exacting revenge for having the intimacy removed from their lives. Thus, although stalking and ORI are conceptually distinct phenomena, their domains overlap extensively. My perception of when it was exactly that Judy went bat shit crazy at her current levels is when you finally perceived that she was attempting to force ongoing arguments onto you as a kind of sick form of intimacy, and you blew her off. She hasn't been quite sane since. Same with Robin. It wasn't anything you actually *said* to him in your interactions with him, it was the fact that you got tired of him and withdrew your attention, which he perceived as a loss of intimacy. An intimacy that never really existed, except in his own mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. Just for the record, remember, those words 'traumatizing' and 'vicious attack' do not refer to you or anything you said Curtis. It was a distinct impression I got from Emily when describing her reaction to having received Sal's letter. You do not need to take it personally. So, whether the letter was as barbed and hurtful as Emily's words led me to believe or not the bottom line is that she ended up freaked out and sending the negative energy letter on to you and Judy who she knows knew Sal from before. I guess it was a little like passing the hot potato or trying to get the stinky turd out of the house as fast as she could. I don't think my words were inaccurately strong given Emily's reaction and then Judy's stated impression (scarily vicious) of the letter. But, and I reiterate, until I see a copy of the letter myself I can only go by what others impressions were. But this is one of those unprovable things because I doubt the letter in question will come to light. Maybe Emily will enlighten us more when she returns. But I don't blame her if she doesn't. It's all a lot of work. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:05 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. It is also disturbing to see how much of the hatred she bears for you is based on simple JEALOUSY. No matter how hard she tries -- and lawdy, lawdy how she tries -- she can't get everyone to hate you. People still like you, and in fact, think of you as a nice person. NO ONE thinks of her that way. And she knows this, and knows that the only way she can get people to even be on her side is through the same deception and cruelty she accuses you of. Because those are the only tactics that work *for her* to get attention, she believes you must be using them, too. It never even *occurs* to her that people think you're a nice guy because you're a nice guy. That's how far gone into this hatred/jealousy thing she is. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. Even more interesting, since people are talking about what went wrong with Fairfield Life to make it all so nasty and contentious, she's been on such a hate-fest trying to smear Curtis that she only has eight or so more posts left for the week. She'll probably piss those away today with insane replies to Curtis' calm, measured, unaffected-by-the-crazy- person-stalking-him posts, and then she'll have to go silent for the rest of the week. Those who wonder what happened to FFL to make it so nasty, *pay attention* during the period when Judy can't post. See if it isn't quite a bit nicer then.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. So you are claiming that those words were used in the figurative way mine were? Were they hyperbole, was that the intent? Was that clear from the context and the absurdity of the piece? In Raunchy's case I was spelling out the visual representation of what the term brutality means. This is the kind of lack of ability to understand nuance that makes me wonder how you keep food on your table in your profession.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: I do believe you are onto something here... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. For your information and that of other people, here are some quotes from a paper I found while researching an article recently on the Internet and its dangers called Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. A few quotes in it struck me as remarkably parallel to the situation you and others find themselves in on Fairfield Life. Highlighting mine: Stalking is a problem that affects millions of people and causes them great stress and diminishment of quality of life. Stalkers and obsessive pursuers clearly incorporate any means that facilitate their pursuit, and one of the increasingly available means of intrusion is the advent of cyberspace technologies. Taken broadly, cyberstalking is `the use of the internet, email, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person'... This quote is more to the point, relating the newer crime/complex of cyberstalking to an older, more established psychological profile of pathology, called ORI, or Obsessive Relational Intrusion. It echoes theories I didn't know existed in formal psychology, but interestingly have suggested here myself, especially about the cyberstalkers seeking a kind of intimacy that is lacking in their real lives, and going *most* crazy when this perceived sense of intimacy with the object of their obsession -- even though it's not real, and exists only the stalker's mind -- is interrupted, and their delusional sense of intimacy withdrawn. See if this sounds somewhat familiar to you, Curtis, both with regard to how Judy has reacted to you withdrawing from the endless arguments she once was able to lure you into, and with regard to how Robin reacted when you similarly cut him off at the pump, attention-wise. Highlighting mine: Stalking is closely related to a phenomenon referred to as obsessive relational intrusion (ORI). ORI is the unwanted pursuit of intimacy through the repeated invasion of a person's sense of physical or symbolic privacy. Most stalking is a form of ORI, but the two phenomena are not isomorphic. Some stalking, for example, is purely for the sake of terrorism or destruction, as with political or underworld assassinations. In contrast, ORI does not have to be threatening, as in a socially unskilled paramour simply annoying or pestering an object of affection. Despite these differences, research shows that even relatively mild efforts at such courtship often cross the threshold of threat and fear by virtue of their repetition, inappropriateness, timing, and/or oddity. Furthermore, most stalking cases evolve from prior relationships in which one party is pursuing efforts to re-establish intimacy, or exacting revenge for having the intimacy removed from their lives. Thus, although stalking and ORI are conceptually distinct phenomena, their domains overlap extensively. My perception of when it was exactly that Judy went bat shit crazy at her current levels is when you finally perceived that she was attempting to force ongoing arguments onto you as a kind of sick form of intimacy, and you blew her off. She hasn't been quite sane since. Same with Robin. It wasn't anything you actually *said* to him in your interactions with him, it was
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here... turquoiseb: My perception of when it was exactly that Judy went bat shit crazy... So, it's all about Judy? Non sequitur. (Latin for it does not follow), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. http://tinyurl.com/as6b7 LoL! M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. For your information and that of other people, here are some quotes from a paper I found while researching an article recently on the Internet and its dangers called Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. A few quotes in it struck me as remarkably parallel to the situation you and others find themselves in on Fairfield Life. Highlighting mine: Stalking is a problem that affects millions of people and causes them great stress and diminishment of quality of life. Stalkers and obsessive pursuers clearly incorporate any means that facilitate their pursuit, and one of the increasingly available means of intrusion is the advent of cyberspace technologies. Taken broadly, cyberstalking is `the use of the internet, email, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person'... This quote is more to the point, relating the newer crime/complex of cyberstalking to an older, more established psychological profile of pathology, called ORI, or Obsessive Relational Intrusion. It echoes theories I didn't know existed in formal psychology, but interestingly have suggested here myself, especially about the cyberstalkers seeking a kind of intimacy that is lacking in their real lives, and going *most* crazy when this perceived sense of intimacy with the object of their obsession -- even though it's not real, and exists only the stalker's mind -- is interrupted, and their delusional sense of intimacy withdrawn. See if this sounds somewhat familiar to you, Curtis, both with regard to how Judy has reacted to you withdrawing from the endless arguments she once was able to lure you into, and with regard to how Robin reacted when you similarly cut him off at the pump, attention-wise. Highlighting mine: Stalking is closely related to a phenomenon referred to as obsessive relational intrusion (ORI). ORI is the unwanted pursuit of intimacy through the repeated invasion of a person's sense of physical or symbolic privacy. Most stalking is a form of ORI, but the two phenomena are not isomorphic. Some stalking, for example, is purely for the sake of terrorism or destruction, as with political or underworld assassinations. In contrast, ORI does not have to be threatening, as in a socially unskilled paramour simply annoying or pestering an object of affection. Despite these differences, research shows that even relatively mild efforts at such courtship often cross the threshold of threat and fear by virtue of their repetition, inappropriateness, timing, and/or oddity. Furthermore, most stalking cases evolve from prior relationships in which one party is pursuing efforts to re-establish intimacy, or exacting revenge for having the intimacy removed from their lives. Thus, although stalking and ORI are conceptually distinct phenomena, their domains overlap extensively. My perception of when it was exactly that Judy went bat shit crazy at her current levels is when you finally perceived that she was attempting to force ongoing arguments onto you as a kind of sick form of intimacy, and you blew her off. She hasn't been quite sane since. Same with Robin. It wasn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. No matter how hard she tries -- and lawdy, lawdy how she tries -- she can't get everyone to hate you. People still like you, and in fact, think of you as a nice person. Joke of the Week ! Just sayin'...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I do believe you are onto something here... So do I. As quite a few have noted, there are remarkable similarities in the ways that both Judy and Robin lure people into ongoing confrontations/arguments with them, an interaction that they both seem to perceive as intimacy. But the even greater similarity is what happens when they think that intimacy -- which, as noted before exists only in their minds -- is either withdrawn, or betrayed. Both IMO are triggers for their biggest psychological/emotional hot buttons. How many times here have we heard both of them rant and rave about the horrible, evil practice of *not wanting to talk with them any more*. In their minds, this is some kind of Cardinal Sin. But an even greater hot button seems to get pushed when someone they have come to believe they have succeeded in getting on their side suddenly either sides with someone they have categorized as an enemy or adversary, or even appreciates them, compliments them, or has a normal, friendly conversation with them. This is invariably reacted to as if it were a form of betrayal. Case in point: how Judy has reacted recently to a few people she considered hers having friendly conversations with either you or me. Shortly after this happens, she finds occasion to light into them and attack them, usually over some nitpick that some- times seems to be unrelated, but IMO isn't. Watch what she'll do with Share after her posts today declaring more affinity for the Curtis-Susan-Steven take on this latest brouhaha. As for WHY these two individuals think and react this way, I don't really have a clue. If I had to speculate, as an armchair non-trained psychiatrist, it's that both have *serious* issues with rejection. Someone or someones rejected them in the past, and now whenever anyone does in the present, they go more than a little crazy behind it. In itself that would normally be just sad, and deserving of our pity and our compassion. But when they actively try to *harm* the person they feel has rejected them? Then in my opinion they've strayed over the line into cyberstalking, and pathological behavior. All of this just my untrained opinion, of course... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. For your information and that of other people, here are some quotes from a paper I found while researching an article recently on the Internet and its dangers called Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. A few quotes in it struck me as remarkably parallel to the situation you and others find themselves in on Fairfield Life. Highlighting mine: Stalking is a problem that affects millions of people and causes them great stress and diminishment of quality of life. Stalkers and obsessive pursuers clearly incorporate any means that facilitate their pursuit, and one of the increasingly available means of intrusion is the advent of cyberspace technologies. Taken broadly, cyberstalking is `the use of the internet, email, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person'... This quote is more to the point, relating the newer crime/complex of cyberstalking to an older, more established psychological profile of pathology,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, Even though you are on the wrong side of this issue as usual Raunchy, this is a brilliant, funny line. R: but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'. M: Great case in point even though you had to go back how many years to find this? This statement was escalated into a death threat by you too goblins. It is an excellent example of what I am talking about. BTW the point that neither of you could fathom was that the too stupid to live was an enhancement on your stupidity, not any sort of threat. It implied that left to your own devices you couldn't survive in the world. It is derivative of the Darwin Award's perspective. Your twist back then was just as absurd as it is now. http://www.homebuilt.org/cmdrdata/jokes/03/0125.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
IMO Barry should have been thrown off after dumb c death comment. Wasn't here so don't know more details. Re current bloody image situation: that foul's on Judy. Only her words expressed direct violence against someone. Seems to help clarity to stick to current situation as much as possible. Also understand about unfinished business. From: raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:13 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. So you are claiming that those words were used in the figurative way mine were? Did you figure I was planning to lead a team to Virginia to find you and beat you up, Curtis? Are you really saying you thought I intended you to be literally smacked in the mouth? Were they hyperbole, was that the intent? Was that clear from the context and the absurdity of the piece? Insatiable appetite for deception and cruelty was not hyperbole, nor was what I wrote absurd. Your faux outrage over my violent imagery is what's absurd in light of your remarks to raunchy and Robin. In Raunchy's case I was spelling out the visual representation of what the term brutality means. Speaking of being deceptive... Brutality in the context raunchy used it means grossly ruthless or unfeeling. That was an entirely appropriate use of the term to describe your accusations against Emily. It had nothing to do with the smell and taste of blood, as you well know. This is the kind of lack of ability to understand nuance that makes me wonder how you keep food on your table in your profession. I suppose there are some people here who, even after reading what I just said, will think the above is a reasonable comment, even though I've just demonstrated that my ability to understand nuance has exposed a particularly ludicrous attempt to deceive on your part. And the quotes I provided from your own posts expose your hypocrisy in objecting to my violent imagery. Your language in those quotes is far more unwell and disturbing than any language I've ever used here, figuratively or otherwise. You would have been *so* much better off to acknowledge you went over the line in your denunciation of my post given what you yourself have written. Now you've dug the hole you were in even deeper because you were unable to control your insatiable appetite for deception and cruelty. You will never face the truth about yourself, Curtis. But one way or another, you will reveal it to others. If I were hiring someone to work with school children, I seriously doubt I'd consider a person who describes his critics on an Internet forum as all too vividly lusting for the smell and taste of blood, let alone envisions them dancing with goblets of baby blood. Even used figuratively, that's sick imagery.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: IMO Barry should have been thrown off after dumb c death comment. Wasn't here so don't know more details. No, you don't, you idiot. My comment was part of an obvious JOKE. Here is the full joke, so that you can't pretend you don't know the full context both Judy and Raunchy continually try to take it out of: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/194006 Obama would like to thank Judy, Raunchydog, and the Repubs... ...for winning the election for them. (see article below) Ironically, the more that the tag-team of Republican crazies and former-Hillary-supporter crazies rant and post negative screeds about Obama, the lower Repub- lican poll ratings sink (Palin's favorability rating *in Alaska* is now only 36%), and the more money that Obama is able to raise for the campaign. In related news, a poll conducted at bellweather Internet chat site Fairfield Life indicates that the popularity rating on that site for posters Raunchydog and Judy Stein (considered representative of Republican tactics) has dropped in the last week from the next-to- lowest Category Y (Strident revenge harpies from Hell) to the lowest possible Category Z (Dumb angry cunts too stupid to live.) Experts are studying the possibility that, since there is no lower level to sink to in terms of favorability ratings, if Raunchydog and Judy continue their anti- Obama activism at this point, something more drastic may happen to the two activists -- actually bursting into flame. Scientists from MUM have been called in to watch the situation and study it in terms of the Maharishi Effect. If, as theorized, Raunchydog and Judy Stein DO get so uncontrollably angry that they burst into flames, teams of scientists are in place to capture the event on film so that it can later be analyzed to see if, as described in the Vedas, the spontaneous combustion event really does start in their pants.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Yep, I can be an idiot sometimes. But I think your dumb c joke was well over the vicious line. As was your post about Judy's gig which I replied to earlier thusly: This foul's on you, Turq. Clever but gratuitous negativity. Especially nasty as she's currently involved in conflicts with others. Like kicking someone when they're down. Not unfair fighting. Dirty fighting. Keeps you and Judy locked in a destructive dance that often engulfs FFL. OTOH, I liked your recent posts about Maya and Weeds. Ugh! Brain stretching to encompass such a polarity. Dear Everyone, As best I can, and with posting limit ever in mind, I will be responding on a case by case basis. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:58 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: IMO Barry should have been thrown off after dumb c death comment. Wasn't here so don't know more details. No, you don't, you idiot. My comment was part of an obvious JOKE. Here is the full joke, so that you can't pretend you don't know the full context both Judy and Raunchy continually try to take it out of: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/194006 Obama would like to thank Judy, Raunchydog, and the Repubs... ...for winning the election for them. (see article below) Ironically, the more that the tag-team of Republican crazies and former-Hillary-supporter crazies rant and post negative screeds about Obama, the lower Repub- lican poll ratings sink (Palin's favorability rating *in Alaska* is now only 36%), and the more money that Obama is able to raise for the campaign. In related news, a poll conducted at bellweather Internet chat site Fairfield Life indicates that the popularity rating on that site for posters Raunchydog and Judy Stein (considered representative of Republican tactics) has dropped in the last week from the next-to- lowest Category Y (Strident revenge harpies from Hell) to the lowest possible Category Z (Dumb angry cunts too stupid to live.) Experts are studying the possibility that, since there is no lower level to sink to in terms of favorability ratings, if Raunchydog and Judy continue their anti- Obama activism at this point, something more drastic may happen to the two activists -- actually bursting into flame. Scientists from MUM have been called in to watch the situation and study it in terms of the Maharishi Effect. If, as theorized, Raunchydog and Judy Stein DO get so uncontrollably angry that they burst into flames, teams of scientists are in place to capture the event on film so that it can later be analyzed to see if, as described in the Vedas, the spontaneous combustion event really does start in their pants.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yep, I can be an idiot sometimes. But I think your dumb c joke was well over the vicious line. As was your post about Judy's gig which I replied to earlier... Would you characterize it as a death threat? They did. And, when numerous posters here suggested what laughingstocks they were making of themselves by so claiming, they doubled down, and have continued to do so to this day. My riff may well have been vicious, but then you weren't there to see what both of these women posted day after day during the last election season with their obsessions about Obama and his supporters. And it was all a long shaggy dog story leading up to the punchline of the joke, a riff on Liar, liar, pants on fire. Methinks you're doubling down a bit yourself. If you deny this, climb on board the Raunchy- Judy bandwagon and call my joke a death threat too. And become a laughingstock yourself. YOU haven't been the target of Judy's obsession for years. Curtis and I have, as have Vaj and many others here. But mark my words, you *will* be if you continue to commit the Cardinal Sin of liking people she doesn't want you to like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: IMO Barry should have been thrown off after dumb c death comment. Wasn't here so don't know more details. No, you don't, you idiot. My comment was part of an obvious JOKE. Here is the full joke, so that you can't pretend you don't know the full context both Judy and Raunchy continually try to take it out of: Raunchy, in fact, rarely mentions it; and I don't either except in response to *Barry* bringing it up, which *he* does frequently, almost always without context. So here's a bit of the context from my side. The post I'm quoting from is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/194534 Here's where I referred to Barry's post: Your hypocrisy is stunning, Curtis. You've seen the misogynistic vomit (including death threats) hurled at me and raunchydog and other women who attempt to post here, not to mention at Hillary and Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain and even Jackie Kennedy. Hmm, I don't seem to have mentioned Barry, do I? Just that parenthetical reference in an obviously metaphorical context (vomit, misogynistic or otherwise, is not actually hurled on FFL). Here's the interesting thing: After I posted this, *Barry himself* identified my parenthetical as referring to his dumb angry cunts too stupid to live post. Nobody else knew what the hell I was talking about, but Barry recognized it instantly. And why was Barry so furiously angry at raunchy and me that he envisioned us (jokingly, of course) bursting into flames and being too stupid to live? Because we supported Hillary over Obama in the Democratic presidential primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/194006 Obama would like to thank Judy, Raunchydog, and the Repubs... ...for winning the election for them. (see article below) Ironically, the more that the tag-team of Republican crazies and former-Hillary-supporter crazies rant and post negative screeds about Obama, the lower Repub- lican poll ratings sink (Palin's favorability rating *in Alaska* is now only 36%), and the more money that Obama is able to raise for the campaign. In related news, a poll conducted at bellweather Internet chat site Fairfield Life indicates that the popularity rating on that site for posters Raunchydog and Judy Stein (considered representative of Republican tactics) has dropped in the last week from the next-to- lowest Category Y (Strident revenge harpies from Hell) to the lowest possible Category Z (Dumb angry cunts too stupid to live.) Experts are studying the possibility that, since there is no lower level to sink to in terms of favorability ratings, if Raunchydog and Judy continue their anti- Obama activism at this point, something more drastic may happen to the two activists -- actually bursting into flame. Scientists from MUM have been called in to watch the situation and study it in terms of the Maharishi Effect. If, as theorized, Raunchydog and Judy Stein DO get so uncontrollably angry that they burst into flames, teams of scientists are in place to capture the event on film so that it can later be analyzed to see if, as described in the Vedas, the spontaneous combustion event really does start in their pants.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
I would not call it a death threat. But extreme vicious. OTOH, I climb on no bandwagons but ones of my own choosing. If that's doubling down, then so be it. I understand that this has been going on for years. For me, only a very short time. Hoping that enables me to add compassion and reasonableness and unbiting unbaiting humor. And I'm probably gonna make more mistakes along the way. PS Too late! I'm sure I've already been a laughingstock. So far I find that I can live with it. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Yep, I can be an idiot sometimes. But I think your dumb c joke was well over the vicious line. As was your post about Judy's gig which I replied to earlier... Would you characterize it as a death threat? They did. And, when numerous posters here suggested what laughingstocks they were making of themselves by so claiming, they doubled down, and have continued to do so to this day. My riff may well have been vicious, but then you weren't there to see what both of these women posted day after day during the last election season with their obsessions about Obama and his supporters. And it was all a long shaggy dog story leading up to the punchline of the joke, a riff on Liar, liar, pants on fire. Methinks you're doubling down a bit yourself. If you deny this, climb on board the Raunchy- Judy bandwagon and call my joke a death threat too. And become a laughingstock yourself. YOU haven't been the target of Judy's obsession for years. Curtis and I have, as have Vaj and many others here. But mark my words, you *will* be if you continue to commit the Cardinal Sin of liking people she doesn't want you to like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: BTW the point that neither of you could fathom was that the too stupid to live was an enhancement on your stupidity, not any sort of threat. It implied that left to your own devices you couldn't survive in the world. It is derivative of the Darwin Award's perspective. Your twist back then was just as absurd as it is now. This is pretty brilliant Curtis. Someone liked me missed the nuance. But you are playing Judy's game far better than she typically does. The statement speaks for itself and implies no threat other than the threat one presents to themselves. Judy attempts to stretch this kind of logic in similiar situations in peculiar ways where only she sees the connection. I am sure she will give you a nod of appreciation for this. If she doesn't, it's probably because she is short on posts. (-:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
A desperate woman Curtis. Now, I think her jealousy and your superior logic has her plumbing new depths. --- 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: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. LOL. Curtis to raunchydog: Does the word brutally' make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Curtis to Robin: The fact that it might bug me to have my name signed to a post that makes me out to be an effete drama teacher who revels in fey triumphalist statements went over the heads of the troll revelers, intoxicated with their sturdy goblets of human baby blood as they danced around the flickering flames of having taunted someone online and gotten him to respond. So you are claiming that those words were used in the figurative way mine were? Did you figure I was planning to lead a team to Virginia to find you and beat you up, Curtis? Are you really saying you thought I intended you to be literally smacked in the mouth? Were they hyperbole, was that the intent? Was that clear from the context and the absurdity of the piece? Insatiable appetite for deception and cruelty was not hyperbole, nor was what I wrote absurd. Your faux outrage over my violent imagery is what's absurd in light of your remarks to raunchy and Robin. In Raunchy's case I was spelling out the visual representation of what the term brutality means. Speaking of being deceptive... Brutality in the context raunchy used it means grossly ruthless or unfeeling. That was an entirely appropriate use of the term to describe your accusations against Emily. It had nothing to do with the smell and taste of blood, as you well know. This is the kind of lack of ability to understand nuance that makes me wonder how you keep food on your table in your profession. I suppose there are some people here who, even after reading what I just said, will think the above is a reasonable comment, even though I've just demonstrated that my ability to understand nuance has exposed a particularly ludicrous attempt to deceive on your part. And the quotes I provided from your own posts expose your hypocrisy in objecting to my violent imagery. Your language in those quotes is far more unwell and disturbing than any language I've ever used here, figuratively or otherwise. You would have been *so* much better off to acknowledge you went over the line in your denunciation of my post given what you yourself have written. Now you've dug the hole you were in even deeper because you were unable to control your insatiable appetite for deception and cruelty. You will never face the truth about yourself, Curtis. But one way or another, you will reveal it to others. If I were hiring someone to work with school children, I seriously doubt I'd consider a person who describes his critics on an Internet forum as all too vividly lusting for the smell and taste of blood, let alone envisions them dancing with goblets of baby blood. Even used figuratively, that's sick imagery.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'. M: Great case in point even though you had to go back how many years to find this? This statement was escalated into a death threat by you too goblins. It is an excellent example of what I am talking about. BTW the point that neither of you could fathom was that the too stupid to live was an enhancement on your stupidity, not any sort of threat. It implied that left to your own devices you couldn't survive in the world. It is derivative of the Darwin Award's perspective. Your twist back then was just as absurd as it is now. Exactly. Thanks for getting it, back then and now. Let us not forget that these two drama queens not *only* claimed -- multiple times over multiple years -- that what I wrote constituted a death threat made against them, they actually claimed that by using the spontaneous combustion metaphor and suggesting that they were so angry they would set themselves on fire I was secretly fantasizing about burning them alive. Or possibly threatening to do so. Clearly, by bringing it up again the way Raunchy did, as a death threat, they still believe this. I now for the record revise my original line: Dumb cunts too humorless to live. In a Darwinian sense, of course. Probably the most important survival tool on planet Earth is having a sense of humor. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Hey Share, como sa va? I understand how you might be offended by Barry's comment. I mean out of context it appears far worse than it is, at least IMO. But the crudeness of the comment does not seem to be the issue, at least with Raunchy and Judy. The issue is whether or not it is a death threat. And they are trying to make the case that it is, and I'm afraid they have fallen short in that regard. Oh, I'm glad you participate here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I would not call it a death threat. But extreme vicious. OTOH, I climb on no bandwagons but ones of my own choosing. If that's doubling down, then so be it. I understand that this has been going on for years. For me, only a very short time. Hoping that enables me to add compassion and reasonableness and unbiting unbaiting humor. And I'm probably gonna make more mistakes along the way.   PS Too late! I'm sure I've already been a laughingstock. So far I find that I can live with it. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Yep, I can be an idiot sometimes.àBut I think your dumb c joke was well over the vicious line.àAs was your post about Judy's gig which I replied to earlier... Would you characterize it as a death threat? They did. And, when numerous posters here suggested what laughingstocks they were making of themselves by so claiming, they doubled down, and have continued to do so to this day. My riff may well have been vicious, but then you weren't there to see what both of these women posted day after day during the last election season with their obsessions about Obama and his supporters. And it was all a long shaggy dog story leading up to the punchline of the joke, a riff on Liar, liar, pants on fire. Methinks you're doubling down a bit yourself. If you deny this, climb on board the Raunchy- Judy bandwagon and call my joke a death threat too. And become a laughingstock yourself. YOU haven't been the target of Judy's obsession for years. Curtis and I have, as have Vaj and many others here. But mark my words, you *will* be if you continue to commit the Cardinal Sin of liking people she doesn't want you to like.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Hey Share, como sa va? I understand how you might be offended by Barry's comment. I mean out of context it appears far worse than it is, at least IMO. But the crudeness of the comment does not seem to be the issue, at least with Raunchy and Judy. The issue is whether or not it is a death threat. And they are trying to make the case that it is, and I'm afraid they have fallen short in that regard. Steve, these last two sentences are bullshit. You are very, very far from understanding what's actually involved. You just decided to go along with what Curtis and Barry have said without questioning or examining it. You resist complexity, but reality is often quite complex, so you end up with a simple version that you find satisfying but that varies significantly from the actual reality. This one, the reality of this specific issue on FFL, is messy for many reasons. Some aspects of it are subtle, some are ambiguous, some involve outright dishonesty on Barry's and Curtis's part. Some are just pieces of data which, if they're missing, make it impossible to see how the various parts connect, so you end up with a highly distorted picture. The picture you've formed may be simple and comprehensible, but it isn't the reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Hey Share, como sa va? I understand how you might be offended by Barry's comment. I mean out of context it appears far worse than it is, at least IMO. But the crudeness of the comment does not seem to be the issue, at least with Raunchy and Judy. The issue is whether or not it is a death threat. And they are trying to make the case that it is, and I'm afraid they have fallen short in that regard. Steve, these last two sentences are bullshit. You are very, very far from understanding what's actually involved. You just decided to go along with what Curtis and Barry have said without questioning or examining it. You resist complexity, but reality is often quite complex, so you end up with a simple version that you find satisfying but that varies significantly from the actual reality. This one, the reality of this specific issue on FFL, is messy for many reasons. Some aspects of it are subtle, some are ambiguous, some involve outright dishonesty on Barry's and Curtis's part. Some are just pieces of data which, if they're missing, make it impossible to see how the various parts connect, so you end up with a highly distorted picture. The picture you've formed may be simple and comprehensible, but it isn't the reality. Well, I must give you the benefit of the doubt. I likely read posts too fast, often do not go back for second reading where I may pick up some subtleties, (as you say), and I tend to go with the feeling level of a post as opposed to looking at them more analytically. On the other hand I have learned to trust my feelings and emotions about things. They have been pretty good guides for me. So I apologize if I have missed some of the complexities around this issue. And thank you for what I take to be a very civil reply.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, Even though you are on the wrong side of this issue as usual Raunchy, this is a brilliant, funny line. R: but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'. M: Great case in point even though you had to go back how many years to find this? This statement was escalated into a death threat by you too goblins. It is an excellent example of what I am talking about. BTW the point that neither of you could fathom was that the too stupid to live was an enhancement on your stupidity, not any sort of threat. It implied that left to your own devices you couldn't survive in the world. It is derivative of the Darwin Award's perspective. Your twist back then was just as absurd as it is now. http://www.homebuilt.org/cmdrdata/jokes/03/0125.html Context, Curtis? Ya want some context to smack yous in da mouth or upside da head? http://youtu.be/MMsr-9rHelQ Ravi: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320388 Curtis quoting Ravi [note the snip, sans question mark]: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320397 RD: Curtis *knows* Ravi is making fun Barry and the ridiculous hole Curtis got himself into by nastily [formerly *brutally* or was it bloodthirstily?] misrepresenting Emily's motivations, and giving Sal a gold star for stoking him and zero acknowledgment that Sal was a shit toward Emily. So what does he do? *Dig a little deeper* of course by insinuating that Ravi made an online threat. Curtis: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. RD: Says Curtis escalating excitement over Ravi's threat. Curtis: And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. RD: Says Curtis clutching his pearls, Lawdy, lawdy, pass the vapors, and ready the fainting couch! Curtis: It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. RD: Hear that Rick? You'd better shut this nuthouse down. *Some states* might let families of threatened posters sue your ass. Curtis: The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. RD: Says Curtis implying I've made Sal's email to Emily sound sinister. Nope, Sal's email wasn't sinister, it was shitty. Curtis' misrepresentation of Emily motivations were shitty *and* sinister. Curtis: It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. RD: The only tack in the box that isn't bent, according to Curtis is Sal the Innocent, who felt compelled to defend him against the Emily the Evil Bitch. My heart bleeds for all the unfairness we have shown poor innocent Sal. Yeah, right. Curtis: Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. RD: Ravi made no such claim. Ravi from email above: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? RD: Ravi posed a factious, perhaps rhetorical, *question* based on Barry's response to Curtis' objection to Judy's use of violent imagery while ironically glossing over his own use of violent imagery. Judy: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. Curtis: That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. Hence: RD to Judy: Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Oh no ! NO - dear Aunt Share - no, this nephew of yours can't do that, no, never, never, never !!! Love, Ravi On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: ** dear Ravi, you can add me to the Curtis Susan Steven clique. Thank you, Share PS I really don't like to be in any clique but in this ongoing conflict between the absent Emily and Sal, hope you can see the irony in that, I choose to align myself with the clique that is overall being the most positive and sensible. -- *From:* Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:58 AM *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:05 PM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Right, it's much more effective to keep smacking Curtis in the mouth when he gets like this, because his appetite for deception and cruelty is insatiable once he lets down the Mr. Wonderful facade. That is disturbing in many ways. There is something profoundly unwell in this language, with its violent imagery and disjointed, fantastic claims about me. It is also disturbing to see how much of the hatred she bears for you is based on simple JEALOUSY. No matter how hard she tries -- and lawdy, lawdy how she tries -- she can't get everyone to hate you. People still like you, and in fact, think of you as a nice person. NO ONE thinks of her that way. And she knows this, and knows that the only way she can get people to even be on her side is through the same deception and cruelty she accuses you of. Because those are the only tactics that work *for her* to get attention, she believes you must be using them, too. It never even *occurs* to her that people think you're a nice guy because you're a nice guy. That's how far gone into this hatred/jealousy thing she is. The language in this post negates any need for me to write a disclaimer about the author. Read her own words and you will understand what I am dealing with here. Even more interesting, since people are talking about what went wrong with Fairfield Life to make it all so nasty and contentious, she's been on such a hate-fest trying to smear Curtis that she only has eight or so more posts left for the week. She'll probably piss those away today with insane replies to Curtis' calm, measured, unaffected-by-the-crazy- person-stalking-him posts, and then she'll have to go silent for the rest of the week. Those who wonder what happened to FFL to make it so nasty, *pay attention* during the period when Judy can't post. See if it isn't quite a bit nicer then. Just sayin'... So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? Take your emotionally stunted, depraved, deranged, paranoid, delusional fantasies out of here Barry baby. You and Curtis are the ones that stink up this joint with your needy, whiny, drama-queeenery, your deception, manipulation, lying - man what a bunch of clueless, shameless fools - all you have is the village idiot Steve and equally idiotic Susan's support - wow what a clique..LOL..
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis. M: OK, I'll give you a chance to be rational and shut me down. Tell us why you said this: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily Why did you use the word threaten to describe an email you haven't read? How have I twisted what you said into something you didn't mean? Raunchy is busy trying to spin what you said as not meaning what you said, so this really is a great opportunity for you to correct me. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Curtis baby, Check the dictionary you dumb fuck and then STFU. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis. M: OK, I'll give you a chance to be rational and shut me down. Tell us why you said this: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily Why did you use the word threaten to describe an email you haven't read? How have I twisted what you said into something you didn't mean? Raunchy is busy trying to spin what you said as not meaning what you said, so this really is a great opportunity for you to correct me. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Curtis baby - her you go dumb fuck and please now STFU threat·en *verb* \ˈthre-tən\ *threat·ened**threat·en·ing* Definition of *THREATEN* transitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threats against 2 *a* *:* to give signs or warning of *:* portendhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portend the clouds*threaten**ed* rain *b* *:* to hang over dangerously *:* menacehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/menace famine *threaten**s*the city 3 *:* to announce as intended or possible the workers*threaten**ed* a strike 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious felt *threaten**ed* by his brother's success intransitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats 2 *:* to portend evil — *threat·en·er* *noun* — *threat·en·ing·ly* *adverb* See threaten defined for English-language learners »http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/threaten See threaten defined for kids »http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Studentva=threaten Examples of *THREATEN* 1. The mugger *threatened* him with a gun. 2. She *threatened* to quit if they didn't give her a raise, but no one believed her. 3. Civil war has been *threatening* the country for years. 4. a marriage *threatened* by financial problems 5. Overfishing *threatens* the survival of certain fish species. 6. The latest news *threatens* trouble for the economy. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: Curtis baby, Check the dictionary you dumb fuck and then STFU. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis. M: OK, I'll give you a chance to be rational and shut me down. Tell us why you said this: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily Why did you use the word threaten to describe an email you haven't read? How have I twisted what you said into something you didn't mean? Raunchy is busy trying to spin what you said as not meaning what you said, so this really is a great opportunity for you to correct me. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis. M: OK, I'll give you a chance to be rational and shut me down. Tell us why you said this: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily Why did you use the word threaten to describe an email you haven't read? How have I twisted what you said into something you didn't mean? Raunchy is busy trying to spin what you said as not meaning what you said, so this really is a great opportunity for you to correct me. Spinning? Moi, Curtis? Seems to me you're doing the spinning, otherwise you'd take my post on directly instead of making use of Ravi's backdoor, pun intended. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320445 On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
So Curtis baby, continuing our English lesson - Emily would be #4 based on the dictionary meaning of threaten = 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious . So Emily was threatened by Sal's email, i.e. made to feel insecure, made to feel anxious. OMG..LOL, I can't believe I'm doing this, anyway I have enough posts. Let's see how you spin this. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: Curtis baby - her you go dumb fuck and please now STFU threat·en *verb* \ˈthre-tən\ *threat·ened**threat·en·ing* Definition of *THREATEN* transitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threats against 2 *a* *:* to give signs or warning of *:* portendhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portend the clouds*threaten**ed* rain *b* *:* to hang over dangerously *:* menacehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/menace famine *threaten**s*the city 3 *:* to announce as intended or possible the workers*threaten**ed* a strike 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious felt *threaten**ed* by his brother's success intransitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats 2 *:* to portend evil — *threat·en·er* *noun* — *threat·en·ing·ly* *adverb* See threaten defined for English-language learners »http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/threaten See threaten defined for kids »http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Studentva=threaten Examples of *THREATEN* 1. The mugger *threatened* him with a gun. 2. She *threatened* to quit if they didn't give her a raise, but no one believed her. 3. Civil war has been *threatening* the country for years. 4. a marriage *threatened* by financial problems 5. Overfishing *threatens* the survival of certain fish species. 6. The latest news *threatens* trouble for the economy. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: Curtis baby, Check the dictionary you dumb fuck and then STFU. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis. M: OK, I'll give you a chance to be rational and shut me down. Tell us why you said this: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily Why did you use the word threaten to describe an email you haven't read? How have I twisted what you said into something you didn't mean? Raunchy is busy trying to spin what you said as not meaning what you said, so this really is a great opportunity for you to correct me. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this email contained something threatening. It did not. Not even close. This was wrong for you to put on a public board. Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: So Curtis baby, continuing our English lesson - Emily would be #4 based on the dictionary meaning of threaten = 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious . So Emily was threatened by Sal's email, i.e. made to feel insecure, made to feel anxious. OMG..LOL, I can't believe I'm doing this, anyway I have enough posts. Let's see how you spin this. O.K. Ravi, if you want dance to Curtis' tune and split some hairs on definitions, fine. Just know that doing so, you're unnecessarily buying into how he frames this issue rather than recognizing that in fact you posed a question that Curtis snipped to deceptively imply that you claimed Sal sent a threatening email to Emily. Oh, well, carry on, dear heart. I said my piece. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320445 On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...wrote: Curtis baby - her you go dumb fuck and please now STFU threat·en *verb* \Ëthre-tÉn\ *threat·ened**threat·en·ing* Definition of *THREATEN* transitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threats against 2 *a* *:* to give signs or warning of *:* portendhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portend the clouds*threaten**ed* rain *b* *:* to hang over dangerously *:* menacehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/menace famine *threaten**s*the city 3 *:* to announce as intended or possible the workers*threaten**ed* a strike 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious felt *threaten**ed* by his brother's success intransitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats 2 *:* to portend evil â *threat·en·er* *noun* â *threat·en·ing·ly* *adverb* See threaten defined for English-language learners »http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/threaten See threaten defined for kids »http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Studentva=threaten Examples of *THREATEN* 1. The mugger *threatened* him with a gun. 2. She *threatened* to quit if they didn't give her a raise, but no one believed her. 3. Civil war has been *threatening* the country for years. 4. a marriage *threatened* by financial problems 5. Overfishing *threatens* the survival of certain fish species. 6. The latest news *threatens* trouble for the economy. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...wrote: Curtis baby, Check the dictionary you dumb fuck and then STFU. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis. M: OK, I'll give you a chance to be rational and shut me down. Tell us why you said this: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily Why did you use the word threaten to describe an email you haven't read? How have I twisted what you said into something you didn't mean? Raunchy is busy trying to spin what you said as not meaning what you said, so this really is a great opportunity for you to correct me. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. It pushes the bent tack in the box toward this kind of claim that is not only not fair to Sal, it is really irresponsible considering who posts here. Ravi, please retract your claim that this
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:07 PM, raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: So Curtis baby, continuing our English lesson - Emily would be #4 based on the dictionary meaning of threaten = 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious . So Emily was threatened by Sal's email, i.e. made to feel insecure, made to feel anxious. OMG..LOL, I can't believe I'm doing this, anyway I have enough posts. Let's see how you spin this. O.K. Ravi, if you want dance to Curtis' tune and split some hairs on definitions, fine. Just know that doing so, you're unnecessarily buying into how he frames this issue rather than recognizing that in fact you posed a question that Curtis snipped to deceptively imply that you claimed Sal sent a threatening email to Emily. Oh, well, carry on, dear heart. I said my piece. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320445 Yes dear Raunchy I did read your other posts - thanks for your clarification, it was indeed a rhetorical question of mine to address their hypocrisy. But I just wanted to make sure he realizes that even this sleight of hand leads to a dead end.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
I appreciate your taking a swing at it. I don't think much spinning is necessary. You gave the project so little thought. Any thoughtful person would understand what went down here. And it probably wasn't that you did some research beforehand to pick the 4th use of the term,and then used it improperly according to the dictionary, but properly for the first few definitions deliberately. You've just turned in sloppy work because of your over confidence and contempt for me. At least now I can go back to Raunchy's spin with some more insight into your thinking process. That later post about her spin was a classic. I'll bet you never got away stealing any curds and ghee, did you baby Krishna? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: So Curtis baby, continuing our English lesson - Emily would be #4 based on the dictionary meaning of threaten = 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious . So Emily was threatened by Sal's email, i.e. made to feel insecure, made to feel anxious. OMG..LOL, I can't believe I'm doing this, anyway I have enough posts. Let's see how you spin this. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...wrote: Curtis baby - her you go dumb fuck and please now STFU threat·en *verb* \Ëthre-tÉn\ *threat·ened**threat·en·ing* Definition of *THREATEN* transitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threats against 2 *a* *:* to give signs or warning of *:* portendhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portend the clouds*threaten**ed* rain *b* *:* to hang over dangerously *:* menacehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/menace famine *threaten**s*the city 3 *:* to announce as intended or possible the workers*threaten**ed* a strike 4 *:* to cause to feel insecure or anxious felt *threaten**ed* by his brother's success intransitive verb 1 *:* to utter threats 2 *:* to portend evil â *threat·en·er* *noun* â *threat·en·ing·ly* *adverb* See threaten defined for English-language learners »http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/threaten See threaten defined for kids »http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Studentva=threaten Examples of *THREATEN* 1. The mugger *threatened* him with a gun. 2. She *threatened* to quit if they didn't give her a raise, but no one believed her. 3. Civil war has been *threatening* the country for years. 4. a marriage *threatened* by financial problems 5. Overfishing *threatens* the survival of certain fish species. 6. The latest news *threatens* trouble for the economy. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...wrote: Curtis baby, Check the dictionary you dumb fuck and then STFU. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Curtis baby - stop this manipulation, stop this twisting, this deception, the bullying, the rewriting of other's biographies and autobiographies - this Curtis Reality of Things - you have gone too far Curtis. M: OK, I'll give you a chance to be rational and shut me down. Tell us why you said this: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily Why did you use the word threaten to describe an email you haven't read? How have I twisted what you said into something you didn't mean? Raunchy is busy trying to spin what you said as not meaning what you said, so this really is a great opportunity for you to correct me. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:21 AM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip M: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:37 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** I appreciate your taking a swing at it. I don't think much spinning is necessary. You gave the project so little thought. Any thoughtful person would understand what went down here. And it probably wasn't that you did some research beforehand to pick the 4th use of the term,and then used it improperly according to the dictionary, but properly for the first few definitions deliberately. You've just turned in sloppy work because of your over confidence and contempt for me. Curtis - it was a rhetorical question of mine to point to the deception, manipulation, bullying you engage in here. Even if it meant literally I would be nuts to think Sal would have meant any physical harm to Emily - so no sloppy work here Curtis, contempt on my part - yes, your usual sleight of hand - yes, your usual twisting, manipulating context - yes, your seven layered progressively cruder,baser,grosser deception - yes. At least now I can go back to Raunchy's spin with some more insight into your thinking process. That later post about her spin was a classic. I'll bet you never got away stealing any curds and ghee, did you baby Krishna? LOL..OK this is seriously funny. Oh no I am very deceptive, but unlike you it's not to maintain my self-deception. Anyway what a shame - a talented man like you has to resort to all this drama !!! Looks like you need some love and attention - so XOXOXOXOXO - love ya baby. Ravi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Let's pretend Ravi didn't invalidate your point with his whole hey I was using the 4th definition of the term. routine and take a look at your claim. I think it will give you a chance to prove me as being wrong about the meaning of those words or the opposite of that. (A guy can dream can't he?) Let's see if the whole context actually does invalidate the meaning of the claim Sal threatened Emily in an email. (Not read by the accuser.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, Even though you are on the wrong side of this issue as usual Raunchy, this is a brilliant, funny line. R: but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'. M: Great case in point even though you had to go back how many years to find this? This statement was escalated into a death threat by you too goblins. It is an excellent example of what I am talking about. BTW the point that neither of you could fathom was that the too stupid to live was an enhancement on your stupidity, not any sort of threat. It implied that left to your own devices you couldn't survive in the world. It is derivative of the Darwin Award's perspective. Your twist back then was just as absurd as it is now. http://www.homebuilt.org/cmdrdata/jokes/03/0125.html Context, Curtis? Ya want some context to smack yous in da mouth or upside da head? http://youtu.be/MMsr-9rHelQ Ravi: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320388 It doesn't change a thing Raunchy. The contingency is on Judy making certain people behave in a way that he specifies. He IS claiming both that Sal threatened Emily and that I acted as a fool. The rhetorical question angle only applies to whether or not Judy made these actual events happen. So your attempt to cover for him was as lame as his 4th definition retro-fitting. Of make a better case, I'll read it. Curtis quoting Ravi [note the snip, sans question mark]: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320397 RD: Curtis *knows* Ravi is making fun Barry and the ridiculous hole Curtis got himself into by nastily [formerly *brutally* or was it bloodthirstily?] misrepresenting Emily's motivations, and giving Sal a gold star for stoking him and zero acknowledgment that Sal was a shit toward Emily. So what does he do? *Dig a little deeper* of course by insinuating that Ravi made an online threat. Why did you claim that I insinuated this about Ravi making a threat? I did no such thing. that was a bit maliciously sloppy for my taste. Curtis: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. RD: Says Curtis escalating excitement over Ravi's threat. M: Here you do it again. You have morphed the claim that Ravi said Sal made a threat into me claiming he had made one. WTF girl? Curtis: And now we have the last step. (I hope) Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. RD: Says Curtis clutching his pearls, Lawdy, lawdy, pass the vapors, and ready the fainting couch! M: I'll always be a sucker for this kind of writing. Curtis: It is one of his favorite troll tactics and he has used it before. Online threats, unlike the usual FFL slander machine, are a felony in some states and are a growing concern monitored by law enforcement and lawyers concerned about liability. If something actually happens after it is claimed that an online threat has been made, families sue everyone in sight. RD: Hear that Rick? You'd better shut this nuthouse down. *Some states* might let families of threatened posters sue your ass. Curtis: The language we use here matters. Please stop turning your opinion about what someone wrote (that you haven't even read) into something more exciting by making it sound more sinister. RD: Says Curtis implying I've made Sal's email to Emily sound sinister. Nope, Sal's email wasn't sinister, it was shitty. Curtis' misrepresentation of Emily motivations were shitty *and* sinister. M: I really thought you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:37 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** I appreciate your taking a swing at it. I don't think much spinning is necessary. You gave the project so little thought. Any thoughtful person would understand what went down here. And it probably wasn't that you did some research beforehand to pick the 4th use of the term,and then used it improperly according to the dictionary, but properly for the first few definitions deliberately. You've just turned in sloppy work because of your over confidence and contempt for me. Curtis - it was a rhetorical question of mine to point to the deception, manipulation, bullying you engage in here. Even if it meant literally I would be nuts to think Sal would have meant any physical harm to Emily - so no sloppy work here Curtis, contempt on my part - yes, your usual sleight of hand - yes, your usual twisting, manipulating context - yes, your seven layered progressively cruder,baser,grosser deception - yes. At least now I can go back to Raunchy's spin with some more insight into your thinking process. That later post about her spin was a classic. I'll bet you never got away stealing any curds and ghee, did you baby Krishna? LOL..OK this is seriously funny. Oh no I am very deceptive, but unlike you it's not to maintain my self-deception. Anyway what a shame - a talented man like you has to resort to all this drama !!! Looks like you need some love and attention - so XOXOXOXOXO - love ya baby. Ravi You reference to baby Krishna completely dissipated my anger but trust me Curtis baby I will keep coming after you. Even the Raakshasas temporarily won my divine Mother's favor by doing something similar, so no I will keep after you Curtis - my metaphorical Raakshasa of deception, my favorite, the 7 layered one. So I will - my mind now is too distracted reminiscing on my beloved and so I'm not able to post much.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: I really believe that you shouldn't have said that about Sal's post and I don't find your explanations convincing. The false comparative about physical harm doesn't fly either. The term threatis an inflammatory word and you chose if for that reason. But I read it and it was not a threatening email. It was much like so much of what goes on here every day. But if you want to goof on me for drama queening the whole thing up too far, I can live with that. Perhaps I did get a bit carried away. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:37 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: ** I appreciate your taking a swing at it. I don't think much spinning is necessary. You gave the project so little thought. Any thoughtful person would understand what went down here. And it probably wasn't that you did some research beforehand to pick the 4th use of the term,and then used it improperly according to the dictionary, but properly for the first few definitions deliberately. You've just turned in sloppy work because of your over confidence and contempt for me. Curtis - it was a rhetorical question of mine to point to the deception, manipulation, bullying you engage in here. Even if it meant literally I would be nuts to think Sal would have meant any physical harm to Emily - so no sloppy work here Curtis, contempt on my part - yes, your usual sleight of hand - yes, your usual twisting, manipulating context - yes, your seven layered progressively cruder,baser,grosser deception - yes. At least now I can go back to Raunchy's spin with some more insight into your thinking process. That later post about her spin was a classic. I'll bet you never got away stealing any curds and ghee, did you baby Krishna? LOL..OK this is seriously funny. Oh no I am very deceptive, but unlike you it's not to maintain my self-deception. Anyway what a shame - a talented man like you has to resort to all this drama !!! Looks like you need some love and attention - so XOXOXOXOXO - love ya baby. Ravi
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:19 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: I really believe that you shouldn't have said that about Sal's post and I don't find your explanations convincing. The false comparative about physical harm doesn't fly either. The term threatis an inflammatory word and you chose if for that reason. But I read it and it was not a threatening email. It was much like so much of what goes on here every day. But if you want to goof on me for drama queening the whole thing up too far, I can live with that. Perhaps I did get a bit carried away. Goofing up, getting a bit carried away doesn't cut it Curtis. Oh no - sleight of hand again Curtis, the term I used was threaten and not threat, there's lot of difference - and threaten is not an inflammatory word, did you not read the various meanings of the word threaten? You are completely clueless to your behavior - how you manipulate, twist context, facts to bully, avoid answering real questions and cry wolf. Curtis Reality of Things as my old man called it and 7 layered deception, progressively baser, cruder, grosser as I call it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Let's pretend Ravi didn't invalidate your point with his whole hey I was using the 4th definition of the term. routine and take a look at your claim. I think it will give you a chance to prove me as being wrong about the meaning of those words or the opposite of that. (A guy can dream can't he?) Let's see if the whole context actually does invalidate the meaning of the claim Sal threatened Emily in an email. (Not read by the accuser.) Of course Sal didn't threaten Emily in an email. Nobody, made that claim including Ravi, unless he's attempting to fit *your* claim that he did into *your* frame by playing the definition game with you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Judy, I was going to suggest that Curtis stop clutching his pearls, Even though you are on the wrong side of this issue as usual Raunchy, this is a brilliant, funny line. R: but you beat me to it. Oh and just to dig up an old bone, what about Curtis neglecting to notify the authorities to start legal proceedings against his pal Barry for making a death threat, Dumb cunts, too stupid to live against you and me? Just sayn'. M: Great case in point even though you had to go back how many years to find this? This statement was escalated into a death threat by you too goblins. It is an excellent example of what I am talking about. BTW the point that neither of you could fathom was that the too stupid to live was an enhancement on your stupidity, not any sort of threat. It implied that left to your own devices you couldn't survive in the world. It is derivative of the Darwin Award's perspective. Your twist back then was just as absurd as it is now. http://www.homebuilt.org/cmdrdata/jokes/03/0125.html Context, Curtis? Ya want some context to smack yous in da mouth or upside da head? http://youtu.be/MMsr-9rHelQ Ravi: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320388 It doesn't change a thing Raunchy. The contingency is on Judy making certain people behave in a way that he specifies. He IS claiming both that Sal threatened Emily and that I acted as a fool. The rhetorical question angle only applies to whether or not Judy made these actual events happen. So your attempt to cover for him was as lame as his 4th definition retro-fitting. Of make a better case, I'll read it. Here's the rest of Ravi's quote: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily and made Curtis act like a clueless, shameless fool here? Take your emotionally stunted, depraved, deranged, paranoid, delusional fantasies out of here Barry baby. RD: Don't be silly, Curtis. Ravi is obviously mocking Barry by positing that Judy *made* Sal threaten Emily and *made* you act like a fool. He mocks Barry further calling him delusional, etc, for his fantasies about Judy. Here's where the buck stops, Curtis: Since when does Judy have that much power that she can *make* Sal threaten Emily or *make* you act like a fool? Nope, you can do that all by yourself. I'm not the one covering anything, Curtis, you are. Curtis quoting Ravi [note the snip, sans question mark]: So Judy made Sal threaten Emily snip http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320397 RD: Curtis *knows* Ravi is making fun Barry and the ridiculous hole Curtis got himself into by nastily [formerly *brutally* or was it bloodthirstily?] misrepresenting Emily's motivations, and giving Sal a gold star for stoking him and zero acknowledgment that Sal was a shit toward Emily. So what does he do? *Dig a little deeper* of course by insinuating that Ravi made an online threat. Why did you claim that I insinuated this about Ravi making a threat? I did no such thing. that was a bit maliciously sloppy for my taste. Curtis: This is instructive in how things spin out of control here. Remember my objections to Ann's use of words like traumatizing and vicious attack Raunchy's brutally in their imagination of an email they have not seen? Egged on by Judy's insinuations of how egregious it was (I disagree)those hoping for an excitement buzz escalated what was said to make it all more newsworthy. RD: Says Curtis escalating excitement over Ravi's threat. M: Here you do it again. You have morphed the claim that Ravi said Sal made a threat into me claiming he had made one. WTF girl? RD: Nope. Of course you did: Curtis: Ravi has now turned this imagination of the email into an online threat. Curtis: And now we have
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:37 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote I appreciate your taking a swing at it. I don't think much spinning is necessary. You gave the project so little thought. Any thoughtful person would understand what went down here. And it probably wasn't that you did some research beforehand to pick the 4th use of the term,and then used it improperly according to the dictionary, but properly for the first few definitions deliberately. You've just turned in sloppy work because of your over confidence and contempt for me. Curtis - it was a rhetorical question of mine to point to the deception, manipulation, bullying you engage in here. Even if it meant literally I would be nuts to think Sal would have meant any physical harm to Emily - so no sloppy work here Curtis, contempt on my part - yes, your usual sleight of hand - yes, your usual twisting, manipulating context - yes, your seven layered progressively cruder,baser,grosser deception - yes. At least now I can go back to Raunchy's spin with some more insight into your thinking process. That later post about her spin was a classic. I'll bet you never got away stealing any curds and ghee, did you baby Krishna? LOL..OK this is seriously funny. Oh no I am very deceptive, but unlike you it's not to maintain my self-deception. Anyway what a shame - a talented man like you has to resort to all this drama !!! Looks like you need some love and attention - so XOXOXOXOXO - love ya baby. Ravi You reference to baby Krishna completely dissipated my anger but trust me Curtis baby I will keep coming after you. Even the Raakshasas temporarily won my divine Mother's favor by doing something similar, so no I will keep after you Curtis - my metaphorical Raakshasa of deception, my favorite, the 7 layered one. So I will - my mind now is too distracted reminiscing on my beloved and so I'm not able to post much. While you are reminiscing on your beloved, be sure to take a break from hateing...that will help you begin to open your closed heart again, and get out of your head... Feeding your anger with more anger is not the way, my friend... And it will never be the way back to your Beloved... So, take a break; a pepsi break,my good freind... Read in the Bagavad Gita as Krishna says to Arjuna, 'Know Anger to be the Enemy here on Earth; and the need to over come our anger and hatred toward each other...so we may 'See' clearly, my great warriour one... R.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Robert babajii...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ ...wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:37 PM, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote I appreciate your taking a swing at it. I don't think much spinning is necessary. You gave the project so little thought. Any thoughtful person would understand what went down here. And it probably wasn't that you did some research beforehand to pick the 4th use of the term,and then used it improperly according to the dictionary, but properly for the first few definitions deliberately. You've just turned in sloppy work because of your over confidence and contempt for me. Curtis - it was a rhetorical question of mine to point to the deception, manipulation, bullying you engage in here. Even if it meant literally I would be nuts to think Sal would have meant any physical harm to Emily - so no sloppy work here Curtis, contempt on my part - yes, your usual sleight of hand - yes, your usual twisting, manipulating context - yes, your seven layered progressively cruder,baser,grosser deception - yes. At least now I can go back to Raunchy's spin with some more insight into your thinking process. That later post about her spin was a classic. I'll bet you never got away stealing any curds and ghee, did you baby Krishna? LOL..OK this is seriously funny. Oh no I am very deceptive, but unlike you it's not to maintain my self-deception. Anyway what a shame - a talented man like you has to resort to all this drama !!! Looks like you need some love and attention - so XOXOXOXOXO - love ya baby. Ravi You reference to baby Krishna completely dissipated my anger but trust me Curtis baby I will keep coming after you. Even the Raakshasas temporarily won my divine Mother's favor by doing something similar, so no I will keep after you Curtis - my metaphorical Raakshasa of deception, my favorite, the 7 layered one. So I will - my mind now is too distracted reminiscing on my beloved and so I'm not able to post much. While you are reminiscing on your beloved, be sure to take a break from hateing...that will help you begin to open your closed heart again, and get out of your head... Feeding your anger with more anger is not the way, my friend... And it will never be the way back to your Beloved... So, take a break; a pepsi break,my good freind... Read in the Bagavad Gita as Krishna says to Arjuna, 'Know Anger to be the Enemy here on Earth; and the need to over come our anger and hatred toward each other...so we may 'See' clearly, my great warriour one... R. Babaji - Thank you so much for your concern - Anger, hate is just on the surface, something to playfully indulge in. I'm forever on a break, always relaxed - don't drink Pepsi though - Coffee a Smoke..singing to my beloved.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Maybe like a combo of enigma and origami From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 10:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. Imagine backwards almost spells enigma but not quite.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily? Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? And does her lack of seeing Robin's send up the same as I do constitute her being brutal with me for disagreeing? Or is that only applied to me? R: of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 ME: She sent me an email and I called it like I saw it. You are welcome to interpret that any way you want. I guess it makes you happy to imagine me having a bruised ego over her thinking differently than I did about something. Perhaps you are running these posts a bit closer to your own ego sense than I do. But just curious...are you looking forward to a pat on the head from Judy, or were you pursuing your own desire to cause trouble between posters here who seem to be getting along fine without your junior high bullshit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious...when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily? Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. What a sad, ugly, vindictive cunt. All of this because she can't get everyone on the forum to hate someone she hates, in this case you. I've been trying to stay out of this silliness, if for no other reason than I've got better things to do than to relive Junior High School, but I'll weigh in with my take on what Emily did, and why. I once lived in a dorm that contained a rather disturbed prankster. One of his favorite tricks was to take a tall trash can, fill it with water, and then lean it against the inward-opening door of one of his victims. One of them. Because then what he'd do is knock on the door, and at the same time knock on the door of the other victim on the opposite side of the hall, and run. Victim 1 would open the door and watch helplessly at water cascaded all over his feet, his rugs, and his room. Victim 2, opening his door to the knock, would invariably laugh at Victim 1. At that point, Victim 1 would attack Victim 2. Mean- while the sick prankster was laughing down the hall, having caused a fight between two people. My impression is that this is exactly what Emily did, and intended to do. A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, and never said a word about it to anyone else. But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. [Cop voice] Move along folks...nothing to see here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. awoelflebater: Imagine backwards almost spells enigma but not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. What a sad, ugly, vindictive cunt. I hate to think that who you are is contained in this one sentence, but I fear it may be so. You tend to default to this every time you hit bottom, and that bottom appears to be, in some real sense, your essence. All of this because she can't get everyone on the forum to hate someone she hates, in this case you. I've been trying to stay out of this silliness, if for no other reason than I've got better things to do than to relive Junior High School, but I'll weigh in with my take on what Emily did, and why. I once lived in a dorm that contained a rather disturbed prankster. One of his favorite tricks was to take a tall trash can, fill it with water, and then lean it against the inward-opening door of one of his victims. One of them. Because then what he'd do is knock on the door, and at the same time knock on the door of the other victim on the opposite side of the hall, and run. Victim 1 would open the door and watch helplessly at water cascaded all over his feet, his rugs, and his room. Victim 2, opening his door to the knock, would invariably laugh at Victim 1. At that point, Victim 1 would attack Victim 2. Mean- while the sick prankster was laughing down the hall, having caused a fight between two people. My impression is that this is exactly what Emily did, and intended to do. A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, and never said a word about it to anyone else. But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. [Cop voice] Move along folks...nothing to see here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. turquoiseb: What a sad, ugly, vindictive cunt. So, you didn't get the email from Sal. Go figure. Now you're going down the rabbit hole talking about Sal's private email that you didn't even get. Some expats just feel better when they have someone to talk to, I guess. LoL! All of this because she can't get everyone on the forum to hate someone she hates, in this case you. I've been trying to stay out of this silliness, if for no other reason than I've got better things to do than to relive Junior High School, but I'll weigh in with my take on what Emily did, and why. I once lived in a dorm that contained a rather disturbed prankster. One of his favorite tricks was to take a tall trash can, fill it with water, and then lean it against the inward-opening door of one of his victims. One of them. Because then what he'd do is knock on the door, and at the same time knock on the door of the other victim on the opposite side of the hall, and run. Victim 1 would open the door and watch helplessly at water cascaded all over his feet, his rugs, and his room. Victim 2, opening his door to the knock, would invariably laugh at Victim 1. At that point, Victim 1 would attack Victim 2. Mean- while the sick prankster was laughing down the hall, having caused a fight between two people. My impression is that this is exactly what Emily did, and intended to do. A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, and never said a word about it to anyone else. But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. [Cop voice] Move along folks...nothing to see here. So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? Whose misunderstanding? Seems to me Emily understands you far better than you understand her. R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. Calm down, Curtis. Feeling a little crabby this morning? O.K. maybe *brutally* was a little strong. How about impugning Emily's character as plotting and devious by misrepresenting her motivations? Or, while Sal had her pinned to the mat, sadistically kicking her when she was already down? R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? IOW not teasing. Thanks, now I know your POV from my POV. R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? And does her lack of seeing Robin's send up the same as I do constitute her being brutal with me for disagreeing? Or is that only applied to me? R: of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 ME: She sent me an email and I called it like I saw it. You are welcome to interpret that any way you want. I guess it makes you happy to imagine me having a bruised ego over her thinking differently than I did about something. Perhaps you are running these posts a bit closer to your own ego sense than I do. But just curious...are you looking forward to a pat on the head from Judy, or were you pursuing your own desire to cause trouble between posters here who seem to be getting along fine without your junior high bullshit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious...when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Yea, it's a pretty low inference to make. But it is from the same playbook that states that if someone writes something and then attributes it to someone else, by signing another persons name to it, then that person, to whom it was attributed is within their rights to ask that this not be done again, but not to claim that they are being misrepresented. Keep in mind that the misappropriation may remain forever on the internet unless it is deleted. You would think that, apart from stating something is an obvious parody, that the party who made the misrepresentation would apologize and make a retraction of some sort. Instead the misrepresented party is asked to prove that they were misrepresented, and then be judged as to whether or not they were misrepresented by others who have shown themselves to be hostile to this person in the past. You wonder what the #1 point stated above could possibly morph into. That others found the situation so funny indicates to me a lack of empathy should they find themselves in that same situation. Judy at her finest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? No, Curtis, sorry, nobody called a meeting. Ann and raunchy are reacting independently to what's been going on here. They are not mindless robots controlled by me; they have their own opinions, just as Barry and Sal do. A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. The email portrayed Curtis in a positive light, but there wasn't any of what I would call ego-stroking. Curtis neglects to mention, however, that Sal's defense of him was based on a belief of hers that did not reflect the facts. I asked earlier if Curtis, having read Sal's email, had then explained to her that she had gotten it wrong and suggested she should apologize to Emily. He did not respond. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. Ann is not spinning or trying a routine. She's drawn an inaccurate conclusion based on what Curtis said about the email. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. If that email were to be posted here, everyone who read it would wonder what the hell was wrong with Curtis that he did not view it as harsh, ugly, and unjustified. (Oh, except Barry, of course.) A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? To say it was ego stroking goes too far, but saying it was good for his ego is not out of line. He wrote, She was sticking up for me and I appreciate that. A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? It looks like Ann and raunchy both feel Emily's and my opinion of the email is more trustworthy than Curtis's. I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. Emily said in her FFL post that it freaked her out. Freaked out and traumatized are synonymous. Ann didn't have a hand to tip; she was referring to what Emily told us. So here again Curtis is being dishonest in casting unjustified aspersions on Ann. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. Neither Ann nor raunchy write their posts to please Judy. Do Sal or Barry write their posts/emails to please Curtis? I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Again, Curtis flatly accuses Emily of lying, this time about the effect the email had on her. Nor should she have been. I read it. And Curtis now dictates to Emily how she *should* have reacted to the email. Me, I wouldn't have been traumatized by it, but that's because I'm familiar with Sal's exceedingly nasty personality, as well as her difficulties making sense of what she reads on FFL. Emily wasn't. (I would have been *surprised* by the email because it was so much worse than anything Sal has posted in public.) A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? That's how Ann perceives you to have behaved, Curtis. She is not alone in this on FFL. You might want to ask yourself how you have managed to create this impression if it isn't correct. Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. Says Curtis, confidently assuming nobody could have any reason for distrusting what he tells us. The very qualities your post lacks. Says Curtis, having just got done showing us how much understanding and tolerance *he* has for people's differences. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: At great risk of being accused of saying this because you have stroked my ego by being supportive, thanks Steve. The need to fabricate comes from a lack of anything newsworthy. Just like characterizing my POV on the email as lying because it didn't match Judy's. It all would have played out a little less silly if Emily had played ball and played her role as the brutally aggrieved party. But instead we exchanged posts and made our points clear without attacking each other personally. Imagine that options on FFL? Not much to work with there right? That is what has made the machinations of the ill-will machine so intriguing. Raunchy's buy-in was no surprise, but I have to admit that Ann's was. Your noticing the WTF? quality to these accusations makes me feel a bit of sanity in an otherwise weird morning. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Yea, it's a pretty low inference to make. But it is from the same playbook that states that if someone writes something and then attributes it to someone else, by signing another persons name to it, then that person, to whom it was attributed is within their rights to ask that this not be done again, but not to claim that they are being misrepresented. Keep in mind that the misappropriation may remain forever on the internet unless it is deleted. You would think that, apart from stating something is an obvious parody, that the party who made the misrepresentation would apologize and make a retraction of some sort. Instead the misrepresented party is asked to prove that they were misrepresented, and then be judged as to whether or not they were misrepresented by others who have shown themselves to be hostile to this person in the past. You wonder what the #1 point stated above could possibly morph into. That others found the situation so funny indicates to me a lack of empathy should they find themselves in that same situation. Judy at her finest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? According to Curtis, it's already *been* smoothed out. R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? I refer everyone to Emily's FFL post in which she described Sal's email-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319943 --then to her FFL post to Curtis: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Emily clearly felt violated both by Sal and by Curtis. raunchy is just reflecting this. Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. You can always tell when Curtis is really beginning to lose it. R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. raunchy wants you to tell us what you believe. You are unwilling to do that because you couldn't answer in the affirmative without looking ridiculous. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. Both of them already have. Emily does not trust Curtis because he displayed an inappropriate level of mistrust in her. Except he doesn't really believe she was lying; he's trying to take the heat off himself by turning it on Emily. Collateral damage. Tough beans, Emily. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, Interesting, I don't believe I've ever said anything that could be characterized this way. so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. This is insane. R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? Says Curtis, doing his absolute damndest to avoid answering raunchy's question. R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Well, you certainly can't deny poor treatment. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or as Emily does, Curtis forgets to add. Emily responds to Curtis's view of Sal's email: - Curtis: Duh,she was being criticized and I was being defended. Imagine that, we have different perspectives on the same email, what an amazing thing. Emily: Criticized? Oh, let's play it down shall we. I'm good at accepting criticism Curtis - constructive criticism that is. Sal's email was mean and and totally off-base. I find it hilarious that you would actually want such a supporter on your 'team' - she is on your 'team,' right? Me, I'll go with logic over loony every time. - Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? Emily's view of Curtis's stated disbelief, also from her post to Curtis: You have every right to speculate on the reasons I sent that gem from Sal to you. Why believe what I told you was the reason - the same reason I posted here as a matter of fact. I am honored by how devious you think I am Considering that I mentioned I had almost no idea who Sal was - you bet, why take anything I said at face value Curtis. Let's attribute motive. smackdown - God, I should so get a life, huh? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Again, raunchy was reflecting Emily's view of how she was treated by Curtis. Curtis knows
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
And I haven't stepped into the fray until now for the same reason: I haven't seen the email that Sal sent Emily. Is that not possible? I know first hand from last week how complicated this kind of conflict can become. And then all the piling on complicates matters even more. Plus Emily is on vacation and Sal is still lurking! Maybe these things do take on a life of their own so that the main participants don't even have to be present! From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Plus Emily is on vacation and Sal is still lurking! Maybe these things do take on a life of their own so that the main participants don't even have to be present! Perfectly nailed Share. And I haven't stepped into the fray until now for the same reason: I haven't seen the email that Sal sent Emily. Is that not possible? I know first hand from last week how complicated this kind of conflict can become. And then all the piling on complicates matters even more. Plus Emily is on vacation and Sal is still lurking! Maybe these things do take on a life of their own so that the main participants don't even have to be present! From: awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip A mature person, sent an email that she didn't take kindly to, would have replied to the sender *in email*, telling her to buzz off, Emily did exactly that, in fact. She didn't quote it here, but I've seen it. and never said a word about it to anyone else. It wasn't just an email that she didn't take kindly to. It was a *frighteningly* ugly email, insanely off-base. Now, class, do we all remember the trick Barry pulled awhile back with Dan Friedman? Not only did Barry write a post about an email Dan had written to Barry that Barry didn't take kindly to, he sent Dan's wife an ugly email of his own. How many here think it's just a wee tad bit hypocritical for Barry to criticize Emily for posting about Sal's email? But Emily, pussywhipped by Judy and wishing to get on her good side, sent copies of the email to you and to Judy. My take is that in so doing she was trying to get you to criticize one of Judy's announced enemies, start a fight between you and Sal, and thus get strokes from Judy for having done it. Barry's take is factually wrong in every single detail. She succeeded only in the latter, having made an ass of herself in trying to start the fight. Says Barry, having just made a gigantic ass of himself. Now, notice how Barry turns his *conjecture* about Emily's motivations into established fact: This behavior is so juvenile and pathetic that I don't understand how anyone could be fascinated enough by it to continue obsessing about it. Including you, Curtis. This is just another attempt by Judy to get people to pile on to one of her enemies. You've seen it all before, as has everyone else here. Emily isn't the issue, of course. Nor is Judy. Curtis's pervasive, continuing dishonesty is the issue.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Yea, it's a pretty low inference to make. It was a question, Steve (three questions, actually). But it is from the same playbook that states that if someone writes something and then attributes it to someone else, by signing another persons name to it, then that person, to whom it was attributed is within their rights to ask that this not be done again, but not to claim that they are being misrepresented. You forgot to add without supporting the claim. Of course they have a right to make the claim. But either they support the claim, or they refrain from complaining when its credibility is challenged. Curtis, incidentally, repeatedly and quite deliberately misrepresented the objections to his behavior in this matter. Keep in mind that the misappropriation may remain forever on the internet unless it is deleted. Not sure what misappropriation is supposed to mean here, but all the objections to and controversy about it *also* remain forever on the Internet unless they are deleted. You would think that, apart from stating something is an obvious parody, that the party who made the misrepresentation would apologize and make a retraction of some sort. Even if that party doesn't believe they misrepresented anything? Instead the misrepresented party is asked to prove that they were misrepresented, Of course they are. and then be judged as to whether or not they were misrepresented by others who have shown themselves to be hostile to this person in the past. I don't believe that only hostile persons were asked to judge. These were all public posts, and anybody could make whatever judgment they wished. You wonder what the #1 point stated above could possibly morph into. You don't even know what that point was, Steve. HINT: It isn't stated in what you quote above. BTW, Curtis hasn't provided an answer to any of the three questions I asked.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. Which histrionic characterization of mine was Ann buying into, Curtis? Not only did I not use the characterization Ann did, I noted explicitly that it was inaccurate. But Curtis has just gone too far now; he can't stop himself from lying even if there's no question he'll be exposed. A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. Translation: Curtis does not agree with Ann's opinions, therefore they constitute a bias. A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't so fine either. Sal has *never* been fine. At least not since she joined FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't so fine either. Tee hee --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. Which histrionic characterization of mine was Ann buying into, Curtis? Not only did I not use the characterization Ann did, I noted explicitly that it was inaccurate. But Curtis has just gone too far now; he can't stop himself from lying even if there's no question he'll be exposed. A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. Translation: Curtis does not agree with Ann's opinions, therefore they constitute a bias. A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't so fine either. Sal has *never* been fine. At least not since she joined FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: At great risk of being accused of saying this because you have stroked my ego by being supportive, thanks Steve. Just for the record, until Ann used the phrase this morning (incorrectly, as I've noted), the notion of people taking a particular perspective in a post because they wanted their egos stroked was the exclusive property of the Curtis-Barry axis. The need to fabricate comes from a lack of anything newsworthy. Just like characterizing my POV on the email as lying because it didn't match Judy's. As Curtis knows, I did not characterize what he said about Sal's email as lying. I said it was *dishonest*, because it attempted to portray the email as no big deal when he knew it was scarily vicious. It all would have played out a little less silly if Emily had played ball Played ball with whom, Curtis? and played her role as the brutally aggrieved party. But instead we exchanged posts and made our points clear without attacking each other personally. Imagine that options on FFL? Wait. Is this exchange of posts what Curtis was referring to as him and Emily being cool? If so, does he think nobody *read* Emily's post?? Here it is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 Not much to work with there right? That is what has made the machinations of the ill-will machine so intriguing. Raunchy's buy-in was no surprise, but I have to admit that Ann's was. Your noticing the WTF? quality to these accusations makes me feel a bit of sanity in an otherwise weird morning. Translation: At least there's one person left on FFL who still hasn't seen through me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: And I haven't stepped into the fray until now for the same reason: I haven't seen the email that Sal sent Emily. Is that not possible? For you to see the email? Emily's been pretty clear that she doesn't want it posted. You could always email her and ask if she'd send it to you privately, but I seriously doubt she would. I know first hand from last week how complicated this kind of conflict can become. And then all the piling on complicates matters even more. Very, VERY different kind of conflict. In this case, the complication is that Curtis has been, shall we say, less than straightforward about the situation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? No, I got that you were suggesting we were acting in concert. Not the first time you've made such a suggestion, is it? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen. Not only no cigar, but not even a good try. You are so running out of steam, Curtis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Share, forgive me, but you are very much out of the loop here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
Steve, none of this is accurate. It's just fallout from the fact that you get called on stupidities of one sort or another and feel the need to strike back. But you never manage to be *relevant* when you do this. You just flail around a lot. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. Okay all you gunslingers and knife wielders out there, I think you have confused me here Share. I understand the concept of unfair fighting and what that might entail but I am unsure what your analogy of bringing a knife to a gunfight means here. Does the knife wielder hold an unfair advantage or is he/she at a disadvantage or are you saying the knife holder doesn't want to fight or, oh dear, I am really puzzled now. In my estimation someone who is fighting unfairly would be someone telling lies or untruths. Someone twisting facts to purposefully mislead others. And in addition, they would have to know that there was no way to prove these untruths to be otherwise. So to be unfair in a fight would be to intentionally lie in order to create conflict, a conflict that might never be able to be resolved because evidence is known, or at least believed, to be non-forthcoming at any point. That is the best definition I can come up with at this point for what I could describe as fighting unfairly. Now how that relates, if at all, to what you are speaking about then by chance I got it right. But feel free to correct me. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. Seems like you haven't noticed the *extreme* unfairness with which Curtis fights. You can't judge fairness without reference to reality, Share. You can't judge it if you're blinded by your biases. You can't judge it if you spend your time wandering around in a self-created fairyland. If there's a dispute, you can't judge the fairness quotient fairly unless you can evaluate the fairness on both sides without bias. You can't make assumptions that the person in the dispute you like is never unfair simply because you like him. You have to be willing to look closely enough to make sure you've got the full picture. Otherwise *you* aren't being fair.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
See, that's how confused I got, it wasn't Share who mentioned bringing a knife to a gunfight but Steve! So maybe he can answer that one. But I think I attributed the unfair fighting reference to Share which is accurate, as far as I can tell. Phew. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Okay. No biggie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Steve, I was asking why fight unfairly which only makes matter worse. I don't at all equate that with what you're talking about, getting into the conflict tho not having intended to. Share From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  Share, With all due respect.  I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here.  She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue.  It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture.   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard.àPerhaps something similar is going on here.àHowever Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse.àWhy do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn! à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: R: You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. M: Does the thought of that excite you? Are you acting as a peacekeeper here Raunchy? Trying to help Emily and I smooth out a misunderstanding maybe? DNFTT R: After calling her motives into question so brutally, M: Oh, that was disappointing , did you have to tip your hand so fast? You were doing so well with the restrained tone and now this ham handed word choice. From now on the mean girl agenda is going to be so obvious and boring. Trying to invoke the feeling of violence between Emily and me huh? Something that we already worked out just fine without your help. Does the word brutally make you think of blood, how it smells? The warmth on your tongue, before it clots with its delicious mineral taste, somewhere between liver and raw steak. Are you inviting me to share a dream with you? I'll pass. DNFTT R: do you really think she trusts you? M: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about whether or not she trusts me. The problem I have is that so little trust is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. R: Just curious... M: This is really just a style point but that ah shucks lets set here a spell and shoot the breeze has been overused by your mean mentor, so we all kinda know what is coming. Kinda like the brutally, but with the added unpleasantness of copying her style too closely. DNFTT R: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? M: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? DNFTT R: Was your poor treatment M: See I would have held back on the brutally at first and gone with this weaker accusation poor treatment and then built to brutality. This is kind of anti-climatic now. I hardly want to correct it as a misstatement after dealing with the brutally already. Is the brutality and poor treatment because I didn't view the email as egregious as Judy does? Or that I didn't believe that Emily's stated reasons for sending it to Judy was comprehensive? And does her lack of seeing Robin's send up the same as I do constitute her being brutal with me for disagreeing? Or is that only applied to me? R: of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 ME: She sent me an email and I called it like I saw it. You are welcome to interpret that any way you want. I guess it makes you happy to imagine me having a bruised ego over her thinking differently than I did about something. Perhaps you are running these posts a bit closer to your own ego sense than I do. But just curious...are you looking forward to a pat on the head from Judy, or were you pursuing your own desire to cause trouble between posters here who seem to be getting along fine without your junior high bullshit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious...when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. DNFTT --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: So Emily and I are cool now. Have fun with whatever this thing is that seems to interest you. Have fun believing that you and Emily are cool now. I'm pretty sure that if you play the song Imagine backwards, it generates one of your posts. You may be cool with Emily, Curtis, but I doubt she's cool with you. After calling her motives into question so brutally, do you really think she trusts you? Just curious... There's a number of things Curtis can't change. 1. He can't change the ugly email Sal wrote Emily accusing her of being mean to him. 2. He can't change the fact that he then defended Sal on FFL. 3. He can't change the fact that he tried to make Sal's email sound like no big deal. 4. He can't change the fact that he accused Emily of sending me Sal's email to foment a public fight, after Emily had explicitly explained otherwise. Why *would* Emily want to be cool with Curtis in light of those facts? Nor can Curtis change the fact that I've also read Sal's email. Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). If he had not defended Sal, if he had acknowledged the ugliness of Sal's email, if he hadn't attributed ulterior motives to Emily for sending me the email, he wouldn't be out of favor with Emily, and folks on FFL wouldn't be wondering about his integrity. If one of my supporters had written a nasty email to someone viciously castigating them for purportedly putting me down, and I found out about it, I'd call the emailer out on FFL by name. Curtis *definitely* doesn't have the integrity to do that. When Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was teasing you or did it piss you off? Was your poor treatment of her pay back for a bruised ego or did it have nothing to do with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319723 Good question. But if he deigns to respond to it, will we have any reason to trust what he tells us? Will Emily?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Steve, none of this is accurate. It's just fallout from the fact that you get called on stupidities of one sort or another and feel the need to strike back. But you never manage to be *relevant* when you do this. You just flail around a lot. I'd have to say that you don't generally motivate me to strike back. Mostly I am in awe, if that's what you want to call it, in you ability to defend a position that has been shown to be untenable. The thing that I have noticed, even last week in fact, is that those days when your participation is less, than some of the fun that used to characterize FFL starts to return. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Share, With all due respect. I think some of us can be guilty of this notion of bringing a knife to gun fight. Or rather, we didn't originally come to fight at all, but realize we are up against someone who has come to fight, and fight to win and will deploy whatever arsenal is necessary to effect this outcome. And yes, I think Judy misses much of the humor and subtlety that takes place here. She remains primarily focused on promoting the rightness of her POV. The bigger casualty is that the overall dialogue. It is hard to discuss something without quickly coming up against what she feels are vital distinctions. And then before you know it, you are stuck in a never ending, meaningless discussion about some obscure point that has no bearing on the overall picture. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I noticed that Judy did not recognize the humor in my exchange with Richard. Perhaps something similar is going on here. However Curtis, it was clear to me that you were making a joke with the called a meeting comment. The insinuation that you and Sal conspired about the email to Emily is unfair fighting and makes matters worse. Why do that? From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Curtis *could* have avoided all but #1 (at least as far as we know; was the email really all Sal's idea? did she run it by him, and if so did he encourage her to send it?). Judy at her finest. Too funny, after Curtis tried to insinuate that I had called a meeting to get Ann and raunchy to criticize Curtis. His hypocrisy comes so naturally to him that he doesn't even try to hide it. So desperate for manufactured material that you are even willing to make yourself look this thick? So you got that I was suggesting that you guys literally called a meeting? And you thought that other readers might be confused if you pretended it was as literal as your insinuation? That's why I call you the troll queen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. M: I am not denying that, I was objecting to the histrionic characterization Judy was trying to use to create a fuss that you bought into. LG: DNFTT A:So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. M: It clarified a bias I was unaware of. LG: DNFTT A: At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. M: Slow news day huh? I think all the actual participants are all fine at this point. Thanks for your concern. LG: DNFTT --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: ME: Jesus, did someone call a meeting? A: Here is the thing, the email, according to Curtis, was supportive and ego-stroking to Curtis. M: Sorry to intrude in the fantasy, but there was no ego stroking. She was defending me for something she believed to be unfair. A: When that happens and yet the other side of the email was allegedly an unwarranted and vicious attack on Emily, Curtis appears to not be able to get beyond the fact that he liked the email because Sal was complimentary to him. M: Sorry spin sister, no go. Even Judy didn't try this routine and she read it. A: If he really has no problem with Emily (and frankly, why should he?) then he should have understood and admitted that Sal's email to Emily was harsh, ugly, unjustified. M: Unless that isn't how I viewed it. A: Instead of liking the email because it was good for his ego he should have (if he had any respect or reasonable feeling for Emily's position) M: Now you are really running with that ball you created aren't you? A: gotten beyond his subjective support of this otherwise mean-spirited and traumatizing correspondence and called it for what it was. M: And that would be because someone else's subjective opinion about the letter is the right one? I don't agree with Judy or Emily about how horrible the letter was. You tipped your hand a bit far with the word traumatizing. I think you and Raunchy are being a bit too eager to please Judy. I don't see any reason to think Emily was traumatized by the email. Nor should she have been. I read it. A: That has not happened and therefore I question Curtis' intentions and values not to mention his motives for treating Emily badly by not supporting her and understanding where she was coming from in her pain. But maybe that is asking too much. M: Feeling a little mean today? Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. The very qualities your post lacks. Curtis, you may be correct in all that you say. I am getting impressions from people who read the email that Sal sent that it was not a pleasant email to receive for Emily. Emily has said so and Judy has said so, both of whom read the letter. So I am going to back out now that I have put in my two cents regarding the conclusion I drew from all of the to-ing and fro-ing on this subject. I am going to back out because I did not read the email and thus can not comment further on it. However, I can and did want to say what I said regarding the general play of personalities and human nature as I saw it based on discussions of this issue. At this point, if Sal is all she is cracked up to be by those who love and support her, it would be about that time when she could step out from behind that curtain and say her lines. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
