[FairfieldLife] Re: Hitler's Valentine, was Boston knocked this news story off front pages....

[Richard J. Williams]

> > > Stone says that Obama carried on Bush administration
> > > malfeasance in a subtler way...
> > >
> > There you go again - stirring things up...
> >
Bhairitu:
> I know, you just couldn't wait to discuss Hitler's 
> Valentine more.
>
EVERYTHING IS SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL!

"Who is Paul Kevin Curtis, the Mississippi man the FBI 
arrested Wednesday in connection to letters with traces 
of ricin sent to President Barack Obama and Sen. Roger 
Wicker?"

'Ricin Mailer Is An Elvis Impersonator'
http://tinyurl.com/bt59tn5

Jackson Clarion Ledger:
http://tinyurl.com/cv7exb4

> > KARMA'S A BITCH! You haven't said much about the hypocrisy
> > and opportunism of supposedly antiwar liberals.
> >
> > Wall Street Journal:
> > http://tinyurl.com/anoavjz
> >
> > "The lawyers who denounced Bush's claim of presidential
> > war power were 'uneasy' when it was their task to define
> > Obama's war power."
> >
> > Althouse:
> > http://tinyurl.com/bzrsp8z
> >
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> You did not make Ann an example of Robin's behavior - God this is hilarious 
> !!!
> 
> "You are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
> decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
> opposition."
> 
> If I were you I would call this an incoherent tirade.
> 
> 
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> 
> > You really needed that many words to express that?
> > 
> > Your postings here are not an interaction with other people. It is all 
> > going on inside your own head.
> > 
> > I am under orders from Ann to ignore you now, 

You are? No, you can and will do what you want but how come you keep doing what 
you claim you want to stop doing? Maybe you just can't help yourself or maybe 
you don't really know what you want. Either way carry on your jousting with 
Robin but just try and quit your bellyaching.

>but you apparently are free to rant away. Man you must have done a number on 
>her up at that mic.

Let's see, "a number on her" is not clear to me in what you mean. It could mean 
that I am still under some sort of Robin spell, even now. It could mean I was 
damaged beyond repair. It could mean you are really pissed and came up with 
what you thought would 'get' me. Other than that I am not sure what it meant. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Curtis,
> > > 
> > > I am going to pay tribute to you.
> > > 
> > > Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer 
> > > to you is:
> > > 
> > > DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.
> > > 
> > > In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.
> > > 
> > > Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.
> > > 
> > > There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere 
> > > which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.
> > > 
> > > I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing 
> > > something anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): 
> > > writing to you, Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious 
> > > determination to keep bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to 
> > > matters of interpersonal truthfulness) can finally only be met by a 
> > > simple: I will leave you alone.
> > > 
> > > Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.
> > > 
> > > Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone 
> > > who decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and 
> > > perverse opposition.
> > > 
> > > But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are 
> > > acting the part you were cast to play.
> > > 
> > > In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters 
> > > in his plays.
> > > 
> > > You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, 
> > > Curtis.
> > > 
> > > You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you 
> > > force analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a 
> > > Shakespeare play I would look forward to writing an essay about what you 
> > > reveal about who you are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this 
> > > forum.)
> > > 
> > > I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); 
> > > but I am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I 
> > > am certain that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he 
> > > created.
> > > 
> > > Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
> > > religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.
> > > 
> > > You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as 
> > > someone who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to 
> > > the sublime.
> > > 
> > > You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw 
> > > out the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his 
> > > imagination what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life 
> > > form them, alter them, make them, break them, exalt them.
> > > 
> > > You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.
> > > 
> > > You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.
> > > 
> > > No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.
> > > 
> > > CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:
> > > 
> > > Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay 
> > > down your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see 
> > > through your game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not 
> > > true. You can't have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let 
> > > you get away with it. I have been honest and forthcoming from the 
> > > beginning with you, Robin; but you don't take criticism well--and I have 
> > > yet to see you 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Michael Jackson]

That was pretty funny Curtis - although I bet some here won't appreciate the 
humor.





 From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 11:43 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
Is it disturbing that fragile world peace vibe you guys are cranking out in the 
cornfields?  As much as one kid taking a bong hit?  It makes me wonder if your 
good vibes are really gunna reach that 1950's looking kid dictator in North 
Korea if you don't have the dharana chops to focus on what works for you here 
and ignore the rest. 

I always thought peace started with the individual, but now I see that it takes 
a village to maintain a mood...I mean peace.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Curtis,
> Good summary post. 
> I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
> I appreciate the cut to the chase.
> Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
> Best Regards,
> -Buck in Fairfield
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > > 
> > > > > CURTIS:
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that 
> > > > > I am referring only to his 
> > > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > > wrote from Paris.
> > 
> > But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> > internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> > those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my 
> > > > > analysis of him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and 
> > > > > engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > 
> > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things 
> > that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are 
> > focused on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely 
> > comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my 
> > > > > analysis of him. They are not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, 
> > > > > I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> > 
> > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> > Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas 
> > I am interested in expressing.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers 
> > > > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

God - you are paranoid. But then again with a fan following of the likes of 
Steve, Share, Barry one should always err on the side of caution.


On Apr 8, 2013, at 1:00 PM, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> If you are reading this please understand that I ma dealing with an internet 
> troll who has put my name on something I did not write in an attempt to get a 
> response from me. 
> 
> This is my response.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > 
> > Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless 
> > attacks on me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very 
> > seriously. Why the problem?
> > 
> > Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about 
> > something does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological 
> > reason why I would come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply 
> > responding to you, Robin, and it seems you don't like this.
> > 
> > But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, 
> > trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would 
> > explain their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. 
> > I have only done one thing: I have called you on this.
> > 
> > And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this.
> > 
> > Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole 
> > self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus 
> > philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; 
> > I will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted 
> > to your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have 
> > found out about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment 
> > someone opposes you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not 
> > collapsing their different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you 
> > did in those seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had 
> > enough of that shit from Ann today).
> > 
> > You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, 
> > respected me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with 
> > those who have determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there 
> > is life) before you came on board. You have essentially confused and 
> > disturbed people with your word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of 
> > truth-finding on this forum. You have to get this through your swelled 
> > (still some hallucinatory effects there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I 
> > know you are being facetious and mocking with your proposed thought 
> > experiment (yes, now become "existential"--Funny, that, Robin)--there will 
> > be more sunlight here on FFL, Robin.
> > 
> > You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the 
> > skies here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], 
> > Robin. You are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry 
> > doesn't like it. Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. 
> > Many more would echo this sentiment, Robin.
> > 
> > Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am 
> > almost (please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my 
> > ordinary prose is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more 
> > effeminate style--and I mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your 
> > style here, Robin.
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Curtis,
> > > 
> > > I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, 
> > > Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it 
> > > comes to me.
> > > 
> > > The thought experiment. Now an existential one.
> > > 
> > > I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as 
> > > are other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to 
> > > approach myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would 
> > > have it) or whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an 
> > > entirely different attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there 
> > > is one person who stands out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps 
> > > more importantly, altering my attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind 
> > > when it comes to knowing my motives, blind when it comes to understanding 
> > > who I am, blind when it comes to understanding when criticism (about 
> > > myself) is valid, blind when it comes to estimating how perspicuous my 
> > > posts are.
> > > 
> > > But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
> > > philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
> > > examination of self)?
> > > 
> > > Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have 
> > > to seek professional help.
> > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

You did not make Ann an example of Robin's behavior - God this is hilarious !!!

"You are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
opposition."

If I were you I would call this an incoherent tirade.


On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> You really needed that many words to express that?
> 
> Your postings here are not an interaction with other people. It is all going 
> on inside your own head.
> 
> I am under orders from Ann to ignore you now, but you apparently are free to 
> rant away. Man you must have done a number on her up at that mic.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Curtis,
> > 
> > I am going to pay tribute to you.
> > 
> > Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer 
> > to you is:
> > 
> > DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.
> > 
> > In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.
> > 
> > Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.
> > 
> > There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere 
> > which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.
> > 
> > I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing 
> > something anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): 
> > writing to you, Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious 
> > determination to keep bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters 
> > of interpersonal truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will 
> > leave you alone.
> > 
> > Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.
> > 
> > Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone 
> > who decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and 
> > perverse opposition.
> > 
> > But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting 
> > the part you were cast to play.
> > 
> > In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters 
> > in his plays.
> > 
> > You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, 
> > Curtis.
> > 
> > You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force 
> > analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play 
> > I would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who 
> > you are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.)
> > 
> > I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but 
> > I am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am 
> > certain that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created.
> > 
> > Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
> > religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.
> > 
> > You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as 
> > someone who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to 
> > the sublime.
> > 
> > You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out 
> > the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination 
> > what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, 
> > alter them, make them, break them, exalt them.
> > 
> > You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.
> > 
> > You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.
> > 
> > No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.
> > 
> > CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:
> > 
> > Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down 
> > your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your 
> > game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't 
> > have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with 
> > it. I have been honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; 
> > but you don't take criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the 
> > intelligent feedback I keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all 
> > this, Robin? Those who are defending you have deprived themselves of the 
> > integrity (they don't realize they have done this, mind you; their 
> > self-righteousness tells us this) that I have decided will remain in my 
> > possession. You just don't like it when people disagree with you, Robin.
> > 
> > And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was 
> > nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. 
> > You were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your 
> > own egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it 
> > is, Robin.
> > 
> > Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my 
> > defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sinc

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

If you are reading this please understand that I ma dealing with an internet 
troll who has put my name on something I did not write in an attempt to get a 
response from me. 

This is my response.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> 
> Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless attacks 
> on me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very seriously. Why 
> the problem?
> 
> Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about something 
> does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological reason why I 
> would come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply responding to 
> you, Robin, and it seems you don't like this.
> 
> But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, 
> trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would 
> explain their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. I 
> have only done one thing: I have called you on this.
> 
> And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this.
> 
> Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole 
> self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus 
> philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; I 
> will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted to 
> your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have found 
> out about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment someone 
> opposes you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not collapsing 
> their different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you did in those 
> seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had enough of that 
> shit from Ann today).
> 
> You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, 
> respected me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with 
> those who have determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there 
> is life) before you came on board. You have essentially confused and 
> disturbed people with your word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of 
> truth-finding on this forum. You have to get this through your swelled (still 
> some hallucinatory effects there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I know you 
> are being facetious and mocking with your proposed thought experiment (yes, 
> now become "existential"--Funny, that, Robin)--there will be more sunlight 
> here on FFL, Robin.
> 
> You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the skies 
> here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], Robin. 
> You are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry doesn't 
> like it. Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. Many more 
> would echo this sentiment, Robin.
> 
> Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am 
> almost (please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my 
> ordinary prose is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more 
> effeminate style--and I mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your 
> style here, Robin.
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Curtis,
> > 
> > I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, 
> > Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it 
> > comes to me.
> > 
> > The thought experiment. Now an existential one.
> > 
> > I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are 
> > other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach 
> > myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) 
> > or whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely 
> > different attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one 
> > person who stands out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more 
> > importantly, altering my attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it 
> > comes to knowing my motives, blind when it comes to understanding who I am, 
> > blind when it comes to understanding when criticism (about myself) is 
> > valid, blind when it comes to estimating how perspicuous my posts are.
> > 
> > But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
> > philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
> > examination of self)?
> > 
> > Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to 
> > seek professional help.
> > 
> > If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this 
> > private between you and me?
> > 
> > Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you 
> > will just say: "You are nuts, Robin." And if you deem my problem to in fact 
> > be psychopathological, you will just say: "You are fine, Robin."
> > 
> > I promise to cease posting if

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:

> Also I am willing to discuss any issues from last year with
> you, but offline so as to spare the FFLers. Judy has been
> making a valiant effort to lure posters down that particular
> rabbit hole, which as far as I can tell goes all the way to
> China.

It goes all the way to your and Curtis's dishonesty and
hostility, Share, but no further than that. It's no
wonder you want to take it offline.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

Dear Robin, you left out laughinggull who called you a performer and feste who 
called you the rooster who could out crow all others.

As for me, I believed you when you told Curtis that you want to help insert 
more of me into me.  I think you want to help people have
 more contact with reality.  And who knows, maybe you're accomplishing just 
that.  But I do think we're ALL helping each other in this way.  Some of us are 
just less identified with that role.  Anyhoo, I also think that you have that 
Saraswati nadi situation going on.  Beyond that I'm not prepared to make any 
diagnosis.  

As I said in another post this morning, I have apologized to you for 
misinterpreting you about turq and Curtis and I have offered to make amends.  
Also I am willing to discuss any issues from last year with you, but offline so 
as to spare the FFLers.  Judy has been making a valiant effort to lure posters 
down that particular rabbit hole, which as far as I can tell goes all the way 
to China.  But I wouldn't call it the most scenic route IMHO.  Would you?
Share   

Dear Curtis,

I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, Bhairitu
(they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes to me.

snip

Believe it or not, I *am* feeling better.

Thank you, Curtis.

Robin





 

  










 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Robin,

Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless attacks on 
me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very seriously. Why the 
problem?

Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about something 
does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological reason why I would 
come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply responding to you, 
Robin, and it seems you don't like this.

But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, 
trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would explain 
their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. I have only 
done one thing: I have called you on this.

And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this.

Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole 
self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus 
philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; I 
will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted to 
your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have found out 
about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment someone opposes 
you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not collapsing their 
different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you did in those 
seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had enough of that shit 
from Ann today).

You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, respected 
me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with those who have 
determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there is life) before 
you came on board. You have essentially confused and disturbed people with your 
word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of truth-finding on this forum. 
You have to get this through your swelled (still some hallucinatory effects 
there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I know you are being facetious and 
mocking with your proposed thought experiment (yes, now become 
"existential"--Funny, that, Robin)--there will be more sunlight here on FFL, 
Robin.

You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the skies 
here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], Robin. You 
are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry doesn't like it. 
Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. Many more would echo 
this sentiment, Robin.

Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am almost 
(please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my ordinary prose 
is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more effeminate style--and I 
mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your style here, Robin.

That's about it, Robin. I appreciate your reading this.

Good rap so far today. I enjoyed it.

Curtis


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Curtis,
> 
> I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, 
> Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes 
> to me.
> 
> The thought experiment. Now an existential one.
> 
> I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are 
> other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach 
> myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) or 
> whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely different 
> attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one person who stands 
> out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more importantly, altering my 
> attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it comes to knowing my motives, 
> blind when it comes to understanding who I am, blind when it comes to 
> understanding when criticism (about myself) is valid, blind when it comes to 
> estimating how perspicuous my posts are.
> 
> But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
> philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
> examination of self)?
> 
> Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to 
> seek professional help.
> 
> If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this private 
> between you and me?
> 
> Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you 
> will just say: "You are nuts, Robin." And if you deem my problem to in fact 
> be psychopathological, you will just say: "You are fine, Robin."
> 
> I promise to cease posting if you oblige me in this way. I mean, unless you 
> choose to answer those four posts from Saturday. (Then, whether crazy or not, 
> I think you will understand my desperate need to have some way of preserving 
> my reputation on FFL as someone who never gives in, or gives up--Oops! that 
> just may decide which kind of p

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Curtis,

I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, Bhairitu 
(they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes to me.

The thought experiment. Now an existential one.

I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are 
other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach 
myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) or 
whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely different 
attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one person who stands 
out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more importantly, altering my 
attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it comes to knowing my motives, 
blind when it comes to understanding who I am, blind when it comes to 
understanding when criticism (about myself) is valid, blind when it comes to 
estimating how perspicuous my posts are.

But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
examination of self)?

Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to 
seek professional help.

If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this private 
between you and me?

Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you will 
just say: "You are nuts, Robin." And if you deem my problem to in fact be 
psychopathological, you will just say: "You are fine, Robin."

I promise to cease posting if you oblige me in this way. I mean, unless you 
choose to answer those four posts from Saturday. (Then, whether crazy or not, I 
think you will understand my desperate need to have some way of preserving my 
reputation on FFL as someone who never gives in, or gives up--Oops! that just 
may decide which kind of problem I have, what I just wrote there. I see that 
now, Curtis. Still, I am not going prejudge this matter.)

I think we should just wipe the slate clean here, Curtis. Until you say 
something bad about me, I won't say anything bad about you.

This, then, will be my last word on FFL until I hear from you as to how I 
should proceed.

Believe it or not, I *am* feeling better.

Thank you, Curtis.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:

 
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

Curtis1: Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts stand on 
their own without commentary. I think that does you the most justice because 
Judy has informed me that when I respond I can keep others from seeing the 
truth of your post. 
 
Hey great job on deflecting the feedback.  Not a drop ever reached you.  I 
guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so 
you could dismiss it out of hand.
 
Robin1: Well, since you *didn't* believe what [you] wrote, I feel it would have 
been naive of me not to have "dismiss[ed] it out of hand." 

But I have not, Curtis. 

I wrote four posts to you yesterday. Those four posts, each one of them, 
constitutes a comprehensive response to what you wrote to me this morning, 
which I just responded to now.
 
We are talking about a Curtis Principle.
 
But I think I might not forget *this*: "I guess you must have ascertained that 
I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand". 
Orgasm.
 
You came, Curtis. I finally got you to come.
 
 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > 
> > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > pristine snow he is.
> > > 
> > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > 
> > > CURTIS:
> > > 
> > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am 
> > > referring only to his 
> > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > wrote from Paris.
> > > 
> > > But you knew this.
> > > 
> > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of 
> > > him.
> > > 
> > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> > > travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > 
> > > But you knew this.
> > > 
> > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of 
> > > him. They are not.
> > > 
> > > Your conscience hardly show

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
(snip)
> Take our last go around that seemed to fascinate you beyond
> any other point in my discussion with Robin,

I was fascinated by all of it, actually.

> that I was
> ACTUALLY referring to some irrelevant past relationship
> Robin had with Share before the whole post exchange we
> were discussing.

Right. That "irrelevant past relationship" that you
just spent a whole post making a huge (and thoroughly,
documentably disingenuous) deal of.

That is what you were referring to.

> Most obviously it had to do with his predisposition to
> enter this exchange with the unfriendly agenda of shocking
> her into facing the "reality" that is Robin approved.

It was not at all "obvious" that this is what you were
talking about, first of all, even if you're telling the
truth (which I do not believe you are).

Second, Robin entered this exchange with one of his ironic
posts, commenting on *Share's* extremely unfriendly
remarks about his posts to Barry and you. There was no
agenda to "shock" Share. In reply to her response, he
simply pointed out that it made no sense--as any of us
might have done, including you, if someone had responded
to something we had written with a post that was illogical.

You were and are attempting to perpetuate the "psychological
rape" smear from back in October of last year.

Your ridiculous overreaction when Robin pointed out that
his initial exchanges with Share had been extremely
friendly, your refusal to acknowledge any ambiguity in
what you had written, is the "tell" that you had gotten
caught.

> But you couldn't get off it.  You had to create a cockamamie
> theory of me being motivated to lie about my actual intended 
> meaning once I clarified it.

I stand by my "theory" that your "clarification" was a
walkback from having been caught out.

> It made no rational sense outside your imagination of my
> dark intentions.

You have the darkest of intentions vis-a-vis Robin. You
are determined to bring him down because he sees through
you. And you have no hesitation about using irrational
means to do so. The trains you manufacture and send off
into the wild blue yonder *need* to be derailed.

> It was weird.  And it was a derailment.  I could post 100
> more examples but it will all be the same in the end.
> 
> You cannot help this.  I am not sure about Robin yet.
> 
> But the point it derailed was about how Robin entered into
> the interaction with an unfriendly agenda.  That was my
> point that got lost in this idiotic word parsing based on
> your imagination that I would be motivated to LIE about
> something so stupid,rather than accept my correction of
> YOUR misunderstanding.

As I noted above, Robin "entered into the interaction" with
an ironic post commenting on *Share's* "unfriendly agenda."
There was nothing there to be derailed except your
deliberate misrepresentation.

And yes, you had plenty of motivation to lie about what
you meant when you got called on it. You thought you
could invoke that past "psychological rape" upset to
support your thesis about Robin's purportedly "unfriendly
agenda" with Share, except that you forgot (or hoped
others would have forgotten) that their initial
conversations--quite a few of them, until Share's
misunderstanding--were unquestionably very friendly.

> > > You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together.
> > > Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone
> > > and one is a general writing piece for people like me who
> > > enjoy them.
> > 
> > Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter
> 
> And his analysis was wrong about that too, but I will address
> that to him.

His analysis *didn't deal with Barry's general writing
pieces*. There's nothing for you to address (nor any
"different ideas" for me to hold in my mind, since
there's only one relevant one).

In any case, I think you need to address all of it with
Barry, given that Barry has seen fit to helpfully confirm
Robin's analysis:

> > Barry:
> > "In fact, the less awareness of self I have,
> > the better the writing seems to flow. Self
> > 'gets in the way.'" 
> > 
> > Robin:
> > "...does not offer up any evidence of what
> > his own experience is of himself..."

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

You really needed that many words to express that?

Your postings here are not an interaction with other people.  It is all going 
on inside your own head.

I am under orders from Ann to ignore you now, but you apparently are free to 
rant away. Man you must have done a number on her up at that mic.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Curtis,
> 
> I am going to pay tribute to you.
> 
> Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer to 
> you is:
> 
> DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.
> 
> In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.
> 
> Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.
> 
> There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere 
> which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.
> 
> I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing something 
> anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): writing to you, 
> Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious determination to keep 
> bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters of interpersonal 
> truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will leave you alone.
> 
> Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.
> 
> Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
> decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
> opposition.
> 
> But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting 
> the part you were cast to play.
> 
> In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters in 
> his plays.
> 
> You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, Curtis.
> 
> You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force 
> analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play I 
> would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who you 
> are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.)
> 
> I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but I 
> am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am certain 
> that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created.
> 
> Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
> religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.
> 
> You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as someone 
> who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to the sublime.
> 
> You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out 
> the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination 
> what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, 
> alter them, make them, break them, exalt them.
> 
> You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.
> 
> You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.
> 
> No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.
> 
> CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:
> 
> Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down 
> your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your 
> game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't 
> have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with it. 
> I have been honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; but 
> you don't take criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the 
> intelligent feedback I keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all this, 
> Robin? Those who are defending you have deprived themselves of the integrity 
> (they don't realize they have done this, mind you; their self-righteousness 
> tells us this) that I have decided will remain in my possession. You just 
> don't like it when people disagree with you, Robin.
> 
> And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was 
> nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. 
> You were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your own 
> egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it is, 
> Robin.
> 
> Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my 
> defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sincere. You just are not 
> used to having an adversary who will not be intimidated, Robin. Robin, I wish 
> you could hear this. For all your pretensions of "objectification of first 
> person subjectivity" you fail to make the grade. Hardly anyone understands 
> you, Robin; and believe it or not, Barry's criticism of you which you 
> reposted below, it is felt deeply and passionately--by more persons than just 
> Barry.
> 
> Robin, you won't like this: But Barry's reaction to you says something real 
> about you.
> 
> I must stop here, Robin, else you will 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Curtis,

I am going to pay tribute to you.

Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer to 
you is:

DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.

In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.

Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.

There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere which 
could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.

I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing something 
anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): writing to you, 
Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious determination to keep 
bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters of interpersonal 
truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will leave you alone.

Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.

Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
opposition.

But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting the 
part you were cast to play.

In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters in 
his plays.

You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, Curtis.

You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force 
analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play I 
would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who you are 
in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.)

I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but I 
am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am certain 
that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created.

Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.

You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as someone 
who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to the sublime.

You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out the 
real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination what it 
feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, alter them, 
make them, break them, exalt them.

You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.

You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.

No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.

CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:

Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down your 
trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your game. 
This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't have your 
way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with it. I have been 
honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; but you don't take 
criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the intelligent feedback I 
keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all this, Robin? Those who are 
defending you have deprived themselves of the integrity (they don't realize 
they have done this, mind you; their self-righteousness tells us this) that I 
have decided will remain in my possession. You just don't like it when people 
disagree with you, Robin.

And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was 
nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. You 
were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your own 
egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it is, 
Robin.

Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my 
defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sincere. You just are not 
used to having an adversary who will not be intimidated, Robin. Robin, I wish 
you could hear this. For all your pretensions of "objectification of first 
person subjectivity" you fail to make the grade. Hardly anyone understands you, 
Robin; and believe it or not, Barry's criticism of you which you reposted 
below, it is felt deeply and passionately--by more persons than just Barry.

Robin, you won't like this: But Barry's reaction to you says something real 
about you.

I must stop here, Robin, else you will accuse me of what you do almost all the 
time: word flood.

I think the most gracious thing I can say to you, Robin is: You are flawed, you 
are eccentric, you are very blind, you are very arrogant, and you are--I mean 
this, Robin, my friend--almost pathetic.

I don't really respect either your intelligence or your philosophy.

You need a wake-up call, Robin. I am trying to give that to you.

I expect you just to say: "You are lying here, Curtis. You don't really believe 
any of this".

There. I said it for you, Robin. And you are wrong.

And I have jus

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

Is it disturbing that fragile world peace vibe you guys are cranking out in the 
cornfields?  As much as one kid taking a bong hit?  It makes me wonder if your 
good vibes are really gunna reach that 1950's looking kid dictator in North 
Korea if you don't have the dharana chops to focus on what works for you here 
and ignore the rest. 

I always thought peace started with the individual, but now I see that it takes 
a village to maintain a mood...I mean peace.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Curtis,
> Good summary post. 
> I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
> I appreciate the cut to the chase.
> Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
> Best Regards,
> -Buck in Fairfield
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > > 
> > > > > CURTIS:
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that 
> > > > > I am referring only to his 
> > > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > > wrote from Paris.
> > 
> > But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> > internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> > those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my 
> > > > > analysis of him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and 
> > > > > engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > 
> > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things 
> > that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are 
> > focused on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely 
> > comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my 
> > > > > analysis of him. They are not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, 
> > > > > I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> > 
> > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> > Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas 
> > I am interested in expressing.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers 
> > > > > who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from 
> > > > > Paris of today.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > > > analysis, Curtis
> > 
> > 
> > It has to do with mine.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your 
> > > > > experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to 
> > > > > perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried 
> > > > > away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations 
> > > > > that only apply to your internal world."
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have 
> > > > > ever said about me, Curtis.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>
> > 
> > 
> > Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>
> > 
> > 
> > Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
> > youn

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> snip> > 
> > > The rest of the piece just amplifies this impression.  You
> > > believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I do not.
> > 
> > You know, Curtis, the dismissively loaded phrase "word flood"
> > may have had some impact the first time you used it, but it
> > doesn't wear too well with constant repetition. About all it
> > conveys now is that you're at a loss to deal with detailed
> > reasoning.>
> 
> You know what wears even less well?  Getting word flooded by a person who 
> refuses to ever edit his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's 
> ability to interact here.

Who are we talking about here, Barry or Robin?
> 
> And you as a professional editor should know better.  I am calling it as I 
> see it.  A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically long flood 
> of words.  Eventually he posts 3 more than I could be reasonably expected to 
> answer, and this is called to attention by both of you.  Winning through 
> attrition in a game I am not playing.
> 
> You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same league as Robin. 
> With you the righting is tight but it extends longer and longer because you 
> never get enough of the specific interaction even after the person had made 
> their points and is done. If you walked a few posts in my shoes you might be 
> more sympathetic.  It is a sensation of drowning in too much unedited ideas 
> that could never be answered because they grow exponentially with each post.  
> Only you two do this here.  But you have never gone head to head with Robin 
> in the way that I have so your charge of my being unable to deal with 
> "detailed reasoning" is crap.
> 
> > 
> > If you had understood what Robin wrote, you could have made
> > an appropriate succinct comment. The one you did make about
> > "stream of consciousness" was irrelevant.
> 
> Not to me or the actual author of the post in question, Barry.  We both 
> thought it was a good description of how he posts, and the absurdity to claim 
> that he doesn't reveal himself in some unique way that only Robin can detect.
> 
> > 
> > > > Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you
> > > > tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you,
> > > > Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his
> > > > posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to
> > > > people he doesn't like.
> > > 
> > > That was also true and reveals a common cognitive problem
> > > you have.
> > 
> > (snicker) Right, Curtis. It's my cognitive problem that I am
> > able to spot your inconsistencies.
> 
> I am playing to the balcony here. I know you will absorb nothing of this.  
> Your framing this behavior this way prevents it.
> 
> Since I have interacted with you on an Internet forum this is your most 
> maddening trait.  You gut hung up on something that has no relation to the 
> whole, and the meaning of the post gets derailed.  I used to think it was 
> deliberate but now believe that you really can't help yourself.  This is how 
> you experience the world.
> 
> Take our last go around that seemed to fascinate you beyond any other point 
> in my discussion with Robin, that I was ACTUALLY referring to some irrelevant 
> past relationship Robin had with Share before the whole post exchange we were 
> discussing.  Most obviously it had to do with his predisposition to enter 
> this exchange with the unfriendly agenda of shocking her into facing the 
> "reality" that is Robin approved.
> 
> But you couldn't get off it.  You had to create a cockamamie theory of me 
> being motivated to lie about my actual intended meaning once I clarified it.
> 
> It made no rational sense outside your imagination of my dark intentions.  It 
> was weird.  And it was a derailment.  I could post 100 more examples but it 
> will all be the same in the end.
> 
> You cannot help this.  I am not sure about Robin yet.
> 
> But the point it derailed was about how Robin entered into the interaction 
> with an unfriendly agenda.  That was my point that got lost in this idiotic 
> word parsing based on your imagination that I would be motivated to LIE about 
> something so stupid,rather than accept my correction of YOUR misunderstanding.
> 
> > 
> > > You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together.
> > > Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone
> > > and one is a general writing piece for people like me who
> > > enjoy them.
> > 
> > Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter
> 
> And his analysis was wrong about that too, but I will address that to him.
> 
> > 
> > > > Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do
> > > > with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more
> > > > subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at
> > > > least wanted anybody else to grasp).
> > > 
> > > Jesus Robi

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Curtis,
> Good summary post. 
> I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
> I appreciate the cut to the chase.
> Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
> Best Regards,
> -Buck in Fairfield

Dear Buck in Fairfield. Does "pile on" refer to more than one person engaging 
in conversation on the same subject?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > > 
> > > > > CURTIS:
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that 
> > > > > I am referring only to his 
> > > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > > wrote from Paris.
> > 
> > But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> > internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> > those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my 
> > > > > analysis of him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and 
> > > > > engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > 
> > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things 
> > that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are 
> > focused on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely 
> > comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my 
> > > > > analysis of him. They are not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, 
> > > > > I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> > 
> > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> > Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas 
> > I am interested in expressing.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers 
> > > > > who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from 
> > > > > Paris of today.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > > > analysis, Curtis
> > 
> > 
> > It has to do with mine.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your 
> > > > > experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to 
> > > > > perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried 
> > > > > away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations 
> > > > > that only apply to your internal world."
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have 
> > > > > ever said about me, Curtis.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>
> > 
> > 
> > Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>
> > 
> > 
> > Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
> > younger minds?
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any 
> > > > > possibility, hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is 
> > > > > the performance of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. 
> > > > > If it is this--and from some perspective I think it could be argued 
> > > > > t

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Buck]

Thanks Curtis,
Good summary post. 
I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
I appreciate the cut to the chase.
Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
Best Regards,
-Buck in Fairfield

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> snip
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > 
> > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > 
> > > > CURTIS:
> > > > 
> > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I 
> > > > am referring only to his 
> > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > wrote from Paris.
> 
> But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > But you knew this.
> > > > 
> > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis 
> > > > of him.
> > > > 
> > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> > > > travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > 
> > > > But you knew this.
> 
> Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things that 
> annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are focused 
> on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely comprehensible in 
> terms of his POV and thinking process.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis 
> > > > of him. They are not.
> > > > 
> > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I 
> > > > must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> 
> Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas I 
> am interested in expressing.
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who 
> > > > come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris 
> > > > of today.
> > > > 
> > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > > 
> > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > > analysis, Curtis
> 
> 
> It has to do with mine.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience 
> > > > of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others 
> > > > beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your 
> > > > internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only 
> > > > apply to your internal world."
> > > > 
> > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever 
> > > > said about me, Curtis.
> > > > 
> > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>
> 
> 
> Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>
> 
> 
> Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
> younger minds?
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, 
> > > > hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance 
> > > > of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and 
> > > > from some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed 
> > > > what you are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this 
> > > > reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant.
> > > > 
> > > > But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to 
> > > > controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight 
> > > > begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to 
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
snip> > 
> > The rest of the piece just amplifies this impression.  You
> > believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I do not.
> 
> You know, Curtis, the dismissively loaded phrase "word flood"
> may have had some impact the first time you used it, but it
> doesn't wear too well with constant repetition. About all it
> conveys now is that you're at a loss to deal with detailed
> reasoning.>

You know what wears even less well?  Getting word flooded by a person who 
refuses to ever edit his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's ability 
to interact here.

And you as a professional editor should know better.  I am calling it as I see 
it.  A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically long flood of 
words.  Eventually he posts 3 more than I could be reasonably expected to 
answer, and this is called to attention by both of you.  Winning through 
attrition in a game I am not playing.

You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same league as Robin. With 
you the righting is tight but it extends longer and longer because you never 
get enough of the specific interaction even after the person had made their 
points and is done. If you walked a few posts in my shoes you might be more 
sympathetic.  It is a sensation of drowning in too much unedited ideas that 
could never be answered because they grow exponentially with each post.  Only 
you two do this here.  But you have never gone head to head with Robin in the 
way that I have so your charge of my being unable to deal with "detailed 
reasoning" is crap.

> 
> If you had understood what Robin wrote, you could have made
> an appropriate succinct comment. The one you did make about
> "stream of consciousness" was irrelevant.

Not to me or the actual author of the post in question, Barry.  We both thought 
it was a good description of how he posts, and the absurdity to claim that he 
doesn't reveal himself in some unique way that only Robin can detect.

> 
> > > Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you
> > > tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you,
> > > Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his
> > > posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to
> > > people he doesn't like.
> > 
> > That was also true and reveals a common cognitive problem
> > you have.
> 
> (snicker) Right, Curtis. It's my cognitive problem that I am
> able to spot your inconsistencies.

I am playing to the balcony here. I know you will absorb nothing of this.  Your 
framing this behavior this way prevents it.

Since I have interacted with you on an Internet forum this is your most 
maddening trait.  You gut hung up on something that has no relation to the 
whole, and the meaning of the post gets derailed.  I used to think it was 
deliberate but now believe that you really can't help yourself.  This is how 
you experience the world.

Take our last go around that seemed to fascinate you beyond any other point in 
my discussion with Robin, that I was ACTUALLY referring to some irrelevant past 
relationship Robin had with Share before the whole post exchange we were 
discussing.  Most obviously it had to do with his predisposition to enter this 
exchange with the unfriendly agenda of shocking her into facing the "reality" 
that is Robin approved.

But you couldn't get off it.  You had to create a cockamamie theory of me being 
motivated to lie about my actual intended meaning once I clarified it.

It made no rational sense outside your imagination of my dark intentions.  It 
was weird.  And it was a derailment.  I could post 100 more examples but it 
will all be the same in the end.

You cannot help this.  I am not sure about Robin yet.

But the point it derailed was about how Robin entered into the interaction with 
an unfriendly agenda.  That was my point that got lost in this idiotic word 
parsing based on your imagination that I would be motivated to LIE about 
something so stupid,rather than accept my correction of YOUR misunderstanding.

> 
> > You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together.
> > Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone
> > and one is a general writing piece for people like me who
> > enjoy them.
> 
> Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter

And his analysis was wrong about that too, but I will address that to him.

> 
> > > Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do
> > > with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more
> > > subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at
> > > least wanted anybody else to grasp).
> > 
> > Jesus Robin will you plze throw some holy water on
> > this long suffering disciple.
> > 
> > I liked the little insinuation that I can magically control
> > how other people view Robin by expressing an opinion.
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest you're *successful* at it.
> 
> > I wonder if you believe you have such magical 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

snip
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > 
> > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > pristine snow he is.
> > > 
> > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > 
> > > CURTIS:
> > > 
> > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am 
> > > referring only to his 
> > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > wrote from Paris.

But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in those. 
 He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 

> > > 
> > > But you knew this.
> > > 
> > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of 
> > > him.
> > > 
> > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> > > travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > 
> > > But you knew this.

Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things that 
annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are focused on 
you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely comprehensible in terms of 
his POV and thinking process.

> > > 
> > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of 
> > > him. They are not.
> > > 
> > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning 
> > > FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO 
> > > THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could 
> > > want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered 
> > > my four posts by this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO 
> > > DO FOR YOU.

Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  Seriously, 
it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas I am interested 
in expressing.


> > > 
> > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who 
> > > come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris 
> > > of today.
> > > 
> > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > 
> > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > analysis, Curtis


It has to do with mine.

> > > 
> > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of 
> > > yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond 
> > > your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal 
> > > experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your 
> > > internal world."
> > > 
> > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever 
> > > said about me, Curtis.
> > > 
> > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>


Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.

> > > 
> > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>


Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
younger minds?


> > > 
> > > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, 
> > > hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of 
> > > irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from 
> > > some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you 
> > > are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this 
> > > passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant.
> > > 
> > > But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to 
> > > controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight 
> > > begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you 
> > > yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you 
> > > want this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you 
> > > were not being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are 
> > > unanswerable.


Dude, enough with the word flood posts.  I read most of them and I have nothing 
to say.  You are impervious to feedback and they were too long...again.  
Tighten up you shit if you want me to respond to you.  I am not your editor.  
Better yet, send all your posts to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments
> > > revolve on. Does 'reality' in fact ever say anything at
> > > all?
> > 
> > "In fact"?
> > 
> > Oooopsie!
> 
> That was a question, not a statement about reality as a fact.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

> 'What does reality say?' I don't know. For example, if reality
> had something to 'say', of what would that saying consist and
> how would it be delivered?

Would it have anything to say that could be characterized
as "fact" in the first place? And if so, how would we know?
You appeared to be disputing that it did, and if so, that we
could know it, so "in fact" seemed rather out of place.

> > > Whatever reality might be, it seems we, as individuals,
> > > spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it should
> > > be and how we ought to be. 
> > > 
> > > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather
> > > slowly if at all. This is just a straw man argument that puts
> > > Robin in charge of interpreting what 'reality' wants of us.
> > > You never learn anything from Robin, except that eventually you
> > > are under attack for not knowing what is expected of you.
> > 
> > You should probably speak for yourself, Xeno.
> 
> Sometimes I am inspired to excess. But in my 'conversations'
> with Robin, it always seems to come around to him telling me
> reality is trying to tell me something.

Right. I just meant you should replace "you" in the paragraph
above with "I."

Robin has gone to great lengths to try to explain how he
interprets what reality wants of him *so the rest of us
could do it for ourselves*. To suggest that he wants to be
"in charge" of interpretations of reality is directly
opposed to his actual intention, as demonstrated by many
of his posts (none of which, apparently, have you bothered
to read).

> > > It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he
> > > wants you to ensnare you with, unless you feel like
> > > jousting, but you need to have a lot of time on your hands,
> > > because you will be swamped with long discourses which
> > > take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she
> > > understands these, but if you ask her to interpret them
> > > for you, she will not comply, for it is beneath her to
> > > truck with idiots, and thus she does not have to
> > > demonstrate she understands what Robin says.
> > 
> > Now, don't *you* start lying too, Xeno. Or at least if
> > you do, try to pick a lie that has some likelihood of
> > getting by at least some of the idiots, er, folks here.
> > Anyone who's followed the traffic knows I've spent a
> > great deal of time interpreting and explaining what
> > Robin has said (I shouldn't have to because he isn't
> > that hard to understand).
> > 
> > I did refuse *once* to interpret him to you, because you
> > demanded that I do so in order to show that I understood
> > him. I have no need to prove myself on that score.
> 
> It is nice courtesy to give people hints and explanations
> about things one feels one understands and which one feels
> others do not get.

Which I've done many, many times (usually when he isn't
around to do it himself).

> Actions speak louder than words, the trite phrase goes. I
> do not know just how you understand Robin. Obviously you
> defend him, somewhat in the manner of a pit bull at times.
> It would be nice, at some point, for you to review those
> points about Robin you tend to keep to yourself in a form
> that is not a rebuttal to someone else's view.

I don't know what points about Robin you imagine I keep
to myself. I'm certainly not aware of any. As I said, I
didn't comply with your demand because I didn't think I
needed to prove anything to you.

In most cases, as I've said elsewhere, I shouldn't really
have to explain what Robin has said. It seems to me folks
aren't clear about it because they don't bother to read
his posts with attention; yet they feel they're qualified
to comment anyway.

> Now that might prompt someone to attack it, but that is
> standard procedure on FFL. Maybe even Robin would attack
> it, though that is just speculation on my part.
> 
> Perhaps my failing here is I do not have time to read
> everything on FFL. I suppose I have missed a number of
> things you said about Robin.

Yes, I imagine you have. More importantly, you've missed
much of what he's said about himself.

> I do feel you may attribute a certain grandeur to his
> expositions. That is fine. We all have our likes and
> dislikes.

I'm not sure I attribute any "grandeur" to Robin's
expositions. Insight and integrity and courage, perhaps,
but I wouldn't describe those qualities as "grandeur."

> Here is one of the ideas I think is grand. The Ouverture to
> Handel's Occasional Oratorio. He even stole the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> (snip)
> > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments
> > revolve on. Does 'reality' in fact ever say anything at
> > all?
> 
> "In fact"?
> 
> Oooopsie!

That was a question, not a statement about reality as a fact. 'What does 
reality say?' I don't know. For example, if reality had something to 'say', of 
what would that saying consist and how would it be delivered?
> 
> > Whatever reality might be, it seems we, as individuals,
> > spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it should
> > be and how we ought to be. 
> > 
> > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather
> > slowly if at all. This is just a straw man argument that puts
> > Robin in charge of interpreting what 'reality' wants of us.
> > You never learn anything from Robin, except that eventually you
> > are under attack for not knowing what is expected of you.
> 
> You should probably speak for yourself, Xeno.

Sometimes I am inspired to excess. But in my 'conversations' with Robin, it 
always seems to come around to him telling me reality is trying to tell me 
something.  

> > It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he
> > wants you to ensnare you with, unless you feel like
> > jousting, but you need to have a lot of time on your hands,
> > because you will be swamped with long discourses which
> > take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she
> > understands these, but if you ask her to interpret them
> > for you, she will not comply, for it is beneath her to
> > truck with idiots, and thus she does not have to
> > demonstrate she understands what Robin says.
> 
> Now, don't *you* start lying too, Xeno. Or at least if
> you do, try to pick a lie that has some likelihood of
> getting by at least some of the idiots, er, folks here.
> Anyone who's followed the traffic knows I've spent a
> great deal of time interpreting and explaining what
> Robin has said (I shouldn't have to because he isn't
> that hard to understand).
> 
> I did refuse *once* to interpret him to you, because you
> demanded that I do so in order to show that I understood
> him. I have no need to prove myself on that score.

It is nice courtesy to give people hints and explanations about things one 
feels one understands and which one feels others do not get. Actions speak 
louder than words, the trite phrase goes. I do not know just how you understand 
Robin. Obviously you defend him, somewhat in the manner of a pit bull at times. 
It would be nice, at some point, for you to review those points about Robin you 
tend to keep to yourself in a form that is not a rebuttal to someone else's 
view. Now that might prompt someone to attack it, but that is standard 
procedure on FFL. Maybe even Robin would attack it, though that is just 
speculation on my part.

Perhaps my failing here is I do not have time to read everything on FFL. I 
suppose I have missed a number of things you said about Robin.
I do feel you may attribute a certain grandeur to his expositions. That is 
fine. We all have our likes and dislikes.

Here is one of the ideas I think is grand. The Ouverture to Handel's Occasional 
Oratorio. He even stole the ideas for the fugal section from Telemann but 
reworked it in his own inimitable style.

http://youtu.be/EE78nsIAfLo

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
(snip)
> Do you think that either of them (Judy and Robin)
> is even *capable* of understanding how insane this
> level of self-absorbed narcissism reveals them to
> be? Well over 40 posts between the two of them,
> in one day, ranting to (as far as I can tell) no 
> one, because no one sane would bother to read 
> them.

Interesting. Barry seems to have added Curtis and Steve
and Share to his Do Not Read list.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > "This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of
> > > reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who,
> > > when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what
> > > his own experience is of himself when he does this."
> > > 
> > > This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness
> > > I referred to in an earlier post Robin.  Barry's frequent
> > > stream of consciousness writing style makes this more
> > > obvious than for most posters.
> > 
> > The sentence *doesn't* make much sense when you take it out
> > of context like that, does it? Especially when you go on to
> > suggest that Barry's stream-of-consciousness style would
> > tend to refute it.
> 
> The rest of the piece just amplifies this impression.  You
> believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I do not.

You know, Curtis, the dismissively loaded phrase "word flood"
may have had some impact the first time you used it, but it
doesn't wear too well with constant repetition. About all it
conveys now is that you're at a loss to deal with detailed
reasoning.

If you had understood what Robin wrote, you could have made
an appropriate succinct comment. The one you did make about
"stream of consciousness" was irrelevant.

> > Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you
> > tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you,
> > Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his
> > posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to
> > people he doesn't like.
> 
> That was also true and reveals a common cognitive problem
> you have.

(snicker) Right, Curtis. It's my cognitive problem that I am
able to spot your inconsistencies.

> You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together.
> Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone
> and one is a general writing piece for people like me who
> enjoy them.

Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter.

> > Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do
> > with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more
> > subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at
> > least wanted anybody else to grasp).
> 
> Jesus Robin will you plze throw some holy water on
> this long suffering disciple.
> 
> I liked the little insinuation that I can magically control
> how other people view Robin by expressing an opinion.

I didn't mean to suggest you're *successful* at it.

> I wonder if you believe you have such magical powers?
> 
> > (Barry's response to your post is amusing. To support your
> > attempted refutation of Robin's analysis, he offers the
> > fact that he types very fast and doesn't do any editing,
> > which has even less to do with anything Robin wrote.)
> 
> Unless you are seeing it my way which is that he is describing
> the mechanics of why I see his thought process about himself
> in his writing.

I wonder whether Barry would acknowledge that he shows
his own experience of himself in his writing:

Barry:
"In fact, the less awareness of self I have,
the better the writing seems to flow. Self
'gets in the way.'" 

Robin:
"...does not offer up any evidence of what
his own experience is of himself..."

> > > But I'm ready to be proven wrong.  Perhaps you could show
> > > us how much more Judy reveals about her experience of
> > > herself in her writing, as a clear contrast.
> > 
> > It isn't something that can be "shown," in either my case
> > or Barry's (or anybody else's, for that matter). Where it
> > shows (or doesn't show) is in our respective posts.
> 
> Another hidden fault like the ones you see in me that you
> are uniquely able to see...

(I think you meant to type this underneath the paragraph
immediately below.)

> > If you can't see the difference in what Robin is talking
> > about between my posts and Barry's, perhaps it's *your*
> > lack of perceptiveness that's the problem.
> 
> Snaaap!  No you dn't!
> 
> > > In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on
> > > your experience of yourself.  That is what is killing your
> > > ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon
> > > images of them.  Carried away by your internal experience,
> > > you fill the page with observations that only apply to your
> > > internal world.
> > 
> > Just a manufactured insult, not something you actually
> > believe to be the case. You aren't *that* undiscerning.
> 
> And the winner of "I know more about your internal processes
> than you do" award is...

OK, maybe you *are* that undiscerning.

> sorry Judy, it is still Robin. But keep it he may not enter
> some year.

Having a bit of a hard time here, ain'cha?

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts stand on their own 
> without commentary. I think that does you the most justice because Judy has 
> informed me that when I respond I can keep others from seeing the truth of 
> your post. 
> 
> Hey great job on deflecting the feedback.  Not a drop ever reached you.  I 
> guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so 
> you could dismiss it out of hand.

Well, since you *didn't* believe what [you] wrote, I feel it would have been 
naive of me not to have "dismiss[ed] it out of hand." 

But I have not, Curtis. 

I wrote four posts to you yesterday. Those four posts, each one of them, 
constitutes a comprehensive response to what you wrote to me this morning, 
which I just responded to now.

We are talking about a Curtis Principle.

But I think I might not forget *this*: "I guess you must have ascertained that 
I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand". 
Orgasm.

You came, Curtis. I finally got you to come.



 
> Mighty handy that little trick.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > 
> > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > pristine snow he is.
> > 
> > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > 
> > CURTIS:
> > 
> > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am 
> > referring only to his 
> > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote 
> > from Paris.
> > 
> > But you knew this.
> > 
> > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of 
> > him.
> > 
> > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> > travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > 
> > But you knew this.
> > 
> > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of 
> > him. They are not.
> > 
> > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning 
> > FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO THOSE 
> > FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could want to 
> > say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered my four 
> > posts by this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> > 
> > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who come 
> > upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris of today.
> > 
> > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > 
> > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > analysis, Curtis
> > 
> > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of 
> > yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond 
> > your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal 
> > experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your 
> > internal world."
> > 
> > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever 
> > said about me, Curtis.
> > 
> > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no application, 
> > for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.
> > 
> > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.
> > 
> > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, 
> > hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of 
> > irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from 
> > some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you 
> > are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this 
> > passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant.
> > 
> > But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to 
> > controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight 
> > begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you 
> > yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you want 
> > this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you were not 
> > being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are unanswerable.
> > 
> > I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself yesterday 
> > touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright.
> > 
> > Do you gi

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts stand on their own 
without commentary. I think that does you the most justice because Judy has 
informed me that when I respond I can keep others from seeing the truth of your 
post. 

Hey great job on deflecting the feedback.  Not a drop ever reached you.  I 
guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so 
you could dismiss it out of hand.

Mighty handy that little trick.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> 
> People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> that people would have to shower less if they just
> ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> pristine snow he is.
> 
> [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> 
> CURTIS:
> 
> In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am 
> referring only to his 
> "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote 
> from Paris.
> 
> But you knew this.
> 
> What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of him.
> 
> It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> 
> But you knew this.
> 
> The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a comment 
> in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are specimens by which 
> the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of him. They are not.
> 
> Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning FFL 
> reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR 
> POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could want to say) is 
> an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered my four posts by 
> this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> 
> I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who come 
> upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris of today.
> 
> Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> 
> Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my analysis, 
> Curtis
> 
> "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of 
> yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your 
> internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal experience, 
> you fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world."
> 
> This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever said 
> about me, Curtis.
> 
> Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no application, 
> for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.
> 
> You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.
> 
> I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, hold 
> before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of irony 
> which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from some 
> perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you are doing 
> here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this passage, 
> Curtis)--then I think it brilliant.
> 
> But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to 
> controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight 
> begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you 
> yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you want 
> this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you were not 
> being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are unanswerable.
> 
> I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself yesterday 
> touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright.
> 
> Do you give the stars permission to come out in the sky tonight?
> 
> We are both extremely objective, Curtis. Me for one purpose, you for another.
> 
> Robin
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > "This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person 
> > who is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer 
> > up any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness I referred to in 
> > an earlier post Robin.  Barry's frequent stream of consciousness writing 
> > style makes this more obvious than for most posters.  
> > 
> > But I'm ready to be proven wrong.  Perhaps you could show us how much more 
> > J

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > 
> > "This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of
> > reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who,
> > when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what
> > his own experience is of himself when he does this."
> > 
> > This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness
> > I referred to in an earlier post Robin.  Barry's frequent
> > stream of consciousness writing style makes this more
> > obvious than for most posters.
> 
> The sentence *doesn't* make much sense when you take it out
> of context like that, does it? Especially when you go on to
> suggest that Barry's stream-of-consciousness style would
> tend to refute it.

The rest of the piece just amplifies this impression.  You believe only a word 
flood can answer a word flood, I do not.

> 
> Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you
> tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you,
> Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his
> posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to
> people he doesn't like.

That was also true and reveals a common cognitive problem you have.  You cannot 
hold to different ideas in your mind together.  Hint:One deals with his direct 
communication with someone and one is a general writing piece for people like 
me who enjoy them.

> 
> Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do
> with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more
> subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at
> least wanted anybody else to grasp).

Jesus Robin will you plze throw some holy water on this long suffering 
disciple.

I liked the little insinuation that I can magically control how other people 
view Robin by expressing an opinion.

I wonder if you believe you have such magical powers?

> 
> (Barry's response to your post is amusing. To support your
> attempted refutation of Robin's analysis, he offers the
> fact that he types very fast and doesn't do any editing,
> which has even less to do with anything Robin wrote.)

Unless you are seeing it my way which is that he is describing the mechanics of 
why I see his thought process about himself in his writing.

> 
> > But I'm ready to be proven wrong.  Perhaps you could show
> > us how much more Judy reveals about her experience of
> > herself in her writing, as a clear contrast.
> 
> It isn't something that can be "shown," in either my case
> or Barry's (or anybody else's, for that matter). Where it
> shows (or doesn't show) is in our respective posts.

Another hidden fault like the ones you see in me that you are uniquely able to 
see...

> 
> If you can't see the difference in what Robin is talking
> about between my posts and Barry's, perhaps it's *your*
> lack of perceptiveness that's the problem.

Snaaap!  No you dn't!

> 
> > In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on
> > your experience of yourself.  That is what is killing your
> > ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon
> > images of them.  Carried away by your internal experience,
> > you fill the page with observations that only apply to your
> > internal world.
> 
> Just a manufactured insult, not something you actually
> believe to be the case. You aren't *that* undiscerning.

And the winner of "I know more about your internal processes than you do" award 
is...

sorry Judy, it is still Robin. But keep it he may not enter some year. 




>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)

People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
that people would have to shower less if they just
ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
pristine snow he is.

[Barry about Robin--from yesterday)

CURTIS:

In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am 
referring only to his 
"intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote 
from Paris.

But you knew this.

What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of him.

It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
travelogues--or even movie reviews.

But you knew this.

The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a comment 
in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are specimens by which 
the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of him. They are not.

Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning FFL 
reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR 
POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could want to say) is 
an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered my four posts by this 
post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.

I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who come 
upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris of today.

Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 

Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my analysis, 
Curtis

"In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of 
yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your 
internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal experience, you 
fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world."

This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever said 
about me, Curtis.

Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no application, for 
example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.

You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.

I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, hold 
before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of irony which 
exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from some perspective 
I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you are doing here (I 
believe I could make the case for this reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I 
think it brilliant.

But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to 
controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight 
begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you 
yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you want this 
post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you were not being 
deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are unanswerable.

I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself yesterday 
touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright.

Do you give the stars permission to come out in the sky tonight?

We are both extremely objective, Curtis. Me for one purpose, you for another.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> 
> "This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person 
> who is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up 
> any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this."
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness I referred to in 
> an earlier post Robin.  Barry's frequent stream of consciousness writing 
> style makes this more obvious than for most posters.  
> 
> But I'm ready to be proven wrong.  Perhaps you could show us how much more 
> Judy reveals about her experience of herself in her writing, as a clear 
> contrast.
> 
> In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of 
> yourself.  That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond 
> your internal cartoon images of them.  Carried away by your internal 
> experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your 
> internal world. 
> 
> Fill the page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> > opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> > experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even 
> > the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eli

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[John]

Share,

Since you brought it up, who and where were you in the previous lifetime?  If 
you were joking, just forget it.

JR



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> hi John, due to unfelicitous previous lifetime, any occasion wherein the 
> words monks, murder and Middle Ages appear together, I seek other 
> entertainment.  However I did find a good synopsis of the tale online, 
> though in true Gemini fashion read it very quickly and thus missed the vital 
> part about laughter being a sin.  Thank you for supplying that and sorry for 
> both my dimwittedness and hastiness, what a combination!  I know it's no fun 
> to have to explain a post thus using another post, like that like that.  
> Anyhoo I admit to you that I am once again tempted to watch this movie but 
> I'm guessing it's a bit gory what with the Inquisition being a subtext, 
> murders being the main events, etc.  As for laughing being a sin, I'm not 
> sure.  But if you laugh at Death, you're a goner for sure (-:
> 
>    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 8:30 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
>  
> 
>   
> Share,
> 
> The movie is a detective story in a monastery setting during the Middle Ages. 
>  The character (that Sean Connery was playing) was in a hot pursuit of the 
> murderer of the monks in the monastery.  It turned out that the culprit was 
> the old blind abbot who poisoned the pages of an ancient book of comedy.  
> Why?  Because the old abbot believed that laughing was a sin. 
> 
> I just thought that you may have seen the movie.  But you can probably see 
> the application of the movie plot here on FFL with this particular thread. :)
> 
> JR
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Oy, another cryptic man!  Recommending a movie about a whole monastery 
> > of cryptic men!  Ah, time for the Dome, cryptic women (-:
> > Hey John, worried about Mars Ketu coming up in June, I had a reading with 
> > Bill Levacy.  His prediction:  accelerated (Mars) stable (Saturn) 
> > expansion (Guru).  I have seen this movie in the library but Sean 
> > Connery, as cute as he is, was not inspiration enough to induce me to 
> > borrow.
> > 
> > Thanks for good wishes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: John 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:19 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > Share,
> > 
> > The message that you seek is in this film.  Have fun. :)
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-yYJgpQ-CE
> > 
> > JR
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are called HAVING 
> > > FUN!  Duh!  If that's what you call being out of control, 
> > > then so be it.  Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this 
> > > reality topic.  I both enjoy and understand his writing.  
> > > Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> > > what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> > > 
> > > PS  If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then maybe you 
> > > could relax a little?  Have some fun yourself?  Instead 
> > > of trying to prevent WWIII on FFL?  Just a suggestion.   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> > > Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> > > to start World War III here on FFL.
> > > 
> > > You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> > > to you about yourself.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > > > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.ÃÆ'‚  
> > > > Sometimes we're in step with the main melody and sometime

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> "This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of
> reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who,
> when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what
> his own experience is of himself when he does this."
> 
> This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness
> I referred to in an earlier post Robin.  Barry's frequent
> stream of consciousness writing style makes this more
> obvious than for most posters.

The sentence *doesn't* make much sense when you take it out
of context like that, does it? Especially when you go on to
suggest that Barry's stream-of-consciousness style would
tend to refute it.

Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you
tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you,
Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his
posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to
people he doesn't like.

Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do
with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more
subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at
least wanted anybody else to grasp).

(Barry's response to your post is amusing. To support your
attempted refutation of Robin's analysis, he offers the
fact that he types very fast and doesn't do any editing,
which has even less to do with anything Robin wrote.)

> But I'm ready to be proven wrong.  Perhaps you could show
> us how much more Judy reveals about her experience of
> herself in her writing, as a clear contrast.

It isn't something that can be "shown," in either my case
or Barry's (or anybody else's, for that matter). Where it
shows (or doesn't show) is in our respective posts.

If you can't see the difference in what Robin is talking
about between my posts and Barry's, perhaps it's *your*
lack of perceptiveness that's the problem.

> In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on
> your experience of yourself.  That is what is killing your
> ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon
> images of them.  Carried away by your internal experience,
> you fill the page with observations that only apply to your
> internal world.

Just a manufactured insult, not something you actually
believe to be the case. You aren't *that* undiscerning.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness 
> I referred to in an earlier post Robin.  Barry's frequent 
> stream of consciousness writing style makes this [what his 
> own experience is of himself] more obvious than for most 
> posters.  

Interesting insight. Obviously, I am somewhat comfortable
with, as you say, stream of consciousness writing. I tend to 
think that's because I'm comfortable with my consciousness. 

While there is a case to be made for self-editing what one
writes, I honestly do very little of it, for a couple of
reasons. The first is that while I am as prone to typos 
and left-out words as anyone else who types as fast as he 
thinks, I spend at most one quick read-through of the posts 
I write in this fashion before sending it off. The reason
is that I rarely find that spending any more time than that
improves the writing, and it often makes it worse. 

The second is that I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. I don't have 
any particular image of myself that I'm pushing out during
these cafe writing sessions. That is the *furthest* thing
from my mind. In fact, the less awareness of self I have,
the better the writing seems to flow. 

Self "gets in the way." Feeling that one has to "edit" 
that self gets even further in the way. You know what I 
mean, Curtis, because you are able to get out of the way
of your own writing, too. 

Try to imagine the opposite -- being a person stuck inside 
an ego that is always monitoring everything the person says
or writes to make sure it's consistent with the image they
wish to present to others. What a fuckin' waste of time. 
And, in my opinion, a great way to create terrible writing.

I tend to agree with you about the nature of Robin's writing.
It's as if he never actually has an "audience" for it other
than to hear his own words echoing around in his mind. And
because he doesn't actually write *for* others, he doesn't
bother to make his writing intelligible to others. He writes
for the inside of his own head, and to support the image of
that stuck-in-one's-mindedness he is so invested in, and 
wants others to believe. 

Me, I just write. When I write in cafes, I just write -- fast
and with absolutely no self-monitoring and self-editing. I
spent no time at all editing the first one of my FMIP posts
this morning, because I had to spend time inserting photos
into it, and after that I didn't really feel like going back
to check for typos. I don't feel bad about that, and in fact
cannot be *made* to feel bad about that. 

Part of what allows me to write the way I do is that I am a
very fast typist, one who makes his living churning out words,
and who literally never has to pause to allow his typing to
catch up with his train of thoughts. What you see in my cafe
stream-of-consciousness writing is *real time*. It was written
*exactly* as the thoughts occurred to me. I never have to sit
there and ponder the "right" phrase or word or way of expres-
sing myself. 

I have just done the same thing while writing this. It is 
fully WYIWYG, having been written in "real time" as I thought
it up. When I get to the end of the last sentence I'll just
push "Send" without spending even an instant re-reading it
to check for typos or try to make it "better." Heck, I may
not even wait until the end of the last sentence, and may
cut it off in mid-wo

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> An awesome display of grace, poise, honesty and integrity dear Judy - while
> being under this nauseating attack by the forces of deception, manipulation
> viz His Holiness Curtis; idiocy viz Steve, laughinggull, feste;
> inauthentic, passive aggressive, vindictive, neurotic birches viz Share,
> platitude puking Gurus viz Guru Xeno and the pure, unadulterated stench of
> His Filthiness King Baby Barry.
> 
> Love,
> Ravi

Well, Dear Ravi, I will say one thing. This blossoming of writing and posts 
yesterday (and most likely today if certain people decide not to disengage) 
tells us way more than the subject matter being discussed. It was like a 
fascinating but almost macabre autopsy-like exposure of the inner workings and 
inner guts of participants here. All of these bodies laid out on tables with 
their insides exposed. I think it went way past content (although a lot of that 
was revealing) into something usually hidden. And perhaps the ACT of involving 
oneself in the creation of these posts, where it took an individual to engage 
in these, was the most important thing. Whatever it was it took some care and 
time and intention to read it all. If people don't want to read it why do they? 
Or, if they don't read it, why react so strongly? Revelatory on all counts I'd 
say. Good old FFL, the measure of a man (and women too of course).
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.
> >
> > This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word parsing
> > like this beyond all reason. You can't follow conversations here with any
> > depth.
> >
> > It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what Robin
> > said about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never tried to
> > engage in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology.
> >
> > So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the head
> > for your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
> >
> > Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.
> >
> > And here we come to a problem with no solution.
> >
> > He knows your secret too.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
> > wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic
> > > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > > >
> > > > on·set
> > > > noun
> > > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> > >
> > > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> > >
> > > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
> > >
> > > But you knew that.
> > >
> > > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > > thankfully.
> > >
> > > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > > it will have been worth your time.
> > >
> > > *plonk*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > please continue...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are
> > > > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > > > >
> > > > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > > > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > > > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > > > > recent exchange with Share..."
> > > > >
> > > > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone cou

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Well, it's about effin time isn't it?  The fort is about three quarters
of the way burnt down, and here Ravi comes with a puny little fire
extinquisher.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> An awesome display of grace, poise, honesty and integrity dear Judy -
while
> being under this nauseating attack by the forces of deception,
manipulation
> viz His Holiness Curtis; idiocy viz Steve, laughinggull, feste;
> inauthentic, passive aggressive, vindictive, neurotic birches viz
Share,
> platitude puking Gurus viz Guru Xeno and the pure, unadulterated
stench of
> His Filthiness King Baby Barry.
>
> Love,
> Ravi
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> curtisdeltablues@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.
> >
> > This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word
parsing
> > like this beyond all reason. You can't follow conversations here
with any
> > depth.
> >
> > It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what
Robin
> > said about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never
tried to
> > engage in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology.
> >
> > So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the
head
> > for your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
> >
> > Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for
you.
> >
> > And here we come to a problem with no solution.
> >
> > He knows your secret too.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108

> > wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the
*current*
> > > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises
me
> > > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand
this,
> > > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic
> > > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > > >
> > > > on·set
> > > > noun
> > > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> > >
> > > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> > >
> > > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
> > >
> > > But you knew that.
> > >
> > > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > > thankfully.
> > >
> > > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > > it will have been worth your time.
> > >
> > > *plonk*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > please continue...
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are
> > > > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > > > >
> > > > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > > > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > > > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > > > > recent exchange with Share..."
> > > > >
> > > > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > > > > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > > > > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > > > > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > > > > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a
> > > > > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > > > > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > > > > backpedal from a mistake.
> > > > >
> > > > > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > > > > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > > > >
> > > > > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > > > > later, just in time to see

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>

"This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who 
is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any 
evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this."



This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness I referred to in an 
earlier post Robin.  Barry's frequent stream of consciousness writing style 
makes this more obvious than for most posters.  

But I'm ready to be proven wrong.  Perhaps you could show us how much more Judy 
reveals about her experience of herself in her writing, as a clear contrast.

In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of 
yourself.  That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your 
internal cartoon images of them.  Carried away by your internal experience, you 
fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world. 

Fill the page.







> Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
> reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against 
> all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on 
> this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on 
> stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a 
> victim of this singular method of provocation.
> 
> BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
> derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
> slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any 
> investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And 
> why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing 
> any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and 
> the consciousness of other persons.
> 
> If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
> posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest 
> response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and 
> intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your 
> experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of 
> this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to 
> truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes 
> the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in 
> the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the 
> very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing 
> anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero.
> 
> What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that 
> BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely 
> interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how 
> much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, 
> BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality 
> (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality 
> being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some 
> controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what 
> he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not 
> predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of 
> BW's systematic and controlled mind game.
> 
> BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his 
> subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his 
> posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of 
> producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows 
> are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have 
> stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but 
> BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. 
> Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he 
> vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL 
> reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a 
> strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what 
> his own experience is of himself when he does this.
> 
> Thus

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

LOL.. the useless pastoral counselor would be so sorry he ever met me - but
is that, by any chance a she? And is she hot? If so I am totally in baby.


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Share Long  wrote:

> **
>
>
> dear Ravi, would you like to share my appt this afternoon with my pastoral
> counselor?  love, BirchyShare
>
>
>   --
> *From:* Ravi Chivukula 
> *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:56 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
>
>
> An awesome display of grace, poise, honesty and integrity dear Judy -
> while being under this nauseating attack by the forces of deception,
> manipulation viz His Holiness Curtis; idiocy viz Steve, laughinggull,
> feste; inauthentic, passive aggressive, vindictive, neurotic birches viz
> Share, platitude puking Gurus viz Guru Xeno and the pure, unadulterated
> stench of His Filthiness King Baby Barry.
>
> Love,
> Ravi
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> **
>
>  There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.
>
> This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word parsing
> like this beyond all reason. You can't follow conversations here with any
> depth.
>
> It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what Robin
> said about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never tried to
> engage in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology.
>
> So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the head
> for your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
>
> Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.
>
> And here we come to a problem with no solution.
>
> He knows your secret too.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
> wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic
> > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > >
> > > on·set
> > > noun
> > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> >
> > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> >
> > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
> >
> > But you knew that.
> >
> > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > thankfully.
> >
> > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > it will have been worth your time.
> >
> > *plonk*
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > please continue...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are
> > > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > > >
> > > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

dear Ravi, would you like to share my appt this afternoon with my pastoral 
counselor?  love, BirchyShare





 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
An awesome display of grace, poise, honesty and integrity dear Judy - while 
being under this nauseating attack by the forces of deception, manipulation viz 
His Holiness Curtis; idiocy viz Steve, laughinggull, feste; inauthentic, 
passive aggressive, vindictive, neurotic birches viz Share, platitude puking 
Gurus viz Guru Xeno and the pure, unadulterated stench of His Filthiness King 
Baby Barry.

Love,
Ravi



On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues  
wrote:

 
>  
>There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy. 
>
>This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word parsing 
>like this beyond all reason.  You can't follow conversations here with any 
>depth.
>
>It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what Robin said 
>about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never tried to engage 
>in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology. 
>
>So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the head for 
>your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
>
>Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.
>
>And here we come to a problem with no solution. 
>
>He knows your secret too.
>
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>> > 
>> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>> > >  wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  
>> > > > wrote:
>> (snip)
>> > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
>> > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
>> > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
>> > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
>> > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
>> > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
>> > > 
>> > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
>> > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
>> > > reply saying the same thing).
>> > 
>> > on·set
>> > noun
>> > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
>> > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
>> 
>> Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
>> 
>> "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
>> above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
>> 
>> But you knew that.
>> 
>> Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
>> refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
>> nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
>> thankfully.
>> 
>> Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
>> no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
>> it will have been worth your time.
>> 
>> *plonk*
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > please continue...
>> > 
>> > [snip]
>> > 
>> > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
>> > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
>> > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
>> > > is likely to be able to spot it.
>> > > 
>> > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
>> > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
>> > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
>> > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
>> > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
>> > > 
>> > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
>> > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
>> > > recent exchange with Share..."
>> > > 
>> > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
>> &

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

hi John, due to unfelicitous previous lifetime, any occasion wherein the words 
monks, murder and Middle Ages appear together, I seek other entertainment.  
However I did find a good synopsis of the tale online, though in true Gemini 
fashion read it very quickly and thus missed the vital part about laughter 
being a sin.  Thank you for supplying that and sorry for both my dimwittedness 
and hastiness, what a combination!  I know it's no fun to have to explain a 
post thus using another post, like that like that.  Anyhoo I admit to you that 
I am once again tempted to watch this movie but I'm guessing it's a bit gory 
what with the Inquisition being a subtext, murders being the main events, etc.  
As for laughing being a sin, I'm not sure.  But if you laugh at Death, you're a 
goner for sure (-:

   





 From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 8:30 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
Share,

The movie is a detective story in a monastery setting during the Middle Ages.  
The character (that Sean Connery was playing) was in a hot pursuit of the 
murderer of the monks in the monastery.  It turned out that the culprit was the 
old blind abbot who poisoned the pages of an ancient book of comedy.  Why?  
Because the old abbot believed that laughing was a sin. 

I just thought that you may have seen the movie.  But you can probably see the 
application of the movie plot here on FFL with this particular thread. :)

JR

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Oy, another cryptic man!  Recommending a movie about a whole monastery of 
> cryptic men!  Ah, time for the Dome, cryptic women (-:
> Hey John, worried about Mars Ketu coming up in June, I had a reading with 
> Bill Levacy.  His prediction:  accelerated (Mars) stable (Saturn) expansion 
> (Guru).  I have seen this movie in the library but Sean Connery, as cute as 
> he is, was not inspiration enough to induce me to borrow.
> 
> Thanks for good wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:19 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> 
> 
>   
> Share,
> 
> The message that you seek is in this film.  Have fun. :)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-yYJgpQ-CE
> 
> JR
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are called HAVING 
> > FUN!  Duh!  If that's what you call being out of control, then so be 
> > it.  Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.  I 
> > both enjoy and understand his writing.  Now to reflect a little Judy 
> > back to you:
> > what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> > 
> > PS  If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then maybe you could 
> > relax a little?  Have some fun yourself?  Instead of trying to 
> > prevent WWIII on FFL?  Just a suggestion.   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> > Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> > to start World War III here on FFL.
> > 
> > You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> > to you about yourself.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're 
> > > in step with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune 
> > > with a secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same 
> > > melody that someone else is and that's delightful.  
> > > 
> > > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance 
> > > extravaganza.  Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of 
> > > melodies.  Judy is gifted at focusing on the individuals 
> > > steps.  But really, only the dancer himself or herself can know 
> > > which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the judges can 
> > > be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud 
> > > music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

Oh Jason baby are you mad I didn't include you? I am so sorry, I haven't
seen your opinion on this issue - why don't you take a shot at it and I
will definitely provide my judgement on it. I always love to be surprised
by idiots like you.


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Jason  wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Have you ever had anything useful to say here in this forum,
> other than act like a fuking, puking, bitching cheerleader.
>
> The real 'E' is so elusive that most of the pretend E's
> don't even have a clue to whats going on inside them.
>
>
> --- Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > An awesome display of grace, poise, honesty and integrity dear Judy -
> while
> > being under this nauseating attack by the forces of deception,
> manipulation
> > viz His Holiness Curtis; idiocy viz Steve, laughinggull, feste;
> > inauthentic, passive aggressive, vindictive, neurotic birches viz Share,
> > platitude puking Gurus viz Guru Xeno and the pure, unadulterated stench
> of
> > His Filthiness King Baby Barry.
> >
> > Love,
> > Ravi
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> > curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.
> > >
> > > This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word
> parsing
> > > like this beyond all reason. You can't follow conversations here with
> any
> > > depth.
> > >
> > > It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what
> Robin
> > > said about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never
> tried to
> > > engage in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology.
> > >
> > > So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the
> head
> > > for your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
> > >
> > > Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.
> > >
> > > And here we come to a problem with no solution.
> > >
> > > He knows your secret too.
> > >
> > >
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Jason]

Have you ever had anything useful to say here in this forum, 
other than act like a fuking, puking, bitching cheerleader.

The real 'E' is so elusive that most of the pretend E's 
don't even have a clue to whats going on inside them.


---  Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> An awesome display of grace, poise, honesty and integrity dear Judy - while
> being under this nauseating attack by the forces of deception, manipulation
> viz His Holiness Curtis; idiocy viz Steve, laughinggull, feste;
> inauthentic, passive aggressive, vindictive, neurotic birches viz Share,
> platitude puking Gurus viz Guru Xeno and the pure, unadulterated stench of
> His Filthiness King Baby Barry.
> 
> Love,
> Ravi
> 
> 
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.
> >
> > This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word parsing
> > like this beyond all reason. You can't follow conversations here with any
> > depth.
> >
> > It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what Robin
> > said about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never tried to
> > engage in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology.
> >
> > So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the head
> > for your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
> >
> > Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.
> >
> > And here we come to a problem with no solution.
> >
> > He knows your secret too.
> >
> >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

An awesome display of grace, poise, honesty and integrity dear Judy - while
being under this nauseating attack by the forces of deception, manipulation
viz His Holiness Curtis; idiocy viz Steve, laughinggull, feste;
inauthentic, passive aggressive, vindictive, neurotic birches viz Share,
platitude puking Gurus viz Guru Xeno and the pure, unadulterated stench of
His Filthiness King Baby Barry.

Love,
Ravi


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM, curtisdeltablues <
curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.
>
> This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word parsing
> like this beyond all reason. You can't follow conversations here with any
> depth.
>
> It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what Robin
> said about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never tried to
> engage in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology.
>
> So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the head
> for your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
>
> Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.
>
> And here we come to a problem with no solution.
>
> He knows your secret too.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
> wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic
> > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > >
> > > on·set
> > > noun
> > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> >
> > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> >
> > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
> >
> > But you knew that.
> >
> > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > thankfully.
> >
> > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > it will have been worth your time.
> >
> > *plonk*
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > please continue...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are
> > > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > > >
> > > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > > >
> > > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > > > recent exchange with Share..."
> > > >
> > > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > > > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > > > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > > > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > > > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a
> > > > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > > > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > > >
> > > > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > > > backpedal from a mistake.
> > > >
> > > > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > > > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > > >
> > > > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > > > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > > > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > > >
> > > > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > > > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > > > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > > > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > > > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > > > an appearance later on in her unconscionable c

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how 
he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he 
will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these 
forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this 
contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating 
the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this 
singular method of provocation.

BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) 
argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or 
commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because 
he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he 
might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other 
persons.

If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest 
response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and 
intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your 
experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of 
this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to 
truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the 
context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the 
reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very 
execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything 
at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero.

What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that 
BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested 
he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares 
about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against 
all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here 
being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the 
experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial 
issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) 
BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to 
approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic 
and controlled mind game.

BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his 
subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts 
on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of 
producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows 
are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, 
likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear 
the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. Not only does he 
vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he vaccinates himself 
against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL reader experiences a 
strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who, when 
he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what his own experience is of 
himself when he does this.

Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone 
writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there.

It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the 
quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to remain 
inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he has been 
posting only to himself.  As if this were the case, since he has removed 
himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the experience of the 
reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to reality and what 
abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter about which he is 
writing.

BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or scornful 
or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting to challenge 
what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a real intention 
inside the other person, is the extent to which that intention--and the writing 
of a counter-post--will end up in empty space--No one is there.

BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > CORRECTION BELOW
> 
> Oh, my. Thank you! We musn't have anything amiss in this vital
> communication.

Do you think they're finished with this orgy of 
ego and nastiness yet? 

Do you think that either of them (Judy and Robin)
is even *capable* of understanding how insane this
level of self-absorbed narcissism reveals them to
be? Well over 40 posts between the two of them,
in one day, ranting to (as far as I can tell) no 
one, because no one sane would bother to read 
them. One really has to wonder what *happened*
to these two people to make them this crazy,
and this incapable of realizing that they're
crazy. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

There was an error in my last post, Curtis. I have amended it to give the 
correct numbers.

We can both drop the body now, I figure.

RC

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Curtis,
> 
> It turns out, just as you say, I did in fact respond "exhaustively and 
> exhaustingly" to this post.
> 
> Here is the record of our conversation.
> 
> First of all: this is the post to which your reposted post below is a 
> response:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321523
> 
> After reading your post I responded with the following:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321877
> 
> You then posted this::
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321932
> 
> Then I really let you have it, and posted the marathon three-part series 
> (which took a great deal out of me--lost now and remembered only by God or 
> the empty meaningless universe):
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322287
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322288
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290
> 
> You never responded.
> 
> But you exited (as I am wont to do from time to time) with this:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322482.
> 
> Given what you have just admitted to me in your last post of tonight, I will 
> assume your putting that post up there today was sort of waving a white flag?
> 
> I mean it wouldn't be had I ignored this post you have reposted. But 
> evidently I went nuts, and just wrote and wrote.
> 
> I won't press this, Curtis, but I will always wonder: Why did Curtis repost 
> that post, knowing as he did, that I answered him "exhaustively and 
> exhaustingly"--and put my soul into it? Especially that three-part post.
> 
> No matter.
> 
> Márgarét, áre you gríeving
> Over Goldengrove unleaving?
> Leáves, like the things of man, you
> With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
> Áh! ás the héart grows ólder
> It will come to such sights colder
> By and by, nor spare a sigh
> Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
> And yet you will weep and know why.
> Now no matter, child, the name:
> Sórrow's springs are the same.
> Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
> What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed:
> It is the blight man was bórn for,
> It is Margaret you mourn for.
> 
> GMH
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare 
> > > this on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections 
> > > you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the 
> > > way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have 
> > > put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > > 
> > > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> > > myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> > > could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> > > chance, Curtis.
> > 
> > 
> > Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> > believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> > 
> > Snip
> > > 
> > > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of 
> > > your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in 
> > > the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am 
> > > concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which 
> > > fulfil your claim that you  having "spent a lot of time examining your 
> > > articulation of your epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view 
> > > of this claim". >
> > 
> > Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> > 
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> > >
> > > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered 
> > > once
> > they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion 
> > of
> > life?
> > 
> > M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.
> > 
> > >
> > > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth 
> > > is
> > an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
> > dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
> > intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL 
> > being
> > C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there 
> > is a
> > single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least
> > consciously.
> > 
> > M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea 
> > of
> > "truth" as an objective thing and

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Curtis,

It turns out, just as you say, I did in fact respond "exhaustively and 
exhaustingly" to this post.

Here is the record of our conversation.

First of all: this is the post to which your reposted post below is a response:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321523

After reading your post I responded with the following:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290

You then posted this::

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321932

Then I really let you have it, and posted the marathon three-part series (which 
took a great deal out of me--lost now and remembered only by God or the empty 
meaningless universe):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322287

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322288

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290

You never responded.

But you exited (as I am wont to do from time to time) with this:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322482.

Given what you have just admitted to me in your last post of tonight, I will 
assume your putting that post up there today was sort of waving a white flag?

I mean it wouldn't be had I ignored this post you have reposted. But evidently 
I went nuts, and just wrote and wrote.

I won't press this, Curtis, but I will always wonder: Why did Curtis repost 
that post, knowing as he did, that I answered him "exhaustively and 
exhaustingly"--and put my soul into it? Especially that three-part post.

No matter.

Márgarét, áre you gríeving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leáves, like the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Áh! ás the héart grows ólder
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And yet you will weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name:
Sórrow's springs are the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed:
It is the blight man was bórn for,
It is Margaret you mourn for.

GMH



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this 
> > on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might 
> > have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you 
> > insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself 
> > on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > 
> > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> > myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> > could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> > chance, Curtis.
> 
> 
> Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> 
> Snip
> > 
> > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your 
> > tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the 
> > intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except 
> > at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that 
> > you  having "spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your 
> > epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view of this claim". >
> 
> Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> >
> > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered 
> > once
> they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of
> life?
> 
> M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.
> 
> >
> > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is
> an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
> dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
> intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being
> C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is 
> a
> single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least
> consciously.
> 
> M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of
> "truth" as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples
> that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of
> objective truth. But he will try...
> 
> 
> >
> > Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came,
> exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons
> utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no
> one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[John]

Share,

The movie is a detective story in a monastery setting during the Middle Ages.  
The character (that Sean Connery was playing) was in a hot pursuit of the 
murderer of the monks in the monastery.  It turned out that the culprit was the 
old blind abbot who poisoned the pages of an ancient book of comedy.  Why?  
Because the old abbot believed that laughing was a sin.  

I just thought that you may have seen the movie.  But you can probably see the 
application of the movie plot here on FFL with this particular thread. :)

JR

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Oy, another cryptic man!  Recommending a movie about a whole monastery of 
> cryptic men!  Ah, time for the Dome, cryptic women (-:
> Hey John, worried about Mars Ketu coming up in June, I had a reading with 
> Bill Levacy.  His prediction:  accelerated (Mars) stable (Saturn) expansion 
> (Guru).  I have seen this movie in the library but Sean Connery, as cute as 
> he is, was not inspiration enough to induce me to borrow.
> 
> Thanks for good wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:19 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
>  
> 
>   
> Share,
> 
> The message that you seek is in this film.  Have fun. :)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-yYJgpQ-CE
> 
> JR
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are called HAVING 
> > FUN!  Duh!  If that's what you call being out of control, then so be 
> > it.  Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.  I 
> > both enjoy and understand his writing.  Now to reflect a little Judy 
> > back to you:
> > what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> > 
> > PS  If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then maybe you could 
> > relax a little?  Have some fun yourself?  Instead of trying to 
> > prevent WWIII on FFL?  Just a suggestion.   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> > Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> > to start World War III here on FFL.
> > 
> > You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> > to you about yourself.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're 
> > > in step with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune 
> > > with a secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same 
> > > melody that someone else is and that's delightful.  
> > > 
> > > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance 
> > > extravaganza.  Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of 
> > > melodies.  Judy is gifted at focusing on the individuals 
> > > steps.  But really, only the dancer himself or herself can know 
> > > which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the judges can 
> > > be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud 
> > > music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck 
> > > with idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has 
> > > given to my Dolphie valentine, which even this morning she posted about, 
> > > saying she considers it idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will 
> > > you allow me to create a new word just for Judy?
> > > 
> > > Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> > > that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a 
> > > competition so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any 
> > > help about this also appreciated.
> > > 
> > > PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing 
> > > process when there has been an offense.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

Thanks Judy. I did read it the first time soon after you posted it and was 
thinking of responding but you beat me to the punch. Of course apology accepted.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> LG, please see my post to Curtis--
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340307
> 
> --if you haven't already, for my apology for my confusion
> about who wrote the post I'm now responding to.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > > > 
> > > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > > > 
> > > > on·set
> > > > noun
> > > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> > > 
> > > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> > > 
> > > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
> > 
> > In this case, you are absolutely correct Judy. "Outset",
> > not "onset", was used which narrows the field of possible
> > meanings. However, I still trust *my* initial reaction
> > when I first read it as meaning the outset of this more
> > recent exchange between the two because it has been a
> > long time since there had been exchanges of any kind.
> 
> That's not really the case. Robin wasn't here at all
> from shortly before Christmas till the past week, but he
> and Share had had numerous encounters from the time of
> their big blow-up until he left before Christmas (mostly
> due to Share making various provocative comments about or
> to Robin).
> 
> As I pointed out to Curtis, Curtis's first awareness of
> the exchanges between Share and Robin was that very
> conflict, which he himself joined on Share's side. So
> it would have been only natural (albeit mistaken) for
> him to assume Robin had started their discussions with
> unfriendly motivations.
> 
> > I also think that everyone is aware that very rarely do
> > exchanges between posters on this forum start out at the
> > very beginning as hostile or negative.
> 
> It's not that rare, in fact. Barry does it all the time
> to newbies. He did it to Robin shortly after Robin joined
> us.
> 
> > > But you knew that.
> > 
> > I don't think so.
> 
> I thought you were Curtis when I wrote that. He'd have known
> what he had written.
> 
> Again, my apologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > > thankfully.
> > > 
> > > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > > it will have been worth your time.
> > > 
> > > *plonk*
> > 
> > Not much of a rejoinder to find brilliant. I *do* appreciate what Curtis, 
> > Steve, and others contribute on this forum because on the outset, it 
> > *feels* good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when defending someone. Not 
> > so the case with others. But you knew that.
> > 
> > [snip]
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

LG, please see my post to Curtis--

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340307

--if you haven't already, for my apology for my confusion
about who wrote the post I'm now responding to.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  
> > > > > wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > > 
> > > on·set
> > > noun
> > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> > 
> > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> > 
> > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
> 
> In this case, you are absolutely correct Judy. "Outset",
> not "onset", was used which narrows the field of possible
> meanings. However, I still trust *my* initial reaction
> when I first read it as meaning the outset of this more
> recent exchange between the two because it has been a
> long time since there had been exchanges of any kind.

That's not really the case. Robin wasn't here at all
from shortly before Christmas till the past week, but he
and Share had had numerous encounters from the time of
their big blow-up until he left before Christmas (mostly
due to Share making various provocative comments about or
to Robin).

As I pointed out to Curtis, Curtis's first awareness of
the exchanges between Share and Robin was that very
conflict, which he himself joined on Share's side. So
it would have been only natural (albeit mistaken) for
him to assume Robin had started their discussions with
unfriendly motivations.

> I also think that everyone is aware that very rarely do
> exchanges between posters on this forum start out at the
> very beginning as hostile or negative.

It's not that rare, in fact. Barry does it all the time
to newbies. He did it to Robin shortly after Robin joined
us.

> > But you knew that.
> 
> I don't think so.

I thought you were Curtis when I wrote that. He'd have known
what he had written.

Again, my apologies.






> > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > thankfully.
> > 
> > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > it will have been worth your time.
> > 
> > *plonk*
> 
> Not much of a rejoinder to find brilliant. I *do* appreciate what Curtis, 
> Steve, and others contribute on this forum because on the outset, it *feels* 
> good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when defending someone. Not so the 
> case with others. But you knew that.
> 
> [snip]
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> I'm sure at the time you "answered" it exhaustively and
> exhaustingly. I should have included the post number but
> I had already cut and pasted and I couldn't backtrack.
> It has Summa Wrestling in the title.

No, it doesn't. It was headed "How to Know Reality's Point
of View," and it was the first post in the thread. You even
included the heading in your quote of your response to it
(see below). "Summa Wrestling" was a much earlier exchange
between you and Robin (back in July 2011, for pete's sake).

Here's Robin's original post to which you were replying:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321523

Here's Robin's response to your reply:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290

And your response to him:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321932

Then came his three-part series in reply to your response:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322287
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322288
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290

You never responded to any of these.





> 
> At the time I asked if any of your defenders would like to take a crack at 
> explaining your POV and Ravi did the best.  Unfortunately he had to neuter 
> your actual points to make it all sound very reasonable, but he did put in 
> the effort on your behalf.  And if his presentation was actually what you did 
> mean, it would have taken all the power out of accusations that you were 
> coming from an odd place.  A place where you could claim to transcend the 
> limits of your own subjectivity and serve up a truth that was aligned with 
> "reality".
> 
> So glad you enjoyed the writing prompts.  I'll see if I can hang but you 
> might just wear me down again.  I did read your posts today despite my 
> protests.  Not much to say except you seem to be having a good time so that 
> is really all a performer like me can hope for. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > I WILL ANSWER THIS, CURTIS--IF I DIDN'T AT THE TIME.
> > 
> > Seems pretty meaty.
> > 
> > But make sure you read my four posts from today--just in preparation for 
> > what will be coming towards you when I answer THIS.
> > 
> > It might turn out, once I read through this, that I decide it was most 
> > appropriate for you to answer me in this way. We shall see.
> > 
> > So, I suspend any judgment about the fittingness of your having reposted 
> > something from our past, Curtis. At least until I have read through this 
> > with the care I always give your posts.
> > 
> > But I must say: regardless of what I have said in the past, today, I really 
> > did get out so much that I believe I have never got out before.
> > 
> > So, I am hoping you allow yourself to see if I may have said something that 
> > goes to what really interests you.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Robin
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare 
> > > > this on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections 
> > > > you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me 
> > > > the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. 
> > > > I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > > > 
> > > > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something 
> > > > about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I 
> > > > suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just 
> > > > give reality a chance, Curtis.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> > > believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> > > 
> > > Snip
> > > > 
> > > > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > > > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of 
> > > > your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in 
> > > > the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am 
> > > > concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which 
> > > > fulfil your claim that you  having "spent a lot of time examining your 
> > > > articulation of your epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view 
> > > > of this claim". >
> > > 
> > > Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> > > 
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> > > >
> > > > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never 
> > > > considered once
> > > they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that 
> > > notion of
> > > life?
> > > 
> > > M:

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

I'm sure at the time you "answered" it exhaustively and exhaustingly. I should 
have included the post number but I had already cut and pasted and I couldn't 
backtrack.  It has Summa Wrestling in the title.

At the time I asked if any of your defenders would like to take a crack at 
explaining your POV and Ravi did the best.  Unfortunately he had to neuter your 
actual points to make it all sound very reasonable, but he did put in the 
effort on your behalf.  And if his presentation was actually what you did mean, 
it would have taken all the power out of accusations that you were coming from 
an odd place.  A place where you could claim to transcend the limits of your 
own subjectivity and serve up a truth that was aligned with "reality".

So glad you enjoyed the writing prompts.  I'll see if I can hang but you might 
just wear me down again.  I did read your posts today despite my protests.  Not 
much to say except you seem to be having a good time so that is really all a 
performer like me can hope for. 







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> I WILL ANSWER THIS, CURTIS--IF I DIDN'T AT THE TIME.
> 
> Seems pretty meaty.
> 
> But make sure you read my four posts from today--just in preparation for what 
> will be coming towards you when I answer THIS.
> 
> It might turn out, once I read through this, that I decide it was most 
> appropriate for you to answer me in this way. We shall see.
> 
> So, I suspend any judgment about the fittingness of your having reposted 
> something from our past, Curtis. At least until I have read through this with 
> the care I always give your posts.
> 
> But I must say: regardless of what I have said in the past, today, I really 
> did get out so much that I believe I have never got out before.
> 
> So, I am hoping you allow yourself to see if I may have said something that 
> goes to what really interests you.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Robin
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare 
> > > this on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections 
> > > you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the 
> > > way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have 
> > > put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > > 
> > > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> > > myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> > > could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> > > chance, Curtis.
> > 
> > 
> > Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> > believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> > 
> > Snip
> > > 
> > > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of 
> > > your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in 
> > > the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am 
> > > concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which 
> > > fulfil your claim that you  having "spent a lot of time examining your 
> > > articulation of your epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view 
> > > of this claim". >
> > 
> > Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> > 
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> > >
> > > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered 
> > > once
> > they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion 
> > of
> > life?
> > 
> > M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.
> > 
> > >
> > > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth 
> > > is
> > an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
> > dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
> > intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL 
> > being
> > C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there 
> > is a
> > single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least
> > consciously.
> > 
> > M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea 
> > of
> > "truth" as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples
> > that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of
> > objective truth. But he will try...
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came,
> > exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons
> > utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that 
> > no
> > o

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

I WILL ANSWER THIS, CURTIS--IF I DIDN'T AT THE TIME.

Seems pretty meaty.

But make sure you read my four posts from today--just in preparation for what 
will be coming towards you when I answer THIS.

It might turn out, once I read through this, that I decide it was most 
appropriate for you to answer me in this way. We shall see.

So, I suspend any judgment about the fittingness of your having reposted 
something from our past, Curtis. At least until I have read through this with 
the care I always give your posts.

But I must say: regardless of what I have said in the past, today, I really did 
get out so much that I believe I have never got out before.

So, I am hoping you allow yourself to see if I may have said something that 
goes to what really interests you.

Sincerely,

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this 
> > on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might 
> > have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you 
> > insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself 
> > on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > 
> > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> > myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> > could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> > chance, Curtis.
> 
> 
> Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> 
> Snip
> > 
> > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your 
> > tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the 
> > intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except 
> > at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that 
> > you  having "spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your 
> > epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view of this claim". >
> 
> Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> >
> > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered 
> > once
> they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of
> life?
> 
> M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.
> 
> >
> > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is
> an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
> dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
> intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being
> C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is 
> a
> single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least
> consciously.
> 
> M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of
> "truth" as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples
> that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of
> objective truth. But he will try...
> 
> 
> >
> > Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came,
> exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons
> utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no
> one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart 
> enough
> to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will, that THIS
> REALITY, IN ANY DISPUTE ON FFL, HAS A POINT OF VIEW. Now since this reality is
> more powerful and necessary than any of us are, it must mean that the point of
> view of reality is where the truth lies.
> 
> M: Again the collage. He is mixing up the definition of a God here with our
> personal existence by his oblique reference to something smart enough to 
> "bring
> us into existence with this complex thing called free will." Leaving for now
> the neurological data that seems to say that free will is an illusion, I will
> focus on his personification of the concept of a "reality" that can be
> personified to having a POV. Even if this assumption were true, it would not
> preclude the necessity for one of us to claim to know what that was. Anyone?
> Only Robin? OK let's see if he can make his case.
> 
> >
> > The unconscious assumption of most posters on FFL is: NO ONE CAN KNOW WHAT
> REALITY'S POINT OF VIEW IS. So we just go it alone, determined to uphold our 
> own
> first person perspective (that's for you, PaliGap) regardless of the Platonic
> notion of the Form of the Good--or whatever we want to call what is
> metaph

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Curtis,

I get it. More irony. You give the impression you ARE RESPONDING TO TODAY'S 
POSTS FROM ROBIN BY BEGINNING THIS POST WITH A QUOTATION FROM ONE OF TODAY'S 
POSTS. But then quickly you advert to an old post--and then that's all that is 
there.

What, pray tell, Curtis, was your thinking here?

Am I really that repetitive? That you can just repost an old post?

Astonishing.

You think me insincere in all that I wrote today, Curtis?

I must have struck a pretty major nerve.

Don't say that, Robin: Curtis did his duty to God, country, and atheism today 
in just reposting a post from the distant past. Live with it, Robin.

OK. I get it now. You didn't like me answering. It hurt you.

Well, I wanted to hurt you, Curtis, because you were BS-ing a lot.

Not all the time, mind you.

For Christ's sake, read the goddam posts, Curtis--all four of them.

You will find some writing prompts, surely.

You are undoubtedly a necessary character, Curtis.

There is a lot more to happen inside the Story.

I am hoping it goes beyond science.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Oh Christ: I didn't see this, Curtis, until I had got to the very end of PART 
> IV. Looks as if I have some more ego and status defending to do. Thanks. I 
> will tackle this just as soon as I can.
> 
> Looks promising. I will look to see if anything you say, or why you say it, 
> seems to be at variance with what I have said about you in those four posts.
> 
> I will get to this, Curtis. Glad you changed your mind about responding--but 
> WHY NOT BEGIN WITH PART 1?
> 
> We will get this straightened out somehow, Curtis. I love how determined you 
> are to push me back. Might there not, JUST POSSIBLY, be something, though, 
> that I accidentally hit upon which can be received respectfully and calmly?
> 
> You would make of me someone who can only attack you. I am not attacking you, 
> Curtis.
> 
> The protocols of philosophy must SOMETIMES take second place to just plain 
> human honesty and passion and sincerity. No?
> 
> But I have not read what you have posted here. But I will. And I will answer 
> you.
> 
> It seems, however, that a more fitting response [from you] would include all 
> four posts.
> 
> You already said that, Robin.
> 
> All the words I expended, and not once did I even come close to hitting the 
> mark.
> 
> That is a pretty ignominious result from all my mental concentration and 
> loving feeling, Curtis.
> 
> Good evening to you.
> 
> We can certainly keep this going.
> 
> Robin
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare 
> > > this on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections 
> > > you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the 
> > > way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have 
> > > put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > > 
> > > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> > > myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> > > could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> > > chance, Curtis.
> > 
> > 
> > Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> > believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> > 
> > Snip
> > > 
> > > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of 
> > > your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in 
> > > the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am 
> > > concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which 
> > > fulfil your claim that you  having "spent a lot of time examining your 
> > > articulation of your epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view 
> > > of this claim". >
> > 
> > Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> > 
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> > >
> > > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered 
> > > once
> > they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion 
> > of
> > life?
> > 
> > M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.
> > 
> > >
> > > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth 
> > > is
> > an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
> > dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
> > intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL 
> > being
> > C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there 
> > is a
> > single principle which I believe almo

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Oh, Jesus Christ again. I goofed. Just began reading this over, and realized 
YOU HAVE REPOSTED AN OLD POST. Hey, Curtis, I was Lesser Evolved then. Why hold 
me to the nonsense I said in the PAST? I am beyond and above all that now, 
Curtis. I sense the stresses here still lodged in my nervous system. I have 
purified myself since this was composed. I must assume: I DID NOT ANSWER THIS?

I don't defend my past self in quite the same way I must defend my present self.

You have done something underhanded and disappointing: insinuating that you 
HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH ROBIN BEFORE THIS, so trotting out this old post, will 
do the job.

But it won't Curtis; it just won't. Because I AM COMING OUT WITH A WHOLE 
CONSTELLATION OF NEW IDEAS in these four posts from today--haven't  you noticed?

I will have to find out the chronology of this post--very disappointing, 
Curtis: Curtis to all FFL readers: This guy Robin doesn't say anything new. 
Hey, I have already smashed him to pieces intellectually before. Want to see 
the proof?

You have never become this desperate, Curtis. Still, it will do me good to 
reread what you said to the more primitive Robin.

I will have to judge the appropriateness of what you have done here--ignoring 
my four posts--and reposting a response from you from way back (I don't know 
how far, however).

If your reposted post merits a response that I never gave to it--and it 
deserved such a response--then I will certainly answer it (because not having 
answered it just might justify your inserting it as a substitute for the effort 
and irritation of having to respond to what I wrote to you today).

But at least read what i wrote to you, Curtis. Will you do that?

I hope so.

I will look at this--and see whether at the time I responded or not.

But I suppose all that I wrote today, it was mainly for me anyhow.

You are a beautiful adversary to have, Curtis. I am fortunate indeed.

I do expect that you will see how many fresh things I have presented in my 
analysis of your post here in Parts I, II. III & IV.

We are inside a Story, Curtis. I am sure of this.

Glad we are keeping in touch.

Robin



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this 
> > on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might 
> > have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you 
> > insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself 
> > on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > 
> > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> > myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> > could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> > chance, Curtis.
> 
> 
> Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> 
> Snip
> > 
> > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your 
> > tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the 
> > intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except 
> > at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that 
> > you  having "spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your 
> > epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view of this claim". >
> 
> Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> >
> > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered 
> > once
> they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of
> life?
> 
> M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.
> 
> >
> > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is
> an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
> dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
> intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being
> C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is 
> a
> single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least
> consciously.
> 
> M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of
> "truth" as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples
> that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of
> objective truth. But he will try...
> 
> 
> >
> > Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came,
> exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons
> utterly unique in our experience 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Oh Christ: I didn't see this, Curtis, until I had got to the very end of PART 
IV. Looks as if I have some more ego and status defending to do. Thanks. I will 
tackle this just as soon as I can.

Looks promising. I will look to see if anything you say, or why you say it, 
seems to be at variance with what I have said about you in those four posts.

I will get to this, Curtis. Glad you changed your mind about responding--but 
WHY NOT BEGIN WITH PART 1?

We will get this straightened out somehow, Curtis. I love how determined you 
are to push me back. Might there not, JUST POSSIBLY, be something, though, that 
I accidentally hit upon which can be received respectfully and calmly?

You would make of me someone who can only attack you. I am not attacking you, 
Curtis.

The protocols of philosophy must SOMETIMES take second place to just plain 
human honesty and passion and sincerity. No?

But I have not read what you have posted here. But I will. And I will answer 
you.

It seems, however, that a more fitting response [from you] would include all 
four posts.

You already said that, Robin.

All the words I expended, and not once did I even come close to hitting the 
mark.

That is a pretty ignominious result from all my mental concentration and loving 
feeling, Curtis.

Good evening to you.

We can certainly keep this going.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this 
> > on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might 
> > have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you 
> > insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself 
> > on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> > 
> > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> > myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> > could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> > chance, Curtis.
> 
> 
> Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
> believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?
> 
> Snip
> > 
> > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all 
> > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your 
> > tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the 
> > intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except 
> > at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that 
> > you  having "spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your 
> > epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view of this claim". >
> 
> Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > How to Know Reality's Point of View
> >
> > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered 
> > once
> they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of
> life?
> 
> M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.
> 
> >
> > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is
> an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
> dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
> intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being
> C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is 
> a
> single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least
> consciously.
> 
> M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of
> "truth" as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples
> that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of
> objective truth. But he will try...
> 
> 
> >
> > Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came,
> exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons
> utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no
> one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart 
> enough
> to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will, that THIS
> REALITY, IN ANY DISPUTE ON FFL, HAS A POINT OF VIEW. Now since this reality is
> more powerful and necessary than any of us are, it must mean that the point of
> view of reality is where the truth lies.
> 
> M: Again the collage. He is mixing up the definition of a God here with our
> personal existence by his oblique reference to something smart enough to 
> "bring
> us into existence with this complex thing called free will." Leaving for now
> the neurological data that seems to say that free will is an illusion, I will
> focus on his personification of the concept of a "reality"

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108
 wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand
this,
> > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic
> > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > >
> > > on·set
> > > noun
> > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> >
> > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> >
> > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
>
> In this case, you are absolutely correct Judy. "Outset", not "onset",
was used which narrows the field of possible meanings. However, I still
trust *my* initial reaction when I first read it as meaning the outset
of this more recent exchange between the two because it has been a long
time since there had been exchanges of any kind. I also think that
everyone is aware that very rarely do exchanges between posters on this
forum start out at the very beginning as hostile or negative.
>
> > But you knew that.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > thankfully.
> >
> > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > it will have been worth your time.
> >
> > *plonk*
>
> Not much of a rejoinder to find brilliant. I *do* appreciate what
Curtis, Steve, and others contribute on this forum because on the
outset, it *feels* good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when
defending someone. Not so the case with others. But you knew that.
>
> [snip]
>
Raunchy! Raunchy! Where the hell are you?!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

One additional comment here:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.  
> 
> This is why you have to derail all conversations into
> idiotic word parsing like this beyond all reason.

Since written words are the medium of communication on this
forum (aside from the occasional videos and graphics), it is
often important to be able to "parse" them to make sure one 
understands what is being communicated and to determine
whether the communication makes sense and is honest.

There are several people here--you among them--who use words
with considerable skill to deceive. Others use words in such
a slovenly fashion that they end up contradicting themselves
and creating logical muddles of all kinds (Barry is the
prime example here, although he also makes use of deceptive
wording).

Too few of the participants here, IMHO, read what is
written with enough attention to be able to spot deception
and illogic, or even to grasp the point being made.

It's understandable why you and some others would prefer
not to have your words examined too closely.

Yes, sometimes conversations become "derailed" when it's
pointed out that one party has written something dishonest
or nonsensical in an attempt to advance their argument.

>From my perspective, this is a Good Thing. YMMV, of course.

> You can't follow conversations here with any depth.

This, of course, is a perfectly ridiculous accusation
that is refuted by innumerable examples (including
quite a few detailed conversations between you and me).

I've dealt with the rest of this supremely ill-considered
post in my previous response.

(snip)

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.
>
> This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word
parsing like this beyond all reason. You can't follow conversations here
with any depth.
>
> It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what
Robin said about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never
tried to engage in a conversation about the problems with his
epistemology.
>
> So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the
head for your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.
>
> Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.
>
> And here we come to a problem with no solution.
>
> He knows your secret too.


Now that was your lowest blow Curtis.  The truth can be that way,
though.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Share, I beg of you not to hold Judy to the so called standards she
demands of others. She has had enough embarassment for one day.  If
she's smart, she'll find an excuse to post out at the earliest
convenience to save what little face she has left.  Mercy is called for
at this point.  (-:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
> Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are called
HAVING FUN!  Duh!  If that's what you call being out of control,
then so be it.  Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this
reality topic.  I both enjoy and understand his writing.  Now to
reflect a little Judy back to you:
> what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
>
> PSÂ  If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then maybe you
could relax a little?  Have some fun yourself?  Instead of
trying to prevent WWIII on FFL?  Just a suggestion. Â
>
>
>
> 
> From: authfriend authfriend@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
>
>
> Â
> Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> to start World War III here on FFL.
>
> You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> to you about yourself.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a
very complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes
we're in step with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in
tune with a secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the
same melody that someone else is and that's delightful.ÂÂ
> >
> > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance
extravaganza.  Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of
melodies.  Judy is gifted at focusing on the individuals
steps.  But really, only the dancer himself or herself can know
which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the judges can
be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud
music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> >
> >
> > Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to
truck with idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she
has given to my Dolphie valentine, which even this morning she posted
about, saying she considers it idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism. 
Will you allow me to create a new word just for Judy?
> >
> > Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly
informs me that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize
FFL is a competition so I'm not sure of what I have fallen
behind.  Any help about this also appreciated.
> >
> > PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing
process when there has been an offense.
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" 
wrote:
> >  (With regard to Robin):
> > > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever
"reality" is trying to tell them.
> >
> > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on.
Does 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might
be, it seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the
world how it should be and how we ought to be.
> >
> > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather
slowly if at all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in
charge of interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn
anything from Robin, except that eventually you are under attack for not
knowing what is expected of you.
> >
> > It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you
to ensnare you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have
a lot of time on your hands, because you will be swamped with long
discourses which take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she
understands these, but if you ask her to interpret them for you, she
will not comply, for it is beneath her to truck with idiots, and thus
she does not have to demonstrate she understands what Robin says.
> >
> > With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy
will correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this,
but in an argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject
matter is music, Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is
poetry, Robin might be fine to discourse with.
> >
> > If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually
take on just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you
alone that has to tackle it.
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

Oy, another cryptic man!  Recommending a movie about a whole monastery of 
cryptic men!  Ah, time for the Dome, cryptic women (-:
Hey John, worried about Mars Ketu coming up in June, I had a reading with Bill 
Levacy.  His prediction:  accelerated (Mars) stable (Saturn) expansion (Guru).  
I have seen this movie in the library but Sean Connery, as cute as he is, was 
not inspiration enough to induce me to borrow.

Thanks for good wishes.




 From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:19 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
Share,

The message that you seek is in this film.  Have fun. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-yYJgpQ-CE

JR

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are called HAVING FUN! 
>  Duh!  If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.  Also I 
> was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.  I both enjoy and 
> understand his writing.  Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> 
> PS  If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then maybe you could relax 
> a little?  Have some fun yourself?  Instead of trying to prevent WWIII on 
> FFL?  Just a suggestion.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> 
> 
>   
> Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> to start World War III here on FFL.
> 
> You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> to you about yourself.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step 
> > with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a 
> > secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that 
> > someone else is and that's delightful.  
> > 
> > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  
> > Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at 
> > focusing on the individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself 
> > or herself can know which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the 
> > judges can be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud 
> > music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> > 
> > 
> > Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck 
> > with idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to 
> > my Dolphie valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying she 
> > considers it idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to 
> > create a new word just for Judy?
> > 
> > Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> > that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a 
> > competition so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help 
> > about this also appreciated.
> > 
> > PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process 
> > when there has been an offense.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >  (With regard to Robin):
> > > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> > > trying to tell them.
> > 
> > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
> > 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it 
> > seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how 
> > it should be and how we ought to be. 
> > 
> > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
> > all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
> > interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from 
> > Robin, except that eventually you are under

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

PART IV

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

Curtis1: And having been the focus of your unasked for improvement sessions 
myself, I have to say that you aren't that perceptive Robin.

Robin2: I am the second or third most perceptive person I have known, Curtis. 
Again--I have said this repeatedly--you have the unique distinction of uttering 
a judgment like this: "I have to say that you aren't that perceptive, 
Robin"--ENTIRELY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION TO THIS EFFECT THAT HAS MADE 
ITS WAY INTO YOUR MEMORY THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCE. Who knows? I may be exactly 
what you say I am, Curtis: not that perceptive--but I will never know this from 
you, because your conclusion does not represent the assimilation of any data 
which would allow you to feel when you said this, THAT IT IS TRUE. This is an 
absolute belief/perception of mine about you, Curtis. And anyone who does not 
grasp what I am saying about you, and its ramifications when it comes to 
arguing with you, is at a serious disadvantage. It has taken me sometime to 
understand this Curtis Principle, but now that I have formulated (guess how? 
from observing and registering what you do: *data*) this principle your 
exemplification of said principle is unfailing. And all of those who find 
comfort and succorance in reading your posts, they need to examine my 
ascertainment--to see if it conforms to their experience. 

But this, 'you' (whoever you are who needs to continue to get that good feeling 
off of Curtis--I know what it's like; I once had it too) will not examine this 
principle. And that's fine. It is just that it's true. And Curtis is about to 
admit it too. Right, Curtis? What about you, Barry?

You realize the irony potential in any denial of this. That in order for this 
to be disproven you will have to summon up the data which contradicts my 
conclusion. And it just isn't there.

Careful, Robin. You could be on the edge of a great fall here. What if you're 
wrong?

Well, if I am, I will know it. How's that?

 Robin1 : No, Curtis, when it comes to yourself, I have nailed you pretty good. 
At least you have not ever tried to argue against anything I have said about 
you. You have just said: This is not allowed, Robin.

Curtis1: And perhaps you are in person, so you have developed an unnaturally 
high self-regard about this ability, but it isn't cutting it here.

Robin1: I feel it cutting every time, Curtis. And if "it isn't cutting it 
here"then your having proven this will cut much deeper than my not-cutting. 
Right? I am cutting it to the extent to which you have utterly failed to catch 
me in the act of not cutting it.

 Curtis1: You have been running a formula and it is increasingly obvious.

Robin1: TELL ME WHAT THAT FORMULA IS, CURTIS, because, at least for me, it is
not "increasingly obvious". If you can describe my formula . . .

Curtis2: I have numerous times, but as I said, you are immune to such feedback.

Robin2: Whoa, Curtis: I want you to remind me of the outlines of that formula, 
a formula which explains convincingly, persuasively what I am all about here on 
FFL when I try to get reality (through me) to beat people up and tell them: You 
are wrong. I am right.

Out with it, Curtis. I tell you, I am praying for this disclosure, even though, 
according to you, it will be merely a reiteration of what you have said 
"numerous times". I wait for it--again, Curtis--since in my denial I have 
forgotten the terrible power and truth of your revelation about me. A formula. 
Robin uses a formula. 

Well, all that I can say, Curtis, is THAT GODDAM FORMULA BETTER BE BASED UPON 
YOUR EXPERIENCE--and as well, a sense of its [my formula's] unnaturalness and 
violative properties. Just make sure, for Christ's sake, that it is REAL. I am 
praying for you, Curtis. That you can access your experience and your 
intelligence when you reformulate it for me. I need this reminder, Curtis. Do 
not torture me while I wait for this shock to the system.

Thanks for the Hi, Share. A warm and friendly Hi to you, too.

Again.

Robin1: [If you can describe me formula, Curtis--and I or anyone else 
recognizes it is accurate and objectively true--I promise you I will apologize 
to Share, to Barry, to Steve, but most especially to yourself. My experience 
when I do this, Curtis, it is too profound to be subject to a formula. But 
again: let me examine what that formula is. I really want you to set it out for 
the record. You need to do this, Curtis. What is Robin's Formula? Because if 
indeed it is a formula, then it can't align itself with the stringent demands 
of truth--especially when it comes to something as complex as the human soul. 
More needed here, Curtis.

Curtis2: Bullshit. Been there, done that. In fact I am doing it here and your 
response
is as predicted.

Robin2: No, I don't see a 'formula' as such which would explain and account for 
and invalidate the truthfulness of what I am doing, Curtis. You have never 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

Curtis, I have to apologize to you and laughinggull. I
had thought the post you were responding to here was
from *you* when it was actually from laughinggull. So
you were not complimenting yourself but him; and you've
made only two nonrefutation posts, not four.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Wow, *three* nonrefutation rejoinders--and all he does
> in this one is compliment *himself* on how funny his
> first one was.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > >
> > snip> > > 
> > Judy
> > 
> > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > > 
> > > on·set
> > > noun
> > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> > > 
> > > please continue...
> > 
> > That was really funny.  Not to mention the absurdity of her making a case 
> > for what my actual meaning was!  Because she knows and I am being deceptive 
> > in that special way that only she and Robin can see.
> > 
> > I have a feeling that I am seeing where some of my special students are 
> > going to end up.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >  
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> > > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > > > 
> > > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > > > 
> > > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > > > recent exchange with Share..."
> > > > 
> > > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > > > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > > > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > > > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > > > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> > > > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > > > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > > > 
> > > > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > > > backpedal from a mistake.
> > > > 
> > > > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > > > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > > > 
> > > > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > > > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > > > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > > > 
> > > > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > > > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > > > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > > > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > > > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > > > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> > > > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> > > > 
> > > > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> > > > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> > > > friendly.
> > > > 
> > > > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> > > > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> > > > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> > > > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> > > > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> > > > of intention to understand on your part.
> > > > 
> > > > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> > > > paragraph:
> > > > 
> > > > "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> > > > and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
> > > > considering that you are just letting her have it with both
> > > > barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our 
> > > > conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
> > > > lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
> > > > assault."
> > > > 
> > > > "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to y

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this 
> on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might 
> have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you 
> insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself 
> on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
> 
> There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about 
> myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I 
> could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a 
> chance, Curtis.


Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck.  You get to decide what I 
believe.  Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you?

Snip
> 
> Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional. 
> The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in 
> argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface 
> of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I 
> don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you  having "spent a 
> lot of time examining your articulation of your epistemology"--and so I can't 
> "know of [your] view of this claim". >

Right, I can see how you missed this one for example:

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> How to Know Reality's Point of View
>
> There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered once
they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of
life?

M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got.

>
> Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is
an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in
dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and
intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being
C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is a
single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least
consciously.

M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of
"truth" as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples
that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of
objective truth. But he will try...


>
> Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came,
exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons
utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no
one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart enough
to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will, that THIS
REALITY, IN ANY DISPUTE ON FFL, HAS A POINT OF VIEW. Now since this reality is
more powerful and necessary than any of us are, it must mean that the point of
view of reality is where the truth lies.

M: Again the collage. He is mixing up the definition of a God here with our
personal existence by his oblique reference to something smart enough to "bring
us into existence with this complex thing called free will." Leaving for now
the neurological data that seems to say that free will is an illusion, I will
focus on his personification of the concept of a "reality" that can be
personified to having a POV. Even if this assumption were true, it would not
preclude the necessity for one of us to claim to know what that was. Anyone?
Only Robin? OK let's see if he can make his case.

>
> The unconscious assumption of most posters on FFL is: NO ONE CAN KNOW WHAT
REALITY'S POINT OF VIEW IS. So we just go it alone, determined to uphold our own
first person perspective (that's for you, PaliGap) regardless of the Platonic
notion of the Form of the Good--or whatever we want to call what is
metaphysically ultimate: why there is something rather than nothing.

M: This is now approaching word salad. He has introduced the concept of
reality having a POV and is now building assumptions on top of that. Plato's
ideas have been modified through years of philosophy and one of the first ideas
to get the boot was his assumptions about the forms having an ontological
reality. They are a good starting point for a more advanced lecture on
linguistic philosophy because philosophers discovered that we cannot discuss
concepts without first understanding the limits of our language itself. So a
phrase like "Why there is something rather than nothing" can be seen as an
inappropriate use of language outside the realm of advanced physics. When
laymen use this phrase they are usually trying to smuggle in a bunch of
assumptions about a version of God.


R:> But here is where I believe something so critical is being overlooked: If
reality created us,>

M: No need to assume this. By not using the term God here I suspect Robin is
trying to avoid

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[John]

Share,

The message that you seek is in this film.  Have fun. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-yYJgpQ-CE

JR



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are called HAVING FUN! 
>  Duh!  If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.  Also I 
> was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.  I both enjoy and 
> understand his writing.  Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> 
> PS  If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then maybe you could relax 
> a little?  Have some fun yourself?  Instead of trying to prevent WWIII on 
> FFL?  Just a suggestion.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
>  
> 
>   
> Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> to start World War III here on FFL.
> 
> You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> to you about yourself.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step 
> > with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a 
> > secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that 
> > someone else is and that's delightful.  
> > 
> > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  
> > Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at 
> > focusing on the individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself 
> > or herself can know which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the 
> > judges can be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud 
> > music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> > 
> > 
> > Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck 
> > with idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to 
> > my Dolphie valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying she 
> > considers it idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to 
> > create a new word just for Judy?
> > 
> > Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> > that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a 
> > competition so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help 
> > about this also appreciated.
> > 
> > PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process 
> > when there has been an offense.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >  (With regard to Robin):
> > > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> > > trying to tell them.
> > 
> > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
> > 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it 
> > seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how 
> > it should be and how we ought to be. 
> > 
> > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
> > all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
> > interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from 
> > Robin, except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what is 
> > expected of you. 
> > 
> > It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to 
> > ensnare you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a lot 
> > of time on your hands, because you will be swamped with long discourses 
> > which take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she understands 
> > these, but if you ask her to interpret them for you, she will not comply, 
> > for it is beneath her to truck with idiots, and thus she does not have to 
> > demonstrate she understands what Robin says.
> > 
> > With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy will 
> > correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this, but in an 
> > argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject matter is music, 
> > Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is poetry, Robin might 
> > be fine to discourse with.
> > 
> > If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually take on 
> > just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you alone that 
> > has to tackle it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are
> > > > called HAVING FUN! Duh!
> > > 
> > > Sure they are, Share.
> > > 
> > > > If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.
> > > > Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.
> > > 
> > > Sure you were, Share.
> > > 
> > > > I both enjoy and understand his writing.
> > > 
> > > Sure you do, Share.
> > > 
> > > > Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> > > > what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> > > 
> > > Not sure how this reflects me back to myself, but I believe
> > > it was something like "Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he 
> > > would have become a happy architect."
> > > 
> > > > PS If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then
> > > > maybe you could relax a little?
> > > 
> > > I'm trying to calm you down, Share.
> > 
> > You're not telling the truth here and most can see it.
> > 
> > > You're freaking out. I
> > > think now would be a good time for you to see your pastoral
> > > counselor, frankly. I'm serious.
> > 
> > Now hold on there just a minute Missy. That's below the belt by anyone's 
> > standards even if you're using it just to keep Share engaged with you. And 
> > I don't get the impression that she is freaking out by any stretch of the 
> > imagination. On the contrary...
> > 
> > Disengage, diengage, disengage... (me talking to myself)
> > 
> > [snip]
> >
> 
> This afternoon it's authfriend against . . . everybody. I wonder why that 
> should be? 
> 
> Share is running rings around her, and doing it with
> humor, too, and poor authfriend just doesn't know how
> to handle it.

Still very funny, but it's lost some of its oomph in the
repetition.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are
> > > called HAVING FUN! Duh!
> > 
> > Sure they are, Share.
> > 
> > > If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.
> > > Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.
> > 
> > Sure you were, Share.
> > 
> > > I both enjoy and understand his writing.
> > 
> > Sure you do, Share.
> > 
> > > Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> > > what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> > 
> > Not sure how this reflects me back to myself, but I believe
> > it was something like "Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he 
> > would have become a happy architect."
> > 
> > > PS If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then
> > > maybe you could relax a little?
> > 
> > I'm trying to calm you down, Share.
> 
> You're not telling the truth here and most can see it.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe.
I don't think she realizes how panicky she sounds.
 
> > You're freaking out. I
> > think now would be a good time for you to see your pastoral
> > counselor, frankly. I'm serious.
> 
> Now hold on there just a minute Missy. That's below the
> belt by anyone's standards

Share has often talked here about her sessions with her
pastoral counselor when she was feeling troubled. What's
below the belt about my suggestion?

> even if you're using it just
> to keep Share engaged with you. And I don't get the
> impression that she is freaking out by any stretch of the 
> imagination. On the contrary...

Yes, our impressions differ, don't they?


 
> Disengage, diengage, disengage... (me talking to myself)
> 
> [snip]
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[feste37]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are
> > > called HAVING FUN! Duh!
> > 
> > Sure they are, Share.
> > 
> > > If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.
> > > Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.
> > 
> > Sure you were, Share.
> > 
> > > I both enjoy and understand his writing.
> > 
> > Sure you do, Share.
> > 
> > > Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> > > what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> > 
> > Not sure how this reflects me back to myself, but I believe
> > it was something like "Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he 
> > would have become a happy architect."
> > 
> > > PS If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then
> > > maybe you could relax a little?
> > 
> > I'm trying to calm you down, Share.
> 
> You're not telling the truth here and most can see it.
> 
> > You're freaking out. I
> > think now would be a good time for you to see your pastoral
> > counselor, frankly. I'm serious.
> 
> Now hold on there just a minute Missy. That's below the belt by anyone's 
> standards even if you're using it just to keep Share engaged with you. And I 
> don't get the impression that she is freaking out by any stretch of the 
> imagination. On the contrary...
> 
> Disengage, diengage, disengage... (me talking to myself)
> 
> [snip]
>

This afternoon it's authfriend against . . . everybody. I wonder why that 
should be? 

Share is running rings around her, and doing it with humor, too, and poor 
authfriend just doesn't know how to handle it. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

Fourth nonrefutation. At least this one has some substantive
insults.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.  
> 
> This is why you have to derail all conversations into
> idiotic word parsing like this beyond all reason.  You
> can't follow conversations here with any depth.
> 
> It is why you are eager to engage people about the details
> of what Robin said about his enlightenment by cutting and
> pasting,

Can't recall having done that, Curtis. Can you cite a
post? Or is that some kind of strange metaphor for my
having explained my understanding of what he's said about
his enlightenment in my own words?

Or--wait, I know!--you're referring to a single recent post
in which I pointed out that you had not told the truth about
one of your early exchanges with him by quoting what he had
said after you had misrepresented it. Right?

> but you never tried to engage in a conversation about the
> problems with his epistemology.

No, I don't believe I ever engaged him in a conversation
about (what you consider) the "problems with his
epistemology."

You consider that as proof that I am unable to "follow
conversations here with any depth"?

Really?

For the record, I've never thought there *is* any
"epistemology" as such regarding folks' subjective
experiences of enlightenment (and have said so many
times). I can't think of a more useless conversation
than one in which one person demands proof of
another's claim to be (or have been) enlightened.

> So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a
> pat on the head for your blindly following his
> misunderstanding into the ground.

Curtis, sweetie poops, I don't need pats on the head, from
Robin or anybody else. That's a very silly fantasy of Barry's
that you really don't need to be promoting.

And as I already said, I thought by "From the outset" you
meant from the beginning of Robin's conversations with
Share *before I read his post saying the same thing*. So I
wasn't "following" his impression of what you wrote, sorry.

> Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete
> idiot for you.
> 
> And here we come to a problem with no solution. 
> 
> He knows your secret too.

Right, Curtis, you tried that gambit before, a little over
a year ago, and you ended up in disgrace.

Last time you were trying to get me to stop quoting Robin's
posts about your devious debating tactics by turning me
against him. Doesn't seem to have worked very well, does it?

Shall we have another go at it? That should be fun.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are
> > called HAVING FUN! Duh!
> 
> Sure they are, Share.
> 
> > If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.
> > Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.
> 
> Sure you were, Share.
> 
> > I both enjoy and understand his writing.
> 
> Sure you do, Share.
> 
> > Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> > what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?
> 
> Not sure how this reflects me back to myself, but I believe
> it was something like "Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he 
> would have become a happy architect."
> 
> > PS If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then
> > maybe you could relax a little?
> 
> I'm trying to calm you down, Share.

You're not telling the truth here and most can see it.

> You're freaking out. I
> think now would be a good time for you to see your pastoral
> counselor, frankly. I'm serious.

Now hold on there just a minute Missy. That's below the belt by anyone's 
standards even if you're using it just to keep Share engaged with you. And I 
don't get the impression that she is freaking out by any stretch of the 
imagination. On the contrary...

Disengage, diengage, disengage... (me talking to myself)

[snip]

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

Hi Robin





 From: Robin Carlsen 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 2:33 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
PART III

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:

Curtis1: And when they reject this assumption, (as any adult would), you act as 
if you are in a fight to make them see themselves through your unflattering 
lens.

Robin1: This is absurd, Curtis. I don't make any assumptions about people at 
all--neither here on FFL nor elsewhere. I adduce my evidence, I provide a 
context of understanding; I do not just call people names. What I experience 
("sincerely") is contact with something which makes it seem that not to say 
what I feel is the truth will be to defraud me and the person of the knowledge 
ofwhat is really going on.

Curtis2: Then I am saying you are as notas good at providing the knowledge of 
"what is really going on" as you think you are.

Robin2: This is unproven, undemonstrated, and embarrassingly arbitrary. YOU 
DON'T EVEN LOOK TO YOUR EXPERIENCE TO BUTTRESS THIS ASSERTION, CURTIS. Not 
good. You are just saying this out of the blue, having insulated yourself 
inside the exigent demands of your first person ontology. 

Look, Curtis, even without consciously realizing this, had you made this 
judgment and there were experiences you had had which formed the basis of that 
judgment WE WOULD FEEL THIS--again, even unconsciously. And this would go 
towards demolishing Robin's claims. This is so fascinating, Curtis--I don't 
know anyone else in my life who does this. That is, assert what is the case 
completely in a reality vacuum--which disallows the reader's consciousness to 
have any access to data which exists independent of that argument from 
authority (which you personify in your polemics here on FFL).

Robin1: There is one fatal weakness in all that you say against me, Curtis: I 
analyze people to some degree here on FFL--that is, how their own subjectivity 
is interfering with the truth (as I see it). My doing this LEAVES ME OPEN TO 
BEING ANALYZED MYSELF--not just to get back at me; but in terms of WHAT MAKES 
ROBIN DO THIS. For why I do this, Curtis, it must be there, transparent--indeed 
my way of going about arguing with someone (which "any adult would reject") 
itself, for there to be any truth in what you say here (and elsewhere), must 
reflect more obviously upon some weakness in myself than the weakness or flaw 
that I seek to expose in the subjective determinations in another person--like 
yourself, like Share, and now like Steve.

Curtis 2: I don't believe this, but I can't imagine that you would care. I 
don't sense any genuine openness in you this way.

Robin2: You don't believe what you profess to disbelieve either, Curtis--as 
evidenced in both these sentences. I am saying to you, Curtis, that there is 
tremendous "genuine openness in [me] in this way". What about *that*? Am I 
lying? I maintain that those who read me objectively sense this openness--or at 
the very least, the firm intention to do justice to the truth no matter how 
inconvenient or painful it is to myself. No? It's certainly what I set to do in 
my life, Curtis--at least now. Yes, I would die upon a point of honour; viz. I 
am sincere, I am open, I am vulnerable, and I am willing to have my clock 
cleaned--even by CurtisDeltaBlues. "I don't sense any genuine openness in you 
this way": This is barefaced lie, Curtis--*in this sense*: it, once again, is 
separate from experience, from evidence, from memory, from history, from 
anything which could feed into this assertion to give it its humanly 
constituted sincerity. Get it?

Robin1: Goddam it, Curtis, I feel you know what's going on here better than I 
do. You know Share's flaws better than I do--Barry's for sure. I think you deem 
me naive about Barry. Get it, Curtis?

This is the key to understanding you. But again, I return to the self-evident 
principle of how we set up automatically a judgement of ourselves when we judge 
other persons. In my case it should be clinically obvious what I am about 
here--but you have not yet identified the problem I have--or even tried to do
this. Why, I wonder?

Curtis2: I don't care maybe? You certainly wouldn't be open to it if I did.

Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on 
point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might have 
about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I 
turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line 
here. Test me. I AM OPEN.

There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself 
that I know 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

PART III

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:


Curtis1: And when they reject this assumption, (as any adult would), you act as 
if you are in a fight to make them see themselves through your unflattering 
lens.

Robin1: This is absurd, Curtis. I don't make any assumptions about people at 
all--neither here on FFL nor elsewhere. I adduce my evidence, I provide a 
context of understanding; I do not just call people names. What I experience 
("sincerely") is contact with something which makes it seem that not to say 
what I feel is the truth will be to defraud me and the person of the knowledge 
ofwhat is really going on.

Curtis2: Then I am saying you are as notas good at providing the knowledge of 
"what is really going on" as you think you are.

Robin2: This is unproven, undemonstrated, and embarrassingly arbitrary. YOU 
DON'T EVEN LOOK TO YOUR EXPERIENCE TO BUTTRESS THIS ASSERTION, CURTIS. Not 
good. You are just saying this out of the blue, having insulated yourself 
inside the exigent demands of your first person ontology. 

Look, Curtis, even without consciously realizing this, had you made this 
judgment and there were experiences you had had which formed the basis of that 
judgment WE WOULD FEEL THIS--again, even unconsciously. And this would go 
towards demolishing Robin's claims. This is so fascinating, Curtis--I don't 
know anyone else in my life who does this. That is, assert what is the case 
completely in a reality vacuum--which disallows the reader's consciousness to 
have any access to data which exists independent of that argument from 
authority (which you personify in your polemics here on FFL).

Robin1: There is one fatal weakness in all that you say against me, Curtis: I 
analyze people to some degree here on FFL--that is, how their own subjectivity 
is interfering with the truth (as I see it). My doing this LEAVES ME OPEN TO 
BEING ANALYZED MYSELF--not just to get back at me; but in terms of WHAT MAKES 
ROBIN DO THIS. For why I do this, Curtis, it must be there, transparent--indeed 
my way of going about arguing with someone (which "any adult would reject") 
itself, for there to be any truth in what you say here (and elsewhere), must 
reflect more obviously upon some weakness in myself than the weakness or flaw 
that I seek to expose in the subjective determinations in another person--like 
yourself, like Share, and now like Steve.

Curtis 2: I don't believe this, but I can't imagine that you would care. I 
don't sense any genuine openness in you this way.

Robin2: You don't believe what you profess to disbelieve either, Curtis--as 
evidenced in both these sentences. I am saying to you, Curtis, that there is 
tremendous "genuine openness in [me] in this way". What about *that*? Am I 
lying? I maintain that those who read me objectively sense this openness--or at 
the very least, the firm intention to do justice to the truth no matter how 
inconvenient or painful it is to myself. No? It's certainly what I set to do in 
my life, Curtis--at least now. Yes, I would die upon a point of honour; viz. I 
am sincere, I am open, I am vulnerable, and I am willing to have my clock 
cleaned--even by CurtisDeltaBlues. "I don't sense any genuine openness in you 
this way": This is barefaced lie, Curtis--*in this sense*: it, once again, is 
separate from experience, from evidence, from memory, from history, from 
anything which could feed into this assertion to give it its humanly 
constituted sincerity. Get it?

Robin1: Goddam it, Curtis, I feel you know what's going on here better than I 
do. You know Share's flaws better than I do--Barry's for sure. I think you deem 
me naive about Barry. Get it, Curtis?

This is the key to understanding you. But again, I return to the self-evident 
principle of how we set up automatically a judgement of ourselves when we judge 
other persons. In my case it should be clinically obvious what I am about 
here--but you have not yet identified the problem I have--or even tried to do
this. Why, I wonder?

Curtis2: I don't care maybe? You certainly wouldn't be open to it if I did.

Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on 
point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might have 
about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I 
turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line 
here. Test me. I AM OPEN.

There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself 
that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I 
am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis.

Curtis1: Why would we?

Robin1 : Well, if what I say --usually (as far as I am concerned at least) on 
behalf of truth or the principle of fairness in argument and disputation--has a 
deleterious effect on the person--or can ne

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> (snip)
> > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > 
> > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > reply saying the same thing).
> > 
> > on·set
> > noun
> > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> 
> Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> 
> "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."

In this case, you are absolutely correct Judy. "Outset", not "onset", was used 
which narrows the field of possible meanings. However, I still trust *my* 
initial reaction when I first read it as meaning the outset of this more recent 
exchange between the two because it has been a long time since there had been 
exchanges of any kind. I also think that everyone is aware that very rarely do 
exchanges between posters on this forum start out at the very beginning as 
hostile or negative.

> But you knew that.

I don't think so.

> Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> thankfully.
> 
> Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> it will have been worth your time.
> 
> *plonk*

Not much of a rejoinder to find brilliant. I *do* appreciate what Curtis, 
Steve, and others contribute on this forum because on the outset, it *feels* 
good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when defending someone. Not so the case 
with others. But you knew that.

[snip]

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

There is a secret under all your bluff and bluster Judy.  

This is why you have to derail all conversations into idiotic word parsing like 
this beyond all reason.  You can't follow conversations here with any depth.

It is why you are eager to engage people about the details of what Robin said 
about his enlightenment by cutting and pasting, but you never tried to engage 
in a conversation about the problems with his epistemology. 

So here you are once again trying so desperately to get a pat on the head for 
your blindly following his misunderstanding into the ground.

Come on Robin, she is willing to show up as a complete idiot for you.

And here we come to a problem with no solution. 

He knows your secret too.






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> (snip)
> > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > 
> > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > reply saying the same thing).
> > 
> > on·set
> > noun
> > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> 
> Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> 
> "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
> 
> But you knew that.
> 
> Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> thankfully.
> 
> Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> it will have been worth your time.
> 
> *plonk*
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > please continue...
> >  
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > > 
> > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > > 
> > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > > recent exchange with Share..."
> > > 
> > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> > > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > > 
> > > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > > backpedal from a mistake.
> > > 
> > > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > > 
> > > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > > 
> > > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> > > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> > > 
> > > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> > > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> > > friendly.
> > > 
> > > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> > > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> > > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> > > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> > > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> > > of intention to understand on your part.
> > > 
> > > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> > > paragraph:
> > > 
> > > "From 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are
> called HAVING FUN! Duh!

Sure they are, Share.

> If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.
> Also I was asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.

Sure you were, Share.

> I both enjoy and understand his writing.

Sure you do, Share.

> Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
> what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?

Not sure how this reflects me back to myself, but I believe
it was something like "Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he would 
have become a happy architect."

> PS If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then
> maybe you could relax a little?

I'm trying to calm you down, Share. You're freaking out. I
think now would be a good time for you to see your pastoral
counselor, frankly. I'm serious.




  Have some fun yourself?  Instead of trying to prevent WWIII on FFL?  Just 
a suggestion.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
>  
> 
>   
> Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> to start World War III here on FFL.
> 
> You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> to you about yourself.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step 
> > with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a 
> > secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that 
> > someone else is and that's delightful.  
> > 
> > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  
> > Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at 
> > focusing on the individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself 
> > or herself can know which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the 
> > judges can be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud 
> > music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> > 
> > 
> > Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck 
> > with idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to 
> > my Dolphie valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying she 
> > considers it idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to 
> > create a new word just for Judy?
> > 
> > Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> > that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a 
> > competition so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help 
> > about this also appreciated.
> > 
> > PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process 
> > when there has been an offense.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >  (With regard to Robin):
> > > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> > > trying to tell them.
> > 
> > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
> > 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it 
> > seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how 
> > it should be and how we ought to be. 
> > 
> > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
> > all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
> > interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from 
> > Robin, except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what is 
> > expected of you. 
> > 
> > It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to 
> > ensnare you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a lot 
> > of time on your hands, because you will be swamped with long discourses 
&

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

Wow, *three* nonrefutation rejoinders--and all he does
in this one is compliment *himself* on how funny his
first one was.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> >
> snip> > > 
> Judy
> 
> > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > 
> > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > reply saying the same thing).
> > 
> > on·set
> > noun
> > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> > 
> > please continue...
> 
> That was really funny.  Not to mention the absurdity of her making a case for 
> what my actual meaning was!  Because she knows and I am being deceptive in 
> that special way that only she and Robin can see.
> 
> I have a feeling that I am seeing where some of my special students are going 
> to end up.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >  
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > > 
> > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > > 
> > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > > recent exchange with Share..."
> > > 
> > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> > > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > > 
> > > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > > backpedal from a mistake.
> > > 
> > > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > > 
> > > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > > 
> > > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> > > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> > > 
> > > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> > > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> > > friendly.
> > > 
> > > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> > > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> > > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> > > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> > > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> > > of intention to understand on your part.
> > > 
> > > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> > > paragraph:
> > > 
> > > "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> > > and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
> > > considering that you are just letting her have it with both
> > > barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our 
> > > conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
> > > lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
> > > assault."
> > > 
> > > "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your
> > > current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by
> > > Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations
> > > with him. One more reason to suspect that by "From the
> > > outset" you meant from his early exchanges with her--except
> > > that you weren't aware of the "flowers and chocolates" she
> > > had received from him, hence your phrase "at le[a]st."
> > > 
> > > Your walkback here is only marginally plausible. You should,
> > > as Robin says, have just copped to making a mistake. That
> > > would have been no big de

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Judy formula:
> 
> She misunderstands something obvious.
> 
> She takes off running under her own misconception.
> 
> When her mistake is pointed out she doubles down and
> accuses the person of lying or being deceptive.
> 
> She doubles down again, piling on more insults in a rabid
> word flood frenzy to avoid facing that she was just wrong
> about something relatively petty.
> 
> I think Steve is on to something here.  It must have been
> very unsafe for you to make a mistake growing up.

Very seriously au contraire, Pierre.

Apparently your first nonrefutation didn't give you quite
the feeling of triumph you were hoping for, so you're back
for another one with yet more name-calling.

Me, I stand by the case I made.





> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > You lost me on your initial word flood in which you 
> > > > > seem incapable o distinguishing between the beginning
> > > > > of your recent exchange with Share, my obvious intended
> > > > > meaning in context, and your fantasy that I was making
> > > > > a broader claim about your predisposition somewhere
> > > > > back in time that has no relevance to our discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > 
> > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > reply saying the same thing).
> > 
> > > Thanks for your usual breath of sanity LG.  It is a little
> > > crazy making this hyper focus on a word or phrase twisted
> > > out of its intended meaning, and then then the accusations
> > > of dishonesty when you try to set it right.
> > 
> > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > 
> > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > 
> > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > recent exchange with Share..."
> > 
> > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > 
> > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > backpedal from a mistake.
> > 
> > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > 
> > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > 
> > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> > 
> > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> > friendly.
> > 
> > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> > of intention to understand on your part.
> > 
> > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> > paragraph:
> > 
> > "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> > and she has done a pret

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

Judy, this post to Xeno, and also the 2 Dolphie posts are called HAVING FUN!  
Duh!  If that's what you call being out of control, then so be it.  Also I was 
asking for Xeno's feedback on this reality topic.  I both enjoy and understand 
his writing.  Now to reflect a little Judy back to you:
what exactly was my dumb "comment" about Hitler?

PS  If I'm proving everything Robin said about me then maybe you could relax a 
little?  Have some fun yourself?  Instead of trying to prevent WWIII on FFL?  
Just a suggestion.   




 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
to start World War III here on FFL.

You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
to you about yourself.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very complex 
> piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step with the 
> main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a secondary 
> melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that someone else is and 
> that's delightful.  
> 
> And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  Robin 
> is gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at focusing 
> on the individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself or herself 
> can know which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the judges can be 
> helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud music in his or 
> her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> 
> 
> Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck with 
> idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to my Dolphie 
> valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying she considers it 
> idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to create a new word 
> just for Judy?
> 
> Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a competition 
> so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help about this also 
> appreciated.
> 
> PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process when 
> there has been an offense.
> 
> 
> 
> ____
>  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> 
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>  (With regard to Robin):
> > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> > trying to tell them.
> 
> This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
> 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it 
> seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it 
> should be and how we ought to be. 
> 
> But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
> all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
> interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from Robin, 
> except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what is expected 
> of you. 
> 
> It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to ensnare 
> you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a lot of time 
> on your hands, because you will be swamped with long discourses which take 
> forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she understands these, but if you 
> ask her to interpret them for you, she will not comply, for it is beneath her 
> to truck with idiots, and thus she does not have to demonstrate she 
> understands what Robin says.
> 
> With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy will 
> correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this, but in an 
> argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject matter is music, 
> Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is poetry, Robin might 
> be fine to discourse with.
> 
> If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually take on 
> just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you alone that 
> has to tackle it.
>


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> snip> > >
> Judy
>
> > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic
> > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > >
> > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > reply saying the same thing).
> >
> > on·set
> > noun
> > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> >
> > please continue...

...as in read other comments that I've highlighted below.

> That was really funny. Not to mention the absurdity of her making a
case for what my actual meaning was! Because she knows and I am being
deceptive in that special way that only she and Robin can see.
>
> I have a feeling that I am seeing where some of my special students
are going to end up.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are
> > > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > >
> > > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > >
> > > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > > recent exchange with Share..."
> > >
> > > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a
> > > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > >
> > > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > > backpedal from a mistake.
> > >
> > > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > >
> > > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > >
> > > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> > > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> > >
> > > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> > > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> > > friendly.
> > >
> > > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the
> > > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> > > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> > > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> > > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> > > of intention to understand on your part.
> > >
> > > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> > > paragraph:
> > >
> > > "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> > > and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
> > > considering that you are just letting her have it with both
> > > barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our
> > > conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
> > > lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
> > > assault."
> > >
> > > "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your
> > > current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by
> > > Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations
> > > with him. One more reason to suspect that by "From the
> > > outset" you meant from his early exchanges with her--except
> > > that you weren't aware of the "flowers and chocolates" she
> > > had received from him, hence your phrase "at le[a]st."
> > >
> > > Your walkback here is only marginally plausible. You should,
> > > as Robin says, have just copped to making a mistake. That
> > > would have been no big deal.

> > http://youtu.be/3_I8RCUpe-c (as in 5, 18, and/or 20 below)
> >
> > verb (used with object)
> > 1. to combine, a

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
(snip)
> > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > 
> > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > reply saying the same thing).
> 
> on·set
> noun
> 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.

Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."

"Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."

But you knew that.

Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
thankfully.

Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
it will have been worth your time.

*plonk*



> 
> please continue...
>  
> [snip]
> 
> > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > 
> > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > 
> > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > recent exchange with Share..."
> > 
> > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > 
> > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > backpedal from a mistake.
> > 
> > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > 
> > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > 
> > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> > 
> > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> > friendly.
> > 
> > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> > of intention to understand on your part.
> > 
> > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> > paragraph:
> > 
> > "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> > and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
> > considering that you are just letting her have it with both
> > barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our 
> > conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
> > lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
> > assault."
> > 
> > "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your
> > current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by
> > Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations
> > with him. One more reason to suspect that by "From the
> > outset" you meant from his early exchanges with her--except
> > that you weren't aware of the "flowers and chocolates" she
> > had received from him, hence your phrase "at le[a]st."
> > 
> > Your walkback here is only marginally plausible. You should,
> > as Robin says, have just copped to making a mistake. That
> > would have been no big deal.
> 
> http://youtu.be/3_I8R

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
snip> > > 
Judy

> > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > 
> > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > reply saying the same thing).
> 
> on·set
> noun
> 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> 
> please continue...

That was really funny.  Not to mention the absurdity of her making a case for 
what my actual meaning was!  Because she knows and I am being deceptive in that 
special way that only she and Robin can see.

I have a feeling that I am seeing where some of my special students are going 
to end up.  






>  
> [snip]
> 
> > My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> > consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> > it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> > is likely to be able to spot it.
> > 
> > "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> > most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> > understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> > the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> > recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> > 
> > I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> > have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> > recent exchange with Share..."
> > 
> > That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> > have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> > to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> > about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> > It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> > wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> > the potential for misunderstanding.
> > 
> > If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> > backpedal from a mistake.
> > 
> > You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> > their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> > 
> > You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> > later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> > her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> > 
> > You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> > had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> > opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> > claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> > confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> > an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> > she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> > 
> > I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> > assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> > friendly.
> > 
> > That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> > "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> > on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> > present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> > for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> > of intention to understand on your part.
> > 
> > And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> > paragraph:
> > 
> > "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> > and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
> > considering that you are just letting her have it with both
> > barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our 
> > conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
> > lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
> > assault."
> > 
> > "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your
> > current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by
> > Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations
> > with him. One more reason to suspect that by "From the
> > outset" you meant from his early exchanges with her--except
> > that you weren't aware of the "flowers and chocolates" she
> > had received from him, hence your phrase "at le[a]st."
> > 
> > Your walkback here is only marginally plausible. You should,
> > as Robin says, have just copped to making a mistake. That
> > would have been no big deal.
> 
> http://youtu.be/3_I8RCUpe-c (as in 5, 18, and/or 20 below)
> 
> verb (used with object) 
> 1. to combine, as two or more strands or threads, by winding together; 
> intertwine. 
> 2. to form by or as if by winding strands together: Several fibers were used 
> to twist the rope.  
> 3. to entwine (one thing) with another; interlace (something) with something 
> else; interweave; plait. 
> 4. to wind or coil (so

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

Judy formula:

She misunderstands something obvious.

She takes off running under her own misconception.

When her mistake is pointed out she doubles down and accuses the person of 
lying or being deceptive.

She doubles down again, piling on more insults in a rabid word flood frenzy to 
avoid facing that she was just wrong about something relatively petty.

I think Steve is on to something here.  It must have been very unsafe for you 
to make a mistake growing up.






  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > You lost me on your initial word flood in which you 
> > > > seem incapable o distinguishing between the beginning
> > > > of your recent exchange with Share, my obvious intended
> > > > meaning in context, and your fantasy that I was making
> > > > a broader claim about your predisposition somewhere
> > > > back in time that has no relevance to our discussion.
> > > 
> > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> 
> FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> reply saying the same thing).
> 
> > Thanks for your usual breath of sanity LG.  It is a little
> > crazy making this hyper focus on a word or phrase twisted
> > out of its intended meaning, and then then the accusations
> > of dishonesty when you try to set it right.
> 
> My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> is likely to be able to spot it.
> 
> "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> 
> I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> recent exchange with Share..."
> 
> That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> the potential for misunderstanding.
> 
> If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> backpedal from a mistake.
> 
> You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> 
> You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> 
> You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> 
> I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> friendly.
> 
> That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> of intention to understand on your part.
> 
> And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> paragraph:
> 
> "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
> considering that you are just letting her have it with both
> barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our 
> conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
> lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
> assault."
> 
> "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your
> current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by
> Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations
> with him. One more reason to suspect 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > You lost me on your initial word flood in which you 
> > > > seem incapable o distinguishing between the beginning
> > > > of your recent exchange with Share, my obvious intended
> > > > meaning in context, and your fantasy that I was making
> > > > a broader claim about your predisposition somewhere
> > > > back in time that has no relevance to our discussion.
> > > 
> > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> 
> FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> reply saying the same thing).

on·set
noun
1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.

please continue...
 
[snip]

> My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
> consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
> it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
> is likely to be able to spot it.
> 
> "From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
> most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
> understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
> the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
> recent seems to me to be the twisted one.
> 
> I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
> have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
> recent exchange with Share..."
> 
> That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
> have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
> to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
> about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
> It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
> wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
> the potential for misunderstanding.
> 
> If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
> backpedal from a mistake.
> 
> You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
> their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.
> 
> You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
> later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
> her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.
> 
> You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
> had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
> opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
> claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
> confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
> an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
> she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.
> 
> I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
> assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
> friendly.
> 
> That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
> "interactions with the intention to understand" you go
> on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
> present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
> for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
> of intention to understand on your part.
> 
> And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
> paragraph:
> 
> "From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
> and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
> considering that you are just letting her have it with both
> barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our 
> conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
> lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
> assault."
> 
> "Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your
> current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by
> Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations
> with him. One more reason to suspect that by "From the
> outset" you meant from his early exchanges with her--except
> that you weren't aware of the "flowers and chocolates" she
> had received from him, hence your phrase "at le[a]st."
> 
> Your walkback here is only marginally plausible. You should,
> as Robin says, have just copped to making a mistake. That
> would have been no big deal.

http://youtu.be/3_I8RCUpe-c (as in 5, 18, and/or 20 below)

verb (used with object) 
1. to combine, as two or more strands or threads, by winding together; 
intertwine. 
2. to form by or as if by winding strands together: Sever

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> You're just upset because Share is too quick and clever for
> you. Why don't you just cut your losses and move on?

Best laugh of the day so far, feste, thank you.


 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> > Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> > to start World War III here on FFL.
> > 
> > You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> > to you about yourself.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step 
> > > with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a 
> > > secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that 
> > > someone else is and that's delightful.  
> > > 
> > > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  
> > > Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at 
> > > focusing on the individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself 
> > > or herself can know which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the 
> > > judges can be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud 
> > > music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck 
> > > with idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to 
> > > my Dolphie valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying 
> > > she considers it idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to 
> > > create a new word just for Judy?
> > > 
> > > Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> > > that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a 
> > > competition so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help 
> > > about this also appreciated.
> > > 
> > > PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process 
> > > when there has been an offense.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  
> > > wrote:
> > >  (With regard to Robin):
> > > > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" 
> > > > is trying to tell them.
> > > 
> > > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
> > > 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it 
> > > seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world 
> > > how it should be and how we ought to be. 
> > > 
> > > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if 
> > > at all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
> > > interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from 
> > > Robin, except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what 
> > > is expected of you. 
> > > 
> > > It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to 
> > > ensnare you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a 
> > > lot of time on your hands, because you will be swamped with long 
> > > discourses which take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she 
> > > understands these, but if you ask her to interpret them for you, she will 
> > > not comply, for it is beneath her to truck with idiots, and thus she does 
> > > not have to demonstrate she understands what Robin says.
> > > 
> > > With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy will 
> > > correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this, but in 
> > > an argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject matter is 
> > > music, Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is poetry, 
> > > Robin might be fine to discourse with.
> > > 
> > > If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually take 
> > > on just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you alone 
> > > that has to tackle it.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
(snip)
> This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments
> revolve on. Does 'reality' in fact ever say anything at
> all?

"In fact"?

Oooopsie!

> Whatever reality might be, it seems we, as individuals,
> spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it should
> be and how we ought to be. 
> 
> But the world just does what it does, and people change rather
> slowly if at all. This is just a straw man argument that puts
> Robin in charge of interpreting what 'reality' wants of us.
> You never learn anything from Robin, except that eventually you
> are under attack for not knowing what is expected of you.

You should probably speak for yourself, Xeno.

> It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he
> wants you to ensnare you with, unless you feel like
> jousting, but you need to have a lot of time on your hands,
> because you will be swamped with long discourses which
> take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she
> understands these, but if you ask her to interpret them
> for you, she will not comply, for it is beneath her to
> truck with idiots, and thus she does not have to
> demonstrate she understands what Robin says.

Now, don't *you* start lying too, Xeno. Or at least if
you do, try to pick a lie that has some likelihood of
getting by at least some of the idiots, er, folks here.
Anyone who's followed the traffic knows I've spent a
great deal of time interpreting and explaining what
Robin has said (I shouldn't have to because he isn't
that hard to understand).

I did refuse *once* to interpret him to you, because you
demanded that I do so in order to show that I understood
him. I have no need to prove myself on that score.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[feste37]

You're just upset because Share is too quick and clever for you. Why don't you 
just cut your losses and move on?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
> Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
> to start World War III here on FFL.
> 
> You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
> to you about yourself.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very 
> > complex piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step 
> > with the main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a 
> > secondary melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that someone 
> > else is and that's delightful.  
> > 
> > And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  
> > Robin is gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at 
> > focusing on the individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself or 
> > herself can know which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the 
> > judges can be helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud 
> > music in his or her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> > 
> > 
> > Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck 
> > with idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to my 
> > Dolphie valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying she 
> > considers it idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to 
> > create a new word just for Judy?
> > 
> > Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> > that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a 
> > competition so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help about 
> > this also appreciated.
> > 
> > PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process when 
> > there has been an offense.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >  (With regard to Robin):
> > > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> > > trying to tell them.
> > 
> > This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
> > 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it 
> > seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how 
> > it should be and how we ought to be. 
> > 
> > But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
> > all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
> > interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from 
> > Robin, except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what is 
> > expected of you. 
> > 
> > It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to 
> > ensnare you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a lot 
> > of time on your hands, because you will be swamped with long discourses 
> > which take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she understands 
> > these, but if you ask her to interpret them for you, she will not comply, 
> > for it is beneath her to truck with idiots, and thus she does not have to 
> > demonstrate she understands what Robin says.
> > 
> > With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy will 
> > correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this, but in an 
> > argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject matter is music, 
> > Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is poetry, Robin might 
> > be fine to discourse with.
> > 
> > If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually take on 
> > just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you alone that 
> > has to tackle it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
(snip>
> And NO ONE has the right to try to declare to you what
> reality is, as if they "know" and you don't. To do so
> is to become an abuser, not a teacher.

Says Barry, declaring to us what reality is, as if he
knows and we don't.

(guffaw)

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

Share, you're out of control. You made a dumb comment about
Hitler. Just own it, then forget it and move on. Don't try
to start World War III here on FFL.

You continue inadvertently to prove everything Robin said
to you about yourself.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very complex 
> piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step with the 
> main melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a secondary 
> melody.  Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that someone else is and 
> that's delightful.  
> 
> And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  Robin 
> is gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at focusing 
> on the individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself or herself 
> can know which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the judges can be 
> helpful sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud music in his or 
> her own head.  Then not so helpful to dancer.
> 
> 
> Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck with 
> idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to my Dolphie 
> valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying she considers it 
> idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to create a new word 
> just for Judy?
> 
> Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me 
> that I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a competition 
> so I'm not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help about this also 
> appreciated.
> 
> PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process when 
> there has been an offense.
> 
> 
> 
> ________
>  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>  (With regard to Robin):
> > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> > trying to tell them.
> 
> This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
> 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it 
> seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it 
> should be and how we ought to be. 
> 
> But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
> all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
> interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from Robin, 
> except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what is expected 
> of you. 
> 
> It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to ensnare 
> you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a lot of time 
> on your hands, because you will be swamped with long discourses which take 
> forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she understands these, but if you 
> ask her to interpret them for you, she will not comply, for it is beneath her 
> to truck with idiots, and thus she does not have to demonstrate she 
> understands what Robin says.
> 
> With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy will 
> correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this, but in an 
> argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject matter is music, 
> Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is poetry, Robin might 
> be fine to discourse with.
> 
> If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually take on 
> just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you alone that 
> has to tackle it.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > You lost me on your initial word flood in which you 
> > > seem incapable o distinguishing between the beginning
> > > of your recent exchange with Share, my obvious intended
> > > meaning in context, and your fantasy that I was making
> > > a broader claim about your predisposition somewhere
> > > back in time that has no relevance to our discussion.
> > 
> > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand this,
> > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> > (disingenuous smiley face).

FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
reply saying the same thing).

> Thanks for your usual breath of sanity LG.  It is a little
> crazy making this hyper focus on a word or phrase twisted
> out of its intended meaning, and then then the accusations
> of dishonesty when you try to set it right.

My experience of you, Curtis, has been that you are 
consistently dishonest. You're usually quite subtle about
it, such that only the person you're being dishonest *with*
is likely to be able to spot it.

"From the outset" is a very peculiar way to refer to the
most recent in a long series of exchanges. The most obvious
understanding would be that you meant from the outset of
the series. The idea that "From the outset" meant the most
recent seems to me to be the twisted one.

I think if you had meant the most recent one you would
have indicated this, e.g., "From the outset of your most
recent exchange with Share..."

That you claim to be unable to understand how anyone could
have assumed you did not mean the most recent exchange says
to me that you are being disingenuous, at the very least
about how "obvious" it was that you did mean the most recent.
It was not at all obvious, it was ambiguous. And you being a 
wordsmith of sorts should have been able to easily recognize
the potential for misunderstanding.

If that's what it was. I think you are actually trying to
backpedal from a mistake.

You were not here, after all, when Robin and Share began
their conversations, which were indeed extremely friendly.

You returned to FFL after a longish absence several weeks
later, just in time to see Share turn on Robin based on
her misunderstanding of something he had said to her.

You leaped into their conflict without knowing how Share
had misrepresented the situation, having seen an
opportunity to attack Robin by supporting Share. You
claimed he had been deliberately setting her up for a
confrontation, an idea she eagerly picked up on. It made
an appearance later on in her unconscionable claim that
she had been "psychologically raped" by Robin.

I believe that's what you were remembering, and why you
assumed Robin's "mission" with Share had never been
friendly.

That conflict, not incidentally, hardly exemplified the 
"interactions with the intention to understand" you go
on here to tout, on either Share's part or your own. Your
present insistence on the "obviousness" of your meaning
for "From the outset..." is another example of the lack
of intention to understand on your part.

And then there's the interesting fact of the rest of that
paragraph:

"From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly
and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself
considering that you are just letting her have it with both
barrels about herself, uninvited. It reminds me of our 
conversations which followed the same arc, although I at
lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the
assault."

"Flowers and chocolates at the door" does not refer to your
current exchange with Robin. What you were reminded of by
Robin's exchanges with Share was your early conversations
with him. One more reason to suspect that by "From the
outset" you meant from his early exchanges with her--except
that you weren't aware of the "flowers and chocolates" she
had received from him, hence your phrase "at le[a]st."

Your walkback here is only marginally plausible. You should,
as Robin says, have just copped to making a mistake. That
would have been no big deal.

Finally, in Robin's current exchange with Share, his
remarks about her avoidance of reality were (of course!)
"uninvited"--but they were, as you know, by no means
*unprovoked*.

Speaking of inadvertent irony:

> But I am seeing it all as more formulaic than genuine
> interaction.  Judy runs the exact same DLL program.  It
> is the exact opposite of interactions with the intention
> to understand.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

PART II

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:


Curtis1: It reminds me of our conversations which followed the same arc, 
although I at lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the 
assault.

 Robin1: Yes, I enjoyed our friendship, Curtis, offline as well. I know what it 
is like to love you. But again, I declare that the record at FFL shows that 
Robin and Share got along famously at the beginning. AWB described one postal 
exchange as a Japanese tea ceremony. So you must retract this accusation,

Curtis. And I know you will.

Curtis2: So you are really gunna run with this when even you referred to :

And I have always kept before me the contingent possibility that Share might 
turn out to be more what she seemed to me to be in the beginning.

Robin2: Yes. Because I believe in the literal truth of those words. Where is 
the problem here, Curtis? You are just running and running away from the 
implication (and onus) created by your having deliberately--or 
inadvertently--misconstrued my relationship with Share Long. No "mission of 
unfriendliness from the beginning", Curtis. Remember this.

Curtis2: Funny how this context was obvious to you, but mine was so hard to 
figure out.

Robin2: Your context was not hard to figure out at all, Curtis. It never is. 
How have I misunderstood or failed to understand you?

Curtis1 [quoting Robin]"You would make Share's post into some devastating 
counterpunch."

Curtis1: You have used similar metaphors of competition in our conversations 
and I am seeing a pattern.

Robin1: This "pattern" metaphorically, then, Curtis, it is evidence that my 
motive is pugilistic and not purely intellectual.

Curtis2: Yes, that is a great way to sum up how I view your participation here. 
(On a re-read this seems a bit harsh. I'm sure you have intellectual interests 
here as well.) (note to Robin, I am re-reading so I can cut stuff OUT. Just 
say'n...)

Robin2: I appreciate the amendment, Curtis. You may surprise me yet. Remember: 
I am always looking for that undermining of my definition of a person 
(accumulated over time via my experience). Am I really what I mocked myself as 
being, Curtis: pugilistic? I hope not. But perhaps reality--a kind of delayed 
punch to the gut---is going to inform me you were right about this. We shall 
see. Meanwhile, I do not believe my pugnacity determines my intellectual 
approach on FFL--and indeed I am very much not a pugilist. Except for yearning 
and praying nightly for a true knock-out blow when it comes to yourself, Curtis.

Robin1: Your choosing to seize upon my metaphorical inclinations is tantamount 
to extorting from me an admission of wanting to overpower and conquer and beat 
up my opponent, Curtis? How about our hundred thousand words we exchanged when 
we began to talk together on FFL--and even offline: Was I aggressive and 
bloodthirsty then? 

Curtis2: No, where did that guy go? The current Robin killed him off.

Robin2: Of anything you have said--maybe ever since we became estranged--this 
does hold something for me, Curtis. It is an interesting and provocative 
statement--and rhetorical question. I sort of like this. Thank you. But I 
believe the "current Robin" is the same Robin who "killed off" that other guy. 
Still, this felt good when I read it, Curtis. You don't want to know why. But I 
will tell you anyway.

Because of the Curtis you had to be in the moment of writing this. It seemed 
just straight, human, devoid of stratagem. Against the grain of my case against 
you, Curtis. I'll have to keep this memory in mind when I find you abandoning 
this form of yourself, so that I too can declare: "Where did that guy go. The 
now Curtis killed him off".

Robin1: When did this "pattern" begin? This is absurd, Curtis: reread my posts 
to Share and my two posts to Steve (who you deem incapable of answering me, so 
you would fight in his stead).

Curtis2: This slippery little reframe of the dynamics of the place where 
posters jump into threads that interest them is dishonest. My joining a 
discussion has nothing to do with a person's ability to speak for themselves. 
Not everyone wants to engage with you in the detail I do Robin, you should be 
thankful, not shaming that I added my two cents.

Robin2; WTF? I don't object to your "jump[ing] into threads that interest 
[you]. I chose to interpret your post on behalf of Share (you as much as said 
you were going to post an affirmation of what Steve posted). You have 
tendentiously and slyly chosen to deny the truth of my assumption about why you 
posted--and the intensity with which you objected to this interpretation tells 
me it was even truer than I thought it was. If my interpretation of your 
posting was incorrect, Curtis, you would EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT PROVES I WAS 
MISTAKEN. But what did you do? Accuse, scold, condemn--WITHOUT A SINGLE IOTA OF 
EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU UP. This is y

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > You lost me on your initial word flood in which you seem incapable o 
> > distinguishing between the beginning of your recent exchange with Share, my 
> > obvious intended meaning in context, and your fantasy that I was making a 
> > broader claim about your predisposition somewhere back in time that has no 
> > relevance to our discussion.
> 
> FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read your response of 
> "...from the outset" as being the *current* exchange...not going back to the 
> beginning. It surprises me that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to 
> understand this, but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
> (disingenuous smiley face).

Thanks for your usual breath of sanity LG.  It is a little crazy making this 
hyper focus on a word or phrase twisted out of its intended meaning, and then 
then the accusations of dishonesty when you try to set it right.  But I am 
seeing it all as more formulaic than genuine interaction.  Judy runs the exact 
same DLL program.  It is the exact opposite of interactions with the intention 
to understand.

> 
> > All the accusatory bullshit reveals your agenda here:
> > You are looking for someone to rave at.
> > 
> > Today, it will not be me.
> 
> Au contraire Pierre but it *will* be you. With that in mind, the real 
> challenge becomes whether or not *you* will be a participant (wink, wink, 
> nudge, nudge).

Now you are just dropping some wisdom on my bitch ass!  I hear ya.  That is why 
I don't attend raves, they go on too long with too little content. (sorry 
trance dance music lovers but that is how I see it.)

Nice one. (Non disingenuous smiley face)





> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > P.S. Part II coming up. So wait for it. Please.
> 
> Robin, you are *such* a tease! As the consummate showman that you are, I'm 
> sure you realize that if you make your audience wait *too* long that you lose 
> them...that is, if you haven't already (another disingenuous smiley face).
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

Xeno, I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea that reality is a very complex 
piece of music and we're dancing to it.  Sometimes we're in step with the main 
melody and sometimes our dancing is more in tune with a secondary melody.  
Sometimes we're dancing to the same melody that someone else is and that's 
delightful.  

And it's as if Robin and Judy are the judges at a dance extravaganza.  Robin is 
gifted at hearing many strands of melodies.  Judy is gifted at focusing on the 
individuals steps.  But really, only the dancer himself or herself can know 
which melody is best for them to dance to.  True the judges can be helpful 
sometimes.  But some judges are hearing VERY loud music in his or her own head. 
 Then not so helpful to dancer.


Now Xeno I must disagree with you about Judy not being willing to truck with 
idiots or even nitwits.  Look how much attention she has given to my Dolphie 
valentine, which even this morning she posted about, saying she considers it 
idiocy and nitwit er nitwiticism.  Will you allow me to create a new word just 
for Judy?

Anyway, your PROMPT reply is urgently needed as Judy so kindly informs me that 
I have fallen behind.  Of course I didn't realize FFL is a competition so I'm 
not sure of what I have fallen behind.  Any help about this also appreciated.

PS to Ann:  I apologize because I think it begins the healing process when 
there has been an offense.




 From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:37 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
 (With regard to Robin):
> Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> trying to tell them.

This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it seems 
we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it should 
be and how we ought to be. 

But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from Robin, 
except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what is expected of 
you. 

It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to ensnare 
you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a lot of time on 
your hands, because you will be swamped with long discourses which take forever 
to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she understands these, but if you ask her 
to interpret them for you, she will not comply, for it is beneath her to truck 
with idiots, and thus she does not have to demonstrate she understands what 
Robin says.

With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy will 
correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this, but in an 
argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject matter is music, 
Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is poetry, Robin might be 
fine to discourse with.

If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually take on 
just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you alone that has 
to tackle it.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> You lost me on your initial word flood in which you seem incapable o 
> distinguishing between the beginning of your recent exchange with Share, my 
> obvious intended meaning in context, and your fantasy that I was making a 
> broader claim about your predisposition somewhere back in time that has no 
> relevance to our discussion.

FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read your response of 
"...from the outset" as being the *current* exchange...not going back to the 
beginning. It surprises me that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to 
understand this, but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic 
(disingenuous smiley face).

> All the accusatory bullshit reveals your agenda here:
> You are looking for someone to rave at.
> 
> Today, it will not be me.

Au contraire Pierre but it *will* be you. With that in mind, the real challenge 
becomes whether or not *you* will be a participant (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

[snip]

> > P.S. Part II coming up. So wait for it. Please.

Robin, you are *such* a tease! As the consummate showman that you are, I'm sure 
you realize that if you make your audience wait *too* long that you lose 
them...that is, if you haven't already (another disingenuous smiley face).

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  wrote:
>
> 
> RE:  "Oh, I won't try to defend Emily Baby. I am anxious always to stay
> on her good side, as I would dread that circumstance where she began to
> go after me. She can cut it, as they say. We'll see how she does up
> against the Curtis guy. I predict she will hold her own."
> Oh Dear, Oh Dear.
> Curtis, The reason I questioned whether you'd read the book was because
> you never made a single reference to anything pertinent in terms of
> content in your posts that indicated such.


I don't know why you would say that Emily.  I told you the specific 
philosophical flaw I saw in his presentation.  That was the perspective I read 
it from.  Was he bringing something new to the debate.  So my focus was pretty 
specific, what was the argument based on?  I was less impressed with the 
experience because I have had plenty of mystical experiences of my own.

I think we read the book from a completely different reference point and with 
different goals.  So for a book report you are the go to girl.  I was only 
interested in reducing it into what his premise was based on and evaluate if it 
had good reasons to support it.

(Spoiler alert, it didn't.)

His presentation extended beyond this book BTW.  He also appeared on talk shows 
and continued to demonstrate the same reasoning flaws I saw in his book.


  But, anyone who peruses /
> reads 50 books a month from the library supplemented by a couple of
> reads through the bible every few years, in addition to everything else
> life serves up and requires to keep one afloat could not be expected to
> relay more than general comments/conclusions on said book - this I do> 
> understand.

I love the word peruse.

I still maintain that my analysis was more than general.  The issue of when he 
actually had the experience he relates is the key philosophical point.  And he 
never addresses in in his book or elsewhere.  He just assumes that his 
experience came when his cortex was compromised, even claiming that it couldn't 
have been a dream because that part of his brain wasn't working, and this is 
the key part of his claim that invalidates it: when he had the experience.

You read the book, how could he can tell exactly when he had the experiences he 
describes?  Are you able within a dream to know exactly when you are having it 
in temporal time given the common time distortions of dreams?  Remember my 
example of waking up and hitting the snooze button and in the next 5 minutes 
having a dream that seems to extend over a long period of time?  There is no 
reason to conclude that he had his experience when his brain was not 
functioning, he could have had it as he revived.  And he would never know.

The other issue you had was about whether or not his claim of having no 
preconditioned perspective on spirituality because he was not a believer.  I 
explained why I am dubious of such claims.  I believe we soak in such 
assumptive beliefs even on toilet tissue commercials. 

He sold a lot of books based on a faulty premise.  That was my opinion of the 
book.  I'm glad you enjoyed it and seem to have gotten more than this 
reductionist view out of it.  Hopefully you and Ann will share some of those 
insights in discussions here.





> One more quick thing - you do not "get that I do not like Share."  That
> is bullshit and it's not true.  I don't have time to explain my FFL
> philosophy on posts and participants, but it would ruin my entire
> experience here if I held grudges or maintained "like and don't like"
> lists.
> And one more thing, sending me that verse with no context initially has
> massive potential to be called another  bullshit move.  (Wait, can I
> call "double bullshit?" )  I am giving you the benefit of the doubt,
> because we both deserve that in this case.  Curtis, did I piss you off
> with my tease again - was that it?  If so, I apologize, I really do - no
> harm intended.  You are a hard-ass motherfucker sometimes - you must
> know this about yourself, no?
> I'm sensitive, with a hard head and an almost fatal dose of defiance in
> my personal life.  So, forgive me, it's the only way I know.
> And, in the spirit of my evil sense of humor, this song goes out to both
> you and Robin.
> Jason Aldean - It's the Only Way I Know
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke8HnVYMApY
>  >
> Now, I'm going to go have a good cry now, put some salve on my burns,
> and then curl up with my blankie (like any baby needing comfort) and I'm
> going to read "All There Is" - Love Stories from Storycorps.
>    >
> 
> 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
fieldl...@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:


Curtis1: I was going to second Steve's post but I guess I would rather address 
you directly Robin since I am so tight with "reality" that if she dies tonight 
on the car ride home CSI would convict me on DNA evidence alone.

Robin1: I welcome you once again, Curtis. Let us see where this goes. I think 
you act as if you certainly are "tight with 'reality'", Curtis--as much easily 
as I do. We both seemed to be inspired by what is real, I will give you that. I 
am becoming accustomed to the tension between us. It seems it's going to last.

You are bloody consistent, Curtis--and I respect your ferocious commitment to 
what you have determined must be the case. But you get me wrong every 
time--except maybe about Descartes. More about that at the end of this. By the 
way, Curtis, you get me more wrong than I perhaps have got Descartes wrong 
(although I only was using his idea of there perhaps being a demon behind all 
that we believe--and turning this into a sense of a devil's advocate: who 
allows us to consider we might be absolutely wrong in everything we believe is 
true--I exploited one idea there. Perhaps you can tell me where I 
misrepresented him).

Curtis1: From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly.

Robin1: A blatant lie. This demonstrates how unconscionable you are when you 
argue, Curtis. You are contradicting the record. Share and I started off very 
much enjoying each other's company and posts. That lasted for quite some time. 
Where did you get the idea that my "mission with Share has been 
unfriendly"--"from the outset". Correct this, Curtis. Even Share will admit you 
have seriously abused the truth here. But your agenda metaphysically and 
psychologically is so powerful and compulsive that you would make this claim as 
if in the face of truth--You can do this better I think than anyone I have
known. And I respect this. But no, Curtis, I liked Share right from the 
beginning, and I have not given up on the notion of our becoming reconciled at 
the most important level. And I think my posts reflect this. You know: clear 
conscience, loving heart.

Curtis 2: Do you think I am referring to my copious notes about how your 
relationship with
other posters have evolved?

Robin2: No, I am just pointing out a significant fact which you falsified.

Curtis2: Mission: the beginning of the current exchange. The topic and context 
of all of
our discussions in the context of those exchanges. Seemed pretty obvious to me.

Robin2: Typical obfuscation and wrenching the issue out of the context within 
which I had placed it by challenging your assertion that "From the outset your 
mission with Share has been unfriendly".

Think of the difference, Curtis. If two persons begin liking each (as I believe 
*we* did) and then fall out with each other (as we did) this represents a very 
different kind of interpersonal drama than, for instance, if two persons did 
not like each other at the outset--which appears to be the case with BW and 
myself. I corresponded with SL in a meaningful, friendly, and loving 
way--offline. Those letters themselves protest against your characterization 
here, Curtis.

But there is something foul about what you insinuate by describing the initial 
antipathy I had towards Share Long. Because--this won't be easy to digest, 
Curtis, so I am giving you this warning before I tell you what I about to tell 
you--*I am wanting in each moment to open myself to Share, to reconcile with 
Share, and to heal the breach in our friendship*. I paid tribute to the 
recognizable change in Share's approach to me in our most recent exchange 
(friendly intelligent, non-negative). By defining my motive as intransigently 
bent upon sustaining my animosity towards Share you willfully distort the 
truth, Curtis, and, as always, this plays into your determination to make the 
truth over into the form which becomes your own creation, never letting truth 
just sit there and making yourself submit to it.

Again, Curtis, I deny that you accurately or honestly reveal my intention 
regarding Share by altering the historical record. What would it mean, do you 
think, had Barry and I struck up a friendship at the beginning, then became 
alienated from each other (admittedly an abstractedly conceived contingency)? 
Our relations would have a very different meaning now, had that once been the 
case (that we were friends).

You relentlessly seek to mould truth and reality into a form which will fit 
your purposes, Curtis. All you had to say was: Oh, that's right, Robin; you 
were friends at the beginning. But you sure wouldn't it now! It is *as if* you 
have always been unfriendly.

But as it is you talk about my "mission" with Share being "unfriendly". And 
then you attempt to wriggle out of the responsibility to acknow

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Thank you for being a participant of this group Emily.  I like most
everything about your style.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"
 wrote:
>
>
> RE: "Oh, I won't try to defend Emily Baby. I am anxious always to stay
> on her good side, as I would dread that circumstance where she began
to
> go after me. She can cut it, as they say. We'll see how she does up
> against the Curtis guy. I predict she will hold her own."
> Oh Dear, Oh Dear.
> Curtis, The reason I questioned whether you'd read the book was
because
> you never made a single reference to anything pertinent in terms of
> content in your posts that indicated such. But, anyone who peruses /
> reads 50 books a month from the library supplemented by a couple of
> reads through the bible every few years, in addition to everything
else
> life serves up and requires to keep one afloat could not be expected
to
> relay more than general comments/conclusions on said book - this I do
> understand.
> One more quick thing - you do not "get that I do not like Share." That
> is bullshit and it's not true. I don't have time to explain my FFL
> philosophy on posts and participants, but it would ruin my entire
> experience here if I held grudges or maintained "like and don't like"
> lists.
> And one more thing, sending me that verse with no context initially
has
> massive potential to be called another bullshit move. (Wait, can I
> call "double bullshit?" ) I am giving you the benefit of the doubt,
> because we both deserve that in this case. Curtis, did I piss you off
> with my tease again - was that it? If so, I apologize, I really do -
no
> harm intended. You are a hard-ass motherfucker sometimes - you must
> know this about yourself, no?
> I'm sensitive, with a hard head and an almost fatal dose of defiance
in
> my personal life. So, forgive me, it's the only way I know.
> And, in the spirit of my evil sense of humor, this song goes out to
both
> you and Robin.
> Jason Aldean - It's the Only Way I Know
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke8HnVYMApY
>  >
> Now, I'm going to go have a good cry now, put some salve on my burns,
> and then curl up with my blankie (like any baby needing comfort) and
I'm
> going to read "All There Is" - Love Stories from Storycorps.
>  >
>
>
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Richard J. Williams]

> > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > 
> > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is 
> > that people would have to shower less if they just 
> > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and 
> > pristine snow he is.
> >
Ann:
> A few things I will give you Barry:
> You are very, very consistent
> Your words bludgeon, they never, ever caress
> Whatever it is you manage to do when you write you 
> repel as opposed to draw people 
> You reduce things to the lowest common denominator 
> You would have made a terrible surgeon
> You would have never made a ballet dance
> Your repertoire needs an overhaul
> 
One thing you need to keep in mind, Ann, is that
most of the posters on this list, such as Barry,
Curtis, and Robin, ARE the 'TMO', in contrast to
the rank and file 'TMers' posting here. Do you see
any aspects of the TMO management style in the
words of Barry, Robin, and Curtis? 

It's all about Barry, Robin and Curtis. Go figure.

So, it seems to me as a casual observer, that 
those who chose NOT to become TM teachers - Judy, 
Lawson, and others, just keep trying to bring the 
conversation back to understanding the mechanics 
of consciousness. LoL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

I love you taxi, I love you.  This made my day, and it's only 7:58.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
>  (With regard to Robin):
> > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever
"reality" is trying to tell them.
>
> This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on.
Does 'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might
be, it seems we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the
world how it should be and how we ought to be.
>
> But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly
if at all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge
of interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything
from Robin, except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing
what is expected of you.
>
> It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to
ensnare you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a
lot of time on your hands, because you will be swamped with long
discourses which take forever to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she
understands these, but if you ask her to interpret them for you, she
will not comply, for it is beneath her to truck with idiots, and thus
she does not have to demonstrate she understands what Robin says.
>
> With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy
will correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this,
but in an argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject
matter is music, Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is
poetry, Robin might be fine to discourse with.
>
> If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually
take on just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you
alone that has to tackle it.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>  (With regard to Robin):
> > Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever 
> > "reality" is trying to tell them.
> 
> This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments 
> revolve on. Does 'reality' in fact ever say anything at 
> all? 

More important, what gives him the right to speak for it?
Or at least to claim to. He seems to like to pretend that
his Narcissistic Personality Disordered subjectivity is 
objective, but I think we all know that isn't the case. 

> Whatever reality might be, it seems we, as individuals, 
> spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it should 
> be and how we ought to be. 
> 
> But the world just does what it does, and people change 
> rather slowly if at all. This is just a straw man argument 
> that puts Robin in charge of interpreting what 'reality' 
> wants of us. 

More important, it the tactic of a chronic abuser who 
has *never* ceased the behavior he established back when
he was a minor -- very minor -- cult leader. That is, to
draw people into "confrontations" with him, with him in
the ostensible position of power, telling people what 
is wrong with them and actually expecting them to *care*
what he thinks of them. 

> You never learn anything from Robin, except that eventually 
> you are under attack for not knowing what is expected of you. 

Or not doing what *he* expects you to do. 

> It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he 
> wants you to ensnare you with, unless you feel like jousting, 
> but you need to have a lot of time on your hands, because 
> you will be swamped with long discourses which take forever 
> to decipher. 

IMO, all *three* of these chronic abusers (Robin, Judy, 
and Ann) run, or try to run, this same "confrontation"
number here. I used to describe Judy's abuse in terms of
Uncle Remus' tarbaby. The point is *not* to get any of
her victims to actually change the behavior or ideas
she's berating them for, it's to suck them into an 
endless argument so she can yell at them and "prove"
how superior to them she is. 

She likes Robin because he runs the same number. Ann
likes both of them because she does exactly the same 
thing, and would like to be like them, but just doesn't
have the chops to pull it off. 

The "jousting," as you put it, is a waste of time. NONE
of these people are interested in the people they're
abusing, and NONE of them are interesting enough in 
their own right to have an actual conversation with 
once they've decided you're fodder for one of their
"confrontations." 

IMO the only way to avoid getting stuck in any of the 
three tarbabies is to avoid interacting with them in
the first place. This requires that the victim is 
strong enough in their own self-esteem and sense of
self-worth to ignore any of the attacks these three
will level at them. If you react, you lose. They will
"declare victory" simply BECAUSE you reacted. 

And THAT, in my honest opinion, is what they really
want. They want to have an *effect* -- usually a 
negative one, one intended to do harm or make the
victim feel bad -- on the people they abuse. The
best way to deal with such abusers is to let them
rant as much as they want, and just to ignore the
rants as if the abusers themselves do not even
exist. 

THAT, after all, seems to be what they fear most, 
that people won't find them interesting enough to
argue with. Well, they're not. They should learn
to live with this. 

> Judy seems to indicate she understands these, but if you 
> ask her to interpret them for you, she will not comply, 
> for it is beneath her to truck with idiots, and thus 
> she does not have to demonstrate she understands what 
> Robin says.
> 
> With these two, you will probably not learn much about 
> reality. Judy will correct bad grammar and logical faults, 
> she is very good at this, but in an argument she will 
> micro parse you to death. 

Tarbaby. 

> If the subject matter is music, Judy might be fine to 
> discourse with. If the subject is poetry, Robin might 
> be fine to discourse with.
>
> If the subject is reality, that is something you have 
> to eventually take on just by yourself. There are many 
> aids, but in the end, it is you alone that has to tackle it.

And NO ONE has the right to try to declare to you what
reality is, as if they "know" and you don't. To do so
is to become an abuser, not a teacher. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[emilymae.reyn]

RE:  "Oh, I won't try to defend Emily Baby. I am anxious always to stay
on her good side, as I would dread that circumstance where she began to
go after me. She can cut it, as they say. We'll see how she does up
against the Curtis guy. I predict she will hold her own."
Oh Dear, Oh Dear.
Curtis, The reason I questioned whether you'd read the book was because
you never made a single reference to anything pertinent in terms of
content in your posts that indicated such.  But, anyone who peruses /
reads 50 books a month from the library supplemented by a couple of
reads through the bible every few years, in addition to everything else
life serves up and requires to keep one afloat could not be expected to
relay more than general comments/conclusions on said book - this I do
understand.
One more quick thing - you do not "get that I do not like Share."  That
is bullshit and it's not true.  I don't have time to explain my FFL
philosophy on posts and participants, but it would ruin my entire
experience here if I held grudges or maintained "like and don't like"
lists.
And one more thing, sending me that verse with no context initially has
massive potential to be called another  bullshit move.  (Wait, can I
call "double bullshit?" )  I am giving you the benefit of the doubt,
because we both deserve that in this case.  Curtis, did I piss you off
with my tease again - was that it?  If so, I apologize, I really do - no
harm intended.  You are a hard-ass motherfucker sometimes - you must
know this about yourself, no?
I'm sensitive, with a hard head and an almost fatal dose of defiance in
my personal life.  So, forgive me, it's the only way I know.
And, in the spirit of my evil sense of humor, this song goes out to both
you and Robin.
Jason Aldean - It's the Only Way I Know
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke8HnVYMApY

Now, I'm going to go have a good cry now, put some salve on my burns,
and then curl up with my blankie (like any baby needing comfort) and I'm
going to read "All There Is" - Love Stories from Storycorps.
  


>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
 (With regard to Robin):
> Usually they are guilty of being unwilling to face whatever "reality" is 
> trying to tell them.

This seems to be one of the axes that Robin's arguments revolve on. Does 
'reality' in fact ever say anything at all? Whatever reality might be, it seems 
we, as individuals, spend a lot of time trying to tell the world how it should 
be and how we ought to be. 

But the world just does what it does, and people change rather slowly if at 
all. This is just a straw man argument that puts Robin in charge of 
interpreting what 'reality' wants of us. You never learn anything from Robin, 
except that eventually you are under attack for not knowing what is expected of 
you. 

It's better to just walk away from that mental prison he wants you to ensnare 
you with, unless you feel like jousting, but you need to have a lot of time on 
your hands, because you will be swamped with long discourses which take forever 
to decipher. Judy seems to indicate she understands these, but if you ask her 
to interpret them for you, she will not comply, for it is beneath her to truck 
with idiots, and thus she does not have to demonstrate she understands what 
Robin says.

With these two, you will probably not learn much about reality. Judy will 
correct bad grammar and logical faults, she is very good at this, but in an 
argument she will micro parse you to death. If the subject matter is music, 
Judy might be fine to discourse with. If the subject is poetry, Robin might be 
fine to discourse with.

If the subject is reality, that is something you have to eventually take on 
just by yourself. There are many aids, but in the end, it is you alone that has 
to tackle it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I was going to second Steve's post but I guess I would rather address you 
> > > directly Robin since I am so tight with "reality" that if she dies 
> > > tonight on the car ride home CSI would convict me on DNA evidence alone.
> > > 
> > > From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly and she has 
> > > done a pretty good job of handling herself considering that you are just 
> > > letting her have it with both barrels about herself, uninvited.  It 
> > > reminds me of our conversations which followed the same arc, although I 
> > > at lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the assault. 
> > > 
> > > "You would make Share's post into some devastating counterpunch."
> > > 
> > > You have used similar metaphors of competition in our conversations and I 
> > > am seeing a pattern. The issue is that you seem to believe, perhaps 
> > > sincerely, that you have a better insight into some posters here than 
> > > they do of themselves.  And when they reject this assumption, (as any 
> > > adult would), you act as if you are in a fight to make them see 
> > > themselves through your unflattering lens.
> > > 
> > > Why would we? You may be thinking that your "insight" is more valuable 
> > > than it is.  And having been the focus of your unasked for improvement 
> > > sessions myself, I have to say that you aren't that perceptive Robin. And 
> > > perhaps you are in person, so you have developed an unnaturally high 
> > > self-regard about this ability, but it isn't cutting it here.  You have 
> > > been running a formula and it is increasingly obvious.
> > > 
> > > So that is my opinion and I don't need to word flood you about it or 
> > > repeat it a million times.  I've made my point and as a fellow adult I 
> > > suspect you will just blow it all off as me being me.
> > 
> > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > 
> > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is 
> > that people would have to shower less if they just 
> > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and 
> > pristine snow he is.
> 
> A few things I will give you Barry:
> You are very, very consistent
> Your words bludgeon, they never, ever caress
> Whatever it is you manage to do when you write you repel as opposed to draw 
> people 
> You reduce things to the lowest common denominator 
> You would have made a terrible surgeon
> You would have never made a ballet dance

Ha! Funny how a typo comes out better than what I actually meant. I thought I 
wanted an 'r' after 'dance' but it is better like it is.

> Your repertoire needs an overhaul
> 
> 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
snip

> No, see, I corrected your mistake. I'm saying you aren't
> interesting enough to have any further discussion with.
>
Yes Judy.  Whatever you say Judy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > > wrote:
> > > > (snip)
> > > > > Robin, no one ever bests you. You appear so inviting a
> > > > > person to discourse with, but it never works out that
> > > > > way. I guess it's the template that you use for these
> > > > > discussions. It never seems to vary much and inevitably
> > > > > whoever you are discoursing with is found to be lacking
> > > > > in many ways. Usually they are guilty of being unwilling
> > > > > to face whatever "reality" is trying to tell them.
> > > >
> > > > Ask Emily whether that's true, Steve. Or Ann. Or raunchy.
> > > > Or me, for that matter. We have all "discoursed" with
> > > > Robin without having been found lacking or unwilling to
> > > > face reality. Feste (before he turned against Robin) and
> > > > PaliGap and Bob Price have all had very cordial discourses
> > > > with Robin. Others as well.
> > > >
> > > Okay, I am sure that is true. I guess within a certain range
> > > it works out. But out of a certain range a different Robin
> > > emerges.
> >
> > Nope, same Robin, just talking to people who seem to him
> > to have a feeble grasp on reality, or the intention to
> > subvert it.
> >
> > > And yes, I am referring to his discussions with Curtis,
> > > or Share, or me on a few occassions me. And I am sure
> > > there are others.
> > >
> > > I believe your position will be that he is pointing out
> > > deficiencies in their FBO, but I am not on board with
> > > that evaluation.
> >
> > I have no idea what "FBO" is.
> >
> > > And for all I know you and others may be correct in that
> > > evaluation. I just don't see it that way. And then, of
> > > course there is reality.
> > >
> > > The reality of his life, and your life, and anyone's life.
> > > How is that going? How is one perceived by others? Let's
> > > take that into consideration as well.
> >
> > Let's not and say we did. I was addressing a factual
> > misstatement of yours. I'm not interested in getting
> > into a discussion with you beyond correcting that.
> >
> Is that what they call framing a discussion within
> narrow parmaters so that you can prove some point you
> wish to prove?  I think it is.  You won't mind if I bow
> out of that usual turn of the discussion? Thank you.

No, see, I corrected your mistake. I'm saying you aren't
interesting enough to have any further discussion with.