Ann, oh my gosh! My heart just got a big shot of sweetness. And you displaying the very courage that you admire. Now I do too. Because I've definitely been put in the out group. And yet there you are. Taking up for me. Thank you. Hope I can repay in kind some day some way. And believe me, I'm on no rocket ship to enlightenment. Just bumbling along like everyone else.
Just a little curious. What do you do in your daily life that would horrify me? Something to do with horse poop? ________________________________ From: awoelflebater <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:40 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: "I'm not going to shut up; it's my turn!" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Dear Judy: Â Yes, you are correct. I decided not to take sides. Â In writing > what I did that night, it was well-received in the moment. Â It was > spontaneous and intended as irony and it absolutely posed a challenge to > Curtis. Â It was written *to* Curtis and *for* Robin. Â Emotions and energy > were running high here on FFL that day. Â I stand by what I said.... > > Dear Curtis: Â You will note I deleted in my key points the part about the > "soul". Â I did that for you buddy. Â But, really, in the essence of it all, > my perception was that Robin's post *did* reflect your position online. > Â HOWEVER, I respect your point, absolutely, that no one except *you* can > delineate your REAL point of view. Â So, I give you deference in that > respect, which is why I backed off of my ironic post to you. Â I planned my > exit strategy, from the start, in the spontaneity of post itself. Â Whaddya > think, I am an idiot? Â Believe me, Â the experiences that I have had (Robin, > are you listening?) have shown me, that one can push someone into the corner, > but one better be ready...because I've done that, and I know what can happen, > in the real world. Â Not here, obviously. Â > > Dear Ann: Â I'm doing my daily write on one post. Â FFL may not be real life, > but it weirdly addresses the real, the surreal, and the not so real > simultaneously. Â People's personalities do get exposed here through what > they write and post. Â I agree with Robin on that one...even though I made a > point that words are words and I can could change up mine to give you a > different impression of me. My words are all you have to go by. Â But, energy > is also transmitted back and forth here, or perhaps, just *evoked* personally > from what different people write. Â I don't know, but it fuels an ongoing > tension and dissonance in how we perceive one another and reality. Â Share is > bothering you. Â She bothered me as well - all this advice on "love and > light" shit. Â Been there, done that. Â Still doing that, honestly. > Â However, I have learned that one cannot push another past where they are > and some of that "love and light" shit is good shit. Â Let it flow across > the forum....nurturing nurse that she may be perceived as. Â Thanks for your thoughts Emily. You do amaze me sometimes with your candidness. It takes courage to be as straight up as you often appear to be. I hold courage in high regard. I think it is highly remarkable to witness courage in life. I wish I had more of it although there are times when I realized I possessed more than I thought I had. It is not that Share bothers me. Share is doing what Share wants to do and presumably must do. It is her life and I do not begin to judge her on any of that. I can tell you I'd rather spend a week with Share alone than with lots of other people I know on this planet. So although I do not sense that what interests Share in her everyday pursuit of things like quantum light weaving and jyotish readings or all of the things I have never even heard of that is my shortcoming, not hers. I am sure she would be horrified having to do what I do in a day, a week. I am not on any rocket ship to enlightenment, if it even does exist. However, when anyone holds an intention to live one's life without harming or traumatizing others, and that includes animals, then I am all for it. > > Dear Robin: Â What's wrong with me? Â Don't answer that, you are banned for a > week. Â Answer it later. Â I am open to your assessment. Â Mostly, I know I'm > fucked up already, so therefore, any assistance in getting me to understand > Reality would be appreciated. Â I am feeling neglected. Â I am needy. Â Barry > would agree with me, I'm sure. Â Now, I have to go and attend to my real life > issues, but I look forward to your return. Â Love always, Emily. Â Â Â > > > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:53 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: "I'm not going to shut up; it's my > turn!" > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > The technique of trying to write from someone else's POV can > > be useful to promote understanding. That is not how it was > > being used here. So the front that I need to show Robin > > where he misrepresented my POV is all a ruse. > > One would think Curtis wouldn't *start* with misrepresentation > when his goal is to show how he's been misrepresented. > > Had Curtis not claimed that Robin had misrepresented his > POV, it wouldn't have been an issue; there would have been > no demand for Curtis to identify the purported > misrepresentations. Curtis brought this on himself. > > Curtis's attempted analysis is much more about writing > style and specific choices of words than it is about POV. > Curtis has identified and denied a few actual POV > elements. I don't know whether Robin wants to go to the > trouble, and I certainly don't, but I believe most of > those elements could indeed be found in what Curtis has > written about Robin. Perhaps Curtis has just forgotten; > or perhaps he hopes others have, knowing that not that > many people actually followed his discussions with Robin > after they became rancorous. > > > This is a > > mockery piece disguised as Robin's scary brilliance to > > imitate another poster's POV. Then it became a vehicle for > > the troll jackals to to their thing. > > Again, the only reason it became a vehicle for criticism > of Curtis was his claim to have been misrepresented and > his denial that he had any ethical obligation to identify > the purported misrepresentations. He had every right to > demand that Robin make it crystal clear that any future > attempt at representing Curtis's POV was a Robin's-eye > view and not something actually written by Curtis. > > > Mocking me is fine, just don't sign my name. Pretty simple? > > Yes, it would have been very simple had Curtis not decided > to claim misrepresentation. > > > It should have been enough that I said it misrepresented me, > > because I AM me. I might know. > > Curtis might well know. Or he could just as easily have made > it up. Hence the call for him to identify the > misrepresentations that otherwise only he could see (or not > see, as the case may be). > > > But both Judy and Robin have made such a huge fucking deal > > Said huge fucking deal could never have been made had Curtis > not claimed misrepresentation. > > > (Judy even accusing me of lying about it) > > and Emily weighing in that it was just so wonderful, I thought > > I would take a few minutes to use this piece to show Robin > > that he not only doesn't understand my actual POV, he sucks at > > imitating my style because he is locked in his own. > > Of course, Curtis's style wasn't the point. The point was > to capture Curtis's POV on Robin. Curtis's analysis here > focuses primarily on style rather than POV and does very > little in the way of rebutting the latter. > > Emily has been explicit that she isn't "siding" with Robin > over Curtis, so I don't think it's unfair for me to quote > her in this context. She's addressing Curtis here: > > "Robin has managed, somehow, to capture almost perfectly his > own MO from your perspective and others' actually, although > perhaps not exclusively, as you note. How many people are > able to represent so accurately another's viewpoint of > themselves - he must have tried on the Reality of it all, > dontcha think...maybe just one shoe? You must admit you have > made these key points on many occasions, albeit using > different words:" > > What's interesting is that an unbiased and intelligent third > party perceives Curtis to have made the points he claims are > misrepresentations. Either they aren't misrepresentations, > then, or Curtis did not succeed in making his *actual* POVs > on these points clear. Assuming, to be charitable, that the > latter is the case, it would seem to be grossly unfair for > Curtis to criticize Robin for not representing Curtis's POVs > accurately. Curtis must take responsibility for failing to > convey them clearly. > > Note also that Emily is not talking about words or style; > she's talking about POV only, the gist of what Curtis has > said about Robin, not the way he said it. > > And then Emily poses a challenge to Curtis: > > "Curtis, you have the skill set to reply in-kind, should > you so choose." > > Curtis may have the skill set, but he doesn't have the > guts to make the attempt. Contra Emily, I don't think he > has the insight or the humility either. > > <snip> > > But before I start lets look at how low Robin lowered the bar > > as he taunted me to do this: > > > > > ROBIN PRETENDS HE IS CURTIS. HE ISN'T REALLY. NONE OF WHAT FOLLOWS IS> > > > > > WHAT CURTIS WOULD DREAM OF SAYING. THIS POST HAS NOTHING DO WITH CURTIS. > > > > Of course the idea that NONE of it is anything I would dream > > of saying is a loaded deck. Even a broken clock is right > > twice a day. So knowing this exercise will do no good, I begin. > > It should be noted here that Robin did not make including > such a notice (the all-caps quote above) on the posts in > question contingent on Curtis proving that NONE of what > Robin said is anything Curtis would dream of saying. So there > was no deck-loading by Robin, just more Curtis disingenuity. > > There is additional disingenuity in Curtis's purported > analysis, most egregiously in Curtis's misrepresentation > of the discussion he had with Robin about saintly > levitation. Another example is Curtis's denial of "love- > bombing." That would be extremely easy to refute from > Curtis's past posts. I may deal with both of these in > a later post, as well as some of the others of Curtis's > denials. Enough is enough for now. >
