--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's > > made a point of telling you how much he likes you > > might have something to do with your positive > > opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as > > snark; I'm just calling your attention to > > something that may not have occurred to you. We're > > all inclined to think well of people who say they > > think well of us, moi included.) > > > I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've > had about the dynamic here. > > I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion > here. I think the best response to not reading what interests you > here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more > interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain > assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many > here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's > internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go > beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special > (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume > again. I think it was a blind spot.) Jim and I had some pleasant > discussions. I think he was genuinely confused that he had a > superiority tone and didn't understand why some would not want to > interact under that premise of relationship. So liked parts of Jim > and that was enough to keep the ball rolling occasionally. > > Same with Michael. We didn't share much in would view but he was > willing to open up and let me see his a bit and I really enjoyed the > ride and respected his ability to accept how far I was willing to go > with it all. > > Ruth and I shared a comfort with each other's perspective. But > ultimately I'm not sure her interest could be sustained here. I think > she was genuinely interested in why people would hold some of the > beliefs some people do here, and I remember when she first started > interacting with Judy in fruitful discussions. I was sorry to see > that fall apart whatever the reasons because I think they often > brought out the best from each other. I don't blame Judy for that > ultimately working not out. It was a fascinating unnatural mix and > that interaction is the coolest thing that happens here IMO, but it is > a fragile creature and unsustainable. Judy was being Judy and that > either works for you or it doesn't. For Ruth it didn't in the end, > but I'm sure her mind was not going to be fulfilled here after she had > mined some of the groups richest intellectual veins a bit more. I > think people who hang here are more into the process of what goes on > there rather than the content. I miss her perspective. > > Judy and Turq love their war. I've already said I am gay for both of > them, but the relationships are completely different. With Turq there > is natural affection. We know the edges of where our beliefs don't > line up but I can't imagine a reason for us to argue about any of it. > We agree more than disagree, so keeping rapport is easy. But we have > also taken some time to get to know each other in a bit more detail so > our friendship online is more specific. I feel as if he has taken the > effort to understand what is important to me and I have done the same. > (how gay is that?) So even if we find something to disagree about in > our world view it is in a context of friendliness. > > With Judy it is more of an understanding rather than a natural > comfort. Having gotten bored with my own cartoonish view of her, I > consciously tried to see who was behind the light saber and grew to > appreciate her POV. Not share always, but appreciate and to my > surprise sometimes learn from it. So now even though I can be a bit > reactive and defensive with her, I am usually able to see something of > value beyond my own touchiness in our interactions that I value. She > has met me half way in this and it has allowed for some of the more > fruitful discussions I have had here. I can't count on her defaulting > to seeing me in the best light as I can with Turq. Every interaction > is kind of an emotional clean slate with nothing assumed beforehand > with her. It could always go either way. It is a bit edgy and fun. > > But both of them would prefer the all out war that engages them > together to almost any other interaction here I think. I'm just going > by the numbers of posts devoted to it. This may not really represent > an emotional preference. Their joy in enhanced by their lack of > seeing each other in a more 3 dimensional way. They love their anime > co-created world. People who read it and freak out are just dealing > with their own conflict issues IMO. It is optional, but if you choose > to read it, you can often find some really entertaining verbal > sparring from two creative, intelligent ( I am so gay) minds who are > fully engaged in a Tarantino like script that they have honed to a > high art. My natural affinity with Turq does not mean that in every > exchange I "take his side." Many times I am more in agreement with > Judy's point. But never in the absolute way that she might like. I > agree only on the specific issue sometimes, not the general "Turq is > bad" general overtone. (the word "bad" is in place of a series of > invectives that would cause my laptop to overheat) And conversely, > when I appreciate a point scored by Turq, it is not an acceptance that > the match is his, and that I agree with his total characterization of > Judy. (again "bad" will have to do) > > So "should" they see each other in a more friendly way, taking the > time to get to know the good parts of each other in an Ecstasy fueled > rave love fest bringing a spirit of Kumbaya to FFL and through it to > the whole world? HELL NO! As long as you guys slug it out I will be > an occasional fan at the match and for those people who find this too > much heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. This is not Darfur, this > is two writers who get a kick out of mixing it up online. > > They don't need to change, FFL doesn't need to get more "anything." > It either servers your needs or it doesn't. To my surprise it has > been a real pleasure to post and read here for quite some time. The > place rocks IMO. And it rocks because of every person who puts fingers > to keys and contributes more than a complaint that it isn't more > "whatever." > > I am gay for FFL. There, I've said it!
Brilliant, as usual Curtis. I'm gay for you, Turq and several others here too. Let's call it a 'Bromance. (Wait, I'm gay for Sal too....and there was Ruth....)
