--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
> RESPONSE: Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. [Curtis to Judy] > > Well, my friend, this *is* bullshit. Because it implies some equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity. ME: No it doesn't. It means he went after you enthusiastically. It denies the possibility for any "equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity:. Robin2: "Enthusiastically": I reject this word as applying to Barry in any way whatsoever. What about "douchebaggery", Curtis? Is that a word you would ever consider in the context of describing Barry's reaction to Robin? Think about it. Shit, man, if I ever felt "enthusiasm" in Barry's response to me, no matter how negative it was, I would rejoice. Did you hear that, Curtis? I would rejoice. Now tell me once again: "It means he went after you enthusiastically"unless you are using that word in its most pejoratively connotative sense. Robin1 Barry has scrupulously avoided any real contact with me, so as to demonstrate he is willing to stand behind what he says. "Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels". No, Curtis, Barry was "giving it to Robin" in a form of scattershot carelessness and impetuous pique which could never be understood by any honest bystander as "giving it to me with both barrels". ME: OK if that characterization works better for you. I guess we have a different view of what the analogy "both barrels" implies. For me it is full-on aggression. Robin2: "Full-on aggression". Again a terrible and inaccurate characterization of what Barry did when he criticized me. Tell me one thing, Curtis (hey, I'm always doing this, n'est-pas?): did Barry *ever* say anything by way of criticizing me which indicated he was willing to answer to that criticism; that is, stand behind it? Did he demonstrate in his silence he was confident about what he said such that further discussion was pointless? Barry would never get caught in "full-on aggression". I invite him to deal with me with "full-on aggression". WTF are you doing here, Curtis? You are aiding and abetting Barry in being arrested in his post-Frederick Lenz fall-out, something which he does not understand, but which he is, in my estimation, a victim of. Don't get it, Curtis; don't get it at all. Robn1: F**k me. I *wish* Barry would give it to me with both barrels. But he never will, Curtis. ME: You are including more in the metaphor than I did. I don't know why you are taking me to task for having a slightly different take on what "both barrels" includes. Robin2: "Enthusiastically and full-on aggression"this ain't no metaphor. > Robin1: Now look: I take back nothing of what I have just said in that letter; I will only say that this invidious (and implied) comparison is baffling to me. ME: I didn't say it was justified, I meant it was enthusiastic. Obviously given the difference in our interactions I didn't agree with his take on you. But it was both forceful and hostile which is what the image of both barrels means to me. Robin2: Give me an instance where Barry's criticism of Robinhis characteristic onesare "forceful". If they are forceful they have the chance to be true. And that very much interests me. No, your responses to me are forceful. If I felt the 'force' of Barry's critiques of me, I would have to respect what he was saying, even if I chose not to believe it. "Enthusiasm" again: well this for me is the conduction of something which, at least in intention, is positive. I have not felt Barry's enthusiasm. Has anyone else out there felt this? Oops! shouldn't be asking that question: I am likely to get both barrels. Robin1: Just out with it: Stand behind this one declarative statement: "Although I like both of them, in my judgment Barry is giving it to Robin in principle at least the same way Robin is giving it to Barry." ME: I think he took an instant dislike to you and spent some time expressing it. I don't believe that his initial attack was warranted and it put you in a weird defensive posture. You tried to work with it to get past that hostility but it did not work. Barry is not going to budge about his initial negative assessment of you no matter what you respond with. So the two barrels don't imply that there is a balance in how you have related to each other. He went after you and I believe you found it perplexing at first. But now that you know who you are dealing with you can decide how much attention to spend on interactions with him. This is a plant that will not grow without water. Robin2; On one level I accept this. Because I do recall his initial negative adjudication of my posts was devoid of affect or screwy venom. "It put you in a weird defensive posture". True. But not such that it distorted or perversely influenced the way I countered his criticism. I wanted to draw him out; he refused to do this. And I know, unless you were dissembling big time with me, you were in accordance with my perception and analysis of Barry. Barry,I resisted his criticism of me, Curtis, not out of defensiveness as such; more out of perplexity and confoundment, *since Barry never gave any evidence of the experience within him that gave rise to his criticism of me*. I certainly was not quarrelling with his right to lambaste me in any way he chose; what was more than disappointing was his subsequent failure to make contact with anything real inside of him out of which he was inspired to say what he was saying. Barry has never gone toe-to-toe with anyone. And wonder why this is. I don't even think he realizes how carefully and punctiliously he avoids any real contact sport intellectually. No, Curtis, I don't understand one thing: Why don't you make Barry minimally accountable for his judgments. We all have persons who dislike us, or dislike our philosophies; that's a given. What sets Barry apartand this is said in mercy and compassionyes, I really mean thisis that he quarantines himself off from those whom he dislikes. There can never be any *movement* in all this. Barry is a sniper who flees once he's got his shot offwhich often wildly misses the bull's eye (even as he acts in his sullenness and (puerile) smugness as he has hit the target). "He went after you and I believe you found it perplexing at first". Perplexing only insofar, Curtis, as he didn't appear to be lining me up in his cross-hairs. But maybe Barry is my best and truest critic. And he is martyring himself by refusing to bring out his sword. I will try to treat him like some Don Juan incognito character a la Carlos Castaneda. The enemy who is loving me in his silence. What do I not know about Barry that you know, Curtis, which would help me to explain your stance here? Do you think it all comes down to: Robin can't take it? Barry has never done the noble or honest thing in his negative reaction to meand how about this, Curtis: I defy you to interpret his criticism of me such as to truly make it possible for you to believe he is experiencing this reaction to me in a way that is truthful to who he really is. But perhaps I am even wrong about *this*. Maybe I could ask you, Curtis: Can you conceive of some way that I could ingratiate myself with Barry such that he would lay off of me? > Robin1:Then I shall believe that you believe what you say to Judy here, that "Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels". ME: I also believe that he was not interacting with you so much as an impression he gleaned about how you operate connected with his experience of people (especially leaders) in spiritual groups. You got pied. It is disconcerting I know. But in my view he was giving it to you with both barrels of hostility. Robin2: I hate this response, Curtis, because it implies that my posts at FFL reeked of cult leader pride and didacticism. I deny this is the case. You infuriate me, Curtis, with your tactics here: you were determined to go down with the ship; never once paying *any* attention to the intrinsic justice of Barry's maneuvers with me. Why do you implicitly refuse to reveal your own estimationintellectually, psychologicallyof the validity of Barry's remarks about me, nor the style in which he expresses them. I think you have finally flummoxed me on this one, Curtis; and I should just surrender the field to you. But one last question: What is it about me which causes me to fail to register the higher truth that you obviously are on contact with in your argument on behalf of Barry? Because I am resisting something here, which you are not resisting. Ergo, my resistance is debarring me from insight. Has to be true. : Robin1:Barry will have loved that you said that, Curtis, but I know *for a fact* that this is not your true judgment of what Barry is doing when he goes off on Robin. > > Must it come to this kind of politics? ME: I think you read too much into the metaphor. It was not meant to give Barry a chuckle but to sum up how I saw his hostile approach to you. Would it help if I characterized it as mean? But I don't need to chase after Barry with my opinion, he knows what he was doing. Robin2; "But I don't need to chase after Barry with my opinion, he knows what he was doing." NO. HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING. And that is the whole problem. Just like Frederick Lenz didn't know quite what he was doing. If I even got the tinge of sensing: Barry knows what he was doing, my whole perplexity here, Curtis, would vanish. Please reiterate this, because if it is true in any objective sense, it means I am the guy with the problem. Not Barry, You, despite my unyielding (and positive) conclusion as expressed in that last letter to you (today's first post), nonplus me. I think I am just not up to the moves that you makeall sincere, obviously. But you are just one step ahead of me I think, Curtis. If I were to accord you any real credibility hereas you attempt to inform me of my blindnessit would mean that my whole way of going about my life is flawed, and I am one big happy ignoramus. I am going to have to listen to you play your music after this. Just to regain a proper perspective. I get it, Curtis: Barry and Robin have the same motivation, the same principle of argumentation, and the same level of candour in their judgments. Fine. I think I finally am there. Robin1: No matter. My letter standsbut so does my post to Judy. > If I were you, Curtis, I would, in my off-line correspondence with Barry, risk edifying him about how he comes off here at FFL. ME: Barry and I rarely discuss FFL. We are usually working on such different tracks here. I have long conversations with Judy and you and he would rather grill his genitals on a Hibachi than engage in either discussions. I am only concerned with how we relate, not how he chooses to relate to others. I am not interested in getting involved in a no win situation getting between people who don't like each other or who (in this case) Barry has taken an instant dislike to. The way you and I have communicated is enough information about who we both are for people to make a more informed decision about us. That is good enough for me. I can't make anyone read anything or see what I see in people. Robin2: Look, Curtis; let me sum it all up: For you Barry's existential dignity is the same as mine, the same as Judy's, the same as yours. His intellectual and moral deportment does not in any way make him the subject of criticism. He is as fair, as honest, as sincere in what he likes and what he dislikes as you are. I understand this finally. I just hope he appreciates what kind of ultimate endorsement you have given him here in your conversation with me. I hope you will defend me (if I earn your tentative trust once more) as doggedly and as unwavering as you have Barry should I criticize someone here at FFL and then refuse to substantiate or demonstrate the validity of such criticism. "he would rather grill his genitals on a Hibachi than engage in either discussions" (you with me, you with Judy). Well, maybe he is onto something, Curtis. Maybe our dialogues are deserving of the contempt and aversion that characterizes Barry's response. I think this is a very subtle cop-out, because I think, for any normal, intelligent, sensitive human being those conversations between us were worth reading. This is how it all comes down then, Curtis: Barry's revulsion vis-a-vis our long posts may be just s true as our enthusiasm for carrying on with them. It makes me think: what if Barry is right? But I will never get through to you, Curtis. I take my stand in my letter to you (first post of today). And I choose to leave it there. > Robin1::Meanwhile I shall just trust in the wisdom which makes you say what you say here to which I have responded. ME: Thanks for the response. I am still processing it all. Robin: Looks as if Barry has finally come between us. Funny, that. Barry, you have wrested Curtis from my grasp. I think this a good thing. And by the way, Barry: at the end of this whole thing, I realize: Curtis *must* be right in his defence of you. And I hope you appreciate what it has cost him in time and energy. He is a faithful friend [to you]. I doubt if I will start up my Hibachi after this. I wish, though, Curtis had not referred to "genitals". If you know what I mean. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with > > > > some comments made about me. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > <terasnip> > > > > > Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem > > > > > interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the > > > > > bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and > > > > > unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and > > > > > I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually > > > > > ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold > > > > > in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something > > > > > to my friend [Barry]. > > > > > > > > > > ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is > > > > > not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is > > > > > blameless. > > > > > > > > Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my > > > > exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis > > > > he is not in a position to remark on the balance of > > > > blame. > > > > > > ME: Judy I never claimed never to have read them. You guys are kind of > > > prolific and a bit repetitive. I have read plenty to evaluate them. I > > > avoid them because they are kind of mean on both sides. Your choice, but > > > that is not interesting to me. > > > > > > > I don't claim to be "blameless," but I utterly reject > > > > the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is > > > > anything but *hugely* lopsided. > > > > > > ME: And predictibly he feels the opposite I'll bet. That is the nature > > > of feuds. > > > > > > > Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that > > > > comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant > > > > number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not > > > > simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. > > > > Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis > > > > of points that Barry has made. > > > > > > ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much guarenteed to > > > continue the ill will. > > > > > > > > That is never the case with Barry's posts that have > > > > to do with me. > > > > > > > > There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't > > > > *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. > > > > > > > > > R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility > > > > > of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he > > > > > depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and > > > > > candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only > > > > > reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf. > > > > > > > > > > ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with > > > > > him. There were other choices. > > > > > > > > Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have > > > > spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint. > > > > But I don't pretend to be a saint. > > > > > > > > Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks > > > > because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit > > > > list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit > > > > list if he can possibly help it. > > > > > > ME: I don't view my role here the way you do I guess. I don't need to > > > stand up for people here very often and they don't need to stand up for > > > me. And you don't stand up for me so your complaint is kind of hollow. > > > > > > > But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis > > > > would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit > > > > list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to > > > > the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so > > > > sanguine about the availability of "other choices." > > > > > > > > > > ME: There are examples. Jim and I have had some of the most rancorous > > > exchanges with anyone here but we found a friendlier path and now > > > exchanges are much more interesting. There are some posters who will > > > always take agressive shots and I avoid them after giving it the old > > > college try. > > > > > > In fact our interactions are an example of both of us choosing to > > > interact in a more interesting way that is less one dimentional. But it > > > took us both to decide that is what we wanted. No one had to step in and > > > help us work it out. > > > > > > And I am not even advocating that you do change your pattern with Barry.. > > > You both seem to enjoy it so I get it, that this is none of my business. > > > I was just giving my opinion to Robin that the Tango rule is in full > > > force here. Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. But he > > > defended himself without any rescuers like most adults here. > > > I don't understand why you feel you need anyone to intervene when you > > > obviously have it all under control and are enjoying yourself in the > > > interaction relationship you have both chosen. > > > > > > On the other hand I have stuck my nose in when the topic interests me so > > > I am not making some rule for myself. I pick and choose just as you do. > > > But there is no intersection between how I relate to you and how Barry > > > does. Same for how I relate to him and the way you do. I might as well > > > be dealing with two different people in each case. And that is by mutual > > > choice. > > > > > >
