Whew! Thanks for putting this one to an end. : )
I had to incorporate the speed reader programs for these.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
>
> After spending over an hour responding to your responses last night I was
> attacked by a virus which has now eaten up 3 hours of my morning. It is a
> pernacious bastard that uses popups to pretend it is an aniti virus program
> that you must buy. No matter how I attack it it comes back. I may now have
> it on the run, finally being able to run my blocked malwarebytes program
> after renaming one of the virus files.
>
> I am now typing on my Ipad without any of what I wrote which may or may not
> be preserved in Firefox when I get through with this ordeal. But I am going
> into this detail because I experienced an emotion of frustration fighting
> this thing that keeps coming back in different forms that I recognized. It
> is how I feel in the endless defenses that I am asked to mount for both you
> and Judy. But unlike my situation with my computer where quitting is not an
> option, with you guys I can and will throw in the towel. This quote from
> your post below pretty much sums up how differently we are viewing our roles
> on FFL:
> "I find this an abdication of your moral responsibility, and if you don't see
> this, then that is in itself an extraordinary indictment of you.
>
> I am still waiting to hear an argument that makes sense of this, Curtis."
>
> There is no better summation that distills the 180 degree difference in how
> we view our role in each other's life here. And I know that Judy would
> heartily agree because in a thousand different forms she has said basically
> the same thing to me many many many times.
>
> So here it is Robin. You have made your case about my failings and have
> expressed your outrage that I am this way. You have found others who share
> your view and perspective on my faults. And what makes it even more of a
> match, Judy ( among all the others who have your perspective on me) actually
> has the same enthusiasm to write endlessly about my lacks, taking each
> defense as an invitation to double down and attack in a different way to get
> her point across. So you two need to discuss this topic together if you
> wish, but I am out.
>
> I am not going to give Barry the shit you seek. You may do that yourself if
> you wish. I am over the Bob thing for good. I will treat your posts as I do
> Judy's. If the topic interests me I will pursue it. (My faults will be
> unlikely topics of interest to me but you can give it a shot I even defend
> myself to Judy sometimes for a round or two before I realize I am getting
> nowhere.)
>
> Your relationships with other people online don't interest me. Your view that
> I am legislating reality does not either. You are welcome to type your
> fingers off about my failings and faults. You and I do not share the same
> values, you share Judy's.
>
> I was thinking about your challenge that I consider what I would tell 12th
> graders about our interaction. I would tell them that if you are on an
> internet forum and someone seems endlessly interested in discussing your
> faults that you yourself did not invite and do not agree with, you should
> stop interacting with that person. They are looking for someone to argue
> with and you can piss away hours of your life defending yourself to someone
> who doesn't care about you. I certainly couldn't look the in the eye and
> justify the hours I have spent trying to defend myself.
>
> So now we know the score about what values we share and what ones we don't.
> We'll just have to see if we share any common interests. By at least you have
> found a kindred spirit in Judy and I look forward to reading the posts that
> you will surely create in simpatico.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Robin2: You have, then, answered Bob Price: for you have judged his post
> > > to be
> > devoid of substance or truth. His posts were not answered then because, try
> > as
> > you might, you could not sense anything sincerely felt or intellectually
> > articulated that went to what was important. I think it is good to have made
> > this clarification: viz "He was being a dick to a stranger on the
> > internet". Bob
> > Price's unanswered posts were, then, unworthy of a response. I would like,
> > for
> > my own purposes, to know what set of criteria you morally or psychologically
> > apply to make this determination: As for example, you deemed my post
> > something
> > to be answered, not Bob Price's.
> > >
> > > What is it about this post in particular which puts it in another category
> > from those two posts from Bob Price?
> >
> >
> > Curtis3: I just want to note that after being kinda clear about my lack of
> > interest in
> > this subject you have doubled down with a few paragraphs, including
> > suggesting
> > that you post Bob's insults again to stick them in my face. And of course I
> > can't control what you write but is this really friendly? Is this how you
> > react
> > to all your friend's preferences?
> >
> > Robin4: I mist have misinterpreted those two posts. I took them to be a
> > moral and intellectual challenge; not just "Bob's little FU to all things
> > Curtis". If they had been what you have characterized them here in this
> > post, *I would have recognized this for myself*, and would have, had I been
> > your friend, urged you not to answer them. Because they were not worthy of
> > being answered. I have no bias one way or the other: I don't forge
> > alliances in order to alter my own moral responsibilities: If Tom Brady
> > does something dirty, I don't, because I root for the Patriots and like
> > Brady as a person, given him a bye and judge him differently from how I
> > would judge James Harrison of the Steelers, who I don't particularly like
> > and think it is dirty player. When I read the first of those two posts I
> > refer to, I thought: Wow: Curtis can really show what he is made of here by
> > answering this putdown of himself.
> >
> > When you just blew this off with some comment like: "That was the most
> > disgusting post I have read at FFL" (or words to this effect), I was
> > appalled, shocked, stupefied. Because I have noticed that whenever Judy
> > criticizes you, you come right back at her. But even in this case, you
> > sometimesat suspiciously significant junctures in your dialogues with
> > hergo silent, and refuse to take a stand which would enable the reader of
> > this feud to know you have the confidence to stand up to Judynot as an
> > adversary, but in terms of the form of her arguments against what you have
> > written.
> >
> > In order to comprehend how you can walk away from those two posts, Curtis,
> > I would have to have some kind of experience in reading those posts which
> > would make your decision understandable to me in terms of not being a
> > dishonourable act {which I deem it to be in the absence of an kind of
> > reasonable explanation]. You can of course, as you do here, define those
> > posts as just "Bob's little FU to all things Curtis"'; but this peremptory
> > fiat does not make of them what you say they are. There has to be some kind
> > of agreement between your judgment of those posts and what they really are
> > independent of your saying what they are. Should one interpret and define
> > those posts according to what you say they are here? Is that the last word?
> > No, Curtis, you can choose to rule them out of order, declaring there is
> > nothing there worthy of taking notice; but then the question comes in: Is
> > Curtis's appraisal of Bob Price's critical posts about him congruent with
> > what in fact is the objective nature of these Bob Price posts?
> >
> > And if in this case you are correct, then the fault is all in me: since I
> > took those posts to merit, to demand, to require an answer. You don't even
> > try to defend your interpretation of them here as not deserving your
> > attention: they in their very nature did not warrant you taking any notice
> > of them. But you never explain why; you just arbitrarily legislate your own
> > reality, and we are all left with only one option: either we accept
> > Curtis's characterizing of these two posts of Bob Price, or we don't. But
> > you never give any basis for us to make this decision, so I think most of
> > the readers at FFL, because of your reputation, simply concur with youYou
> > see, Curtis, they have never entered into any process by which they could
> > justify your decision not to respond to those posts. And they still
> > haven't, even as Steve is certain that you have scored big time.
> >
> > I find this an abdication of your moral responsibility, and if you don't
> > see this, then that is in itself an extraordinary indictment of you.
> >
> > I am still waiting to hear an argument that makes sense of this, Curtis.
> >
> > Evidently, being Curtis, you don't have to explain or justify your
> > judgments of people, of posts: if you say it is so, then it is so. I don't
> > find myself following in lock-step with this. I read Bob Price's posts,
> > and sure, I am taken aback at their audacity, their harshness; but I keep
> > reading to the end, and I come out of the experience with the unavoidable
> > conclusion: There is much substance in this; Curtis will have to address
> > this. But you walk away muttering that Bob Price has said nothing about you
> > which merits any kind of response. Well, Curtis, for that to be the case,
> > it must mean that both these posts could be read by a third partyperhaps
> > someone who knows neither you nor Bob Priceand deemed to be unworthy of
> > being taken seriously. Do you believe this is the case, Curtis? If those
> > two posts were dug up and reposted here, do you think you could justify
> > having taken the position that you have?
> >
> > No, Curtis, you just don't get where your own predilections and
> > self-asserted prerogatives run up against reality, and where reality has
> > some say in the extent to which you are justified in asserting those
> > predilection and prerogatives and then imposing them on usand therefore on
> > reality. There is a very important point here: Curtis has essentially told
> > all of us readers at FFL that Bob Price's two posts are irrelevant and even
> > frivolous: they do not go to any critical issues with regard to Curtis. I
> > Curtis will make this decision on your behalf, and then you can simply be
> > spared any further difficulty in reconciling what I Curtis has decided
> > these posts are with whatever might have been your (the reader's) first
> > experience of what they were. I doubt that anyone but your most loyal
> > supporters would have immediately had the same take on these two posts as
> > you are telling us was your take on them, Curtis.
> >
> > On the contrary: You did notthis is my conclusion at leastchoose to
> > answer either of those posts because you *couldn't* answer them. Now that
> > is my position, Curtis, and for you to get me off of that position you will
> > have to construct some kind of argument; not legislate what I have said out
> > of existence. Does my analysis here simply invalidate itself like Bob
> > Price's posts did?
> >
> > Curtis3: I have to ask myself why? Even in casual acquaintance situations
> > if a person
> > mentions a preference like this it would be respected. If I was sitting
> > next to
> > someone at a lunch counter and said I would not like a sticky bun, but
> > thanks
> > for offering it, the usual reaction is not to grab an icing dripping treat
> > and
> > shove it into my face.
> >
> > Robin4: Bob Price was calling you out for being disingenuous and
> > manipulative: of course you would prefer that he not do thisand you would
> > prefer that no one remind you about this. But the issue, Curtis, is not
> > your preference that these posts never be discussed again because you don't
> > like the sensation they cause inside of you when they are mentioned (sticky
> > buns); the issue is to what extent those two posts addressed you in some
> > authentically real and pertinent way. You have sidestepped this issue
> > altogether. This is incredible to me that you don't see this. Take what I
> > have written so far in this post: If you write that you don't like what I
> > have said and you don't want anyone to bring up what Robin has written,
> > does that therefore constituteyour saying thisa moral ground upon which
> > to stand that supersedes in its importance the arguments I have made so far
> > in this post? Apparently for you this is the case, Curtis, for I find
> > nothing different in principle here from what you have chosen to say is the
> > way reality must behave according to how you have fielded those unpleasant
> > and vexing posts.
> >
> > I don't think you get this at all, Curtis; this is your blind spot. And it
> > represents an impediment to a real friendship. Which is why it is being
> > discussed now. If I felt you were just deceitfully and dishonestly rigging
> > things in a way which you knew was wrong, and you therefore had a guilty
> > conscience, that would be one thing; but I actually believe you think you
> > are right. This is what astounds me. Because, if you really were
> > consciously culpable in this regard, you would not make the argument you
> > make here, which, as you can see form how I have deconstructed it, is no
> > argument at all.
> >
> > Curtis3: So what is it that makes you so hell bent on shoving my face in
> > Bob's little FU
> > to all things Curtis?
> >
> > Robin4: Only one thing, Curtis: truth, reality, justice. I admit to being
> > shocked by Bob Price's first postwhich you found "disgusting". But I never
> > conceived of the possibility that you would not reply to him, and defend
> > yourself. You never, to repeat, explained the existential basis of walking
> > away from this challenge to your integrity. I was not "shoving [your] face
> > in Bob's little FU": if Bob Price's post had been just that: "a little FU"
> > I would have recognized this and would have urged you, had you asked me,
> > not to respond. I have only raised the matter of these posts because in the
> > manner in which you have refused to address them, you give evidence of
> > their validity. Get it, Curtis?
> >
> > Curtis3: You must believe that somehow you know what it best for me, my
> > growth. In fact
> > later on you are going to make it quite clear that you feel that I am not
> > handling the feedback areas of my life properly and need a little school'n
> > from
> > someone who knows better than I do what is good for me. You will attempt to
> > make
> > the case that unassisted by your superior powers of discernment for what is
> > good
> > for me, I lack the ability to learn anything about myself.
> >
> > Robin4: Well, Curtis, in the classroom, if someone tells you, the teacher,
> > to FO based upon an unfavourable assessment you have given of one of their
> > presentations, does that then end the matter? And if you choose to ask them
> > to become responsible for what you deem to be a shoddy performance, does
> > that mean that pupil can do what you are doing here, and simply say: Don't
> > shove this in my face! I have decided your failing mark does not concern
> > me. So let's just move on, Mr M.
> >
> > I disagree with you in what you say here that I am putting myself in the
> > position to "know what is best for me, my growth"and you are not "handling
> > the feedback areas of my lfie properly and need a little school'n from
> > someone who knows better than I do what is good for me": WRONG, CURTIS. I
> > am not, arbitrarily or compulsively or mischievously, or therapeutically,
> > or didactically seeking to make you a better person in the way you have
> > accused me of doing. It is not this at all, Curtis: it is merely a matter
> > of where, in your actions (actions here being defined by your judgments and
> > opinions and determinations made on FFLsome of which touch me personally),
> > you end up creating an influence, an effect, which interferes with the
> > lines of objective and innocent understanding.
> >
> > News Flash: I have just been informed of the death of Christopher Hitchens:
> > 62. This is a major event. And it immediately creates a perfect touchstone
> > for me, as I think, ironically enough, that this was a great soul. I won't
> > go any further than this, except to say that a heroic person has been taken
> > from us the living. And am suddenly quite affected by an emotion which does
> > not necessarily coincide with what I am attempting to do here, Curtis, in
> > answering your post. Whew: his death has created an effect which is
> > palpable.
> >
> > Curtis3: I hope you will consider this feedback in the manor you suggest I
> > lack. What is
> > up with this behavior to someone you say you want to be friendly with? Can
> > you
> > relate to me as an equal?
> >
> > Robin4: Nope; it is strange thing; but I think, given the impact of the
> > death of this remarkable human being that I must break off here. I will
> > post this. And then return to this post sometime later, because the issue
> > before me right now, and one that I cannot set aside, is the death of this
> > person that I respected so much. Even as our beliefs about ultimate matters
> > differed considerably. Christopher was dead right on Iraqamong many
> > things. And, I believe, Bill Clinton too. I wish that I could have known
> > him personally. We will have to wait to see what his fate was until we
> > undergo what he has just undergone. I salute you at least in this, Curtis:
> > I know you will be in agreement with me about Christopher Hitchens: this
> > really is a tragedy.
> >
>
