--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
>
> Snipped the dancing routine, sooo Nancy Grace in the groaning 3
> inch heels. But this is the good part cuz her refusal to accept
> that she has been called out was just predictable.
>
> Here is where I start hearing the music from the start of the
> twilight zone in my head.
>
> > It's amazing how Curtis engineered all this to make
> > himself appear to be the totally blameless victim by a
> > series of moves that's so convoluted nobody gets what
> > he's done except those he's done it *to*. And not for
> > the first time, either.
> >
> > That's one thing at which he's better than anyone here.
>
> And this is not the first time you have accused me of such
> a bizarre thing. And on a public board no less where we all
> read all the posts if we want to. And I am able to hide my
> deviousness from everyone but Judy, how can that be? Oh I
> know, it has to do with her inflated sense of her perceptive
> powers to detect evil, beyond all other posters reading the
> same posts.
And here we have a splendid example of exactly what I was
talking about.
First let's delete the word "evil" in Curtis's attempted
paraphrase of my assertion; he knows it isn't a word, or
even a concept, I would use in this context, but it helps
him load his argument by making what I said seem so much
more extreme.
"From everyone but Judy" and "beyond all other posters
reading the same posts"--well, no; as Curtis is very
much aware, Robin came to the same conclusion. As it
happens, Robin and I are the only two people here who
have had extended disagreements with Curtis and thus
have had detailed, intimate experience of how Curtis
operates when he's challenged.
You really have to be on the receiving end for a lengthy
exchange to see how he does it. In briefer exchanges, a
person may just have a vague sense that something got
twisted somehow that they have a hard time analyzing and
articulating. But the same process is at work.
So it has nothing to do with any special perceptive
abilities on my (or Robin's) part; that notion is just
more of Curtis's argument-loading. It's prolonged exposure
that confers the ability to see what's going on.
But when you *have* had prolonged exposure to Curtis's
brand of twisting, it becomes quite obvious in the
shorter exchanges as well.
Nor are there "special powers" involved on Curtis's part.
Rather, it's a finely honed skill born of long practice
in self-defense and self-justification.
So now that we've disposed of Curtis's argument-loading
weasel words, what actually happened? We have Curtis's
version below, in great detail.
Here's mine.
In post #300408, Curtis made a nasty comment on a post
of Ravi's that was designed to provoke Ravi. Nothing in
Ravi's post, or in his other posts quoted in that one,
referred to Curtis in any way. He did take a shot at
Barry, but not at Curtis, contrary to Curtis's claim
below. So Curtis's slam was entirely gratuitous.
It got a reaction from Ravi, a pretty mild one. He
followed up before Curtis could reply with some nastier
invective, the worst of which was to call Curtis
"dishonest" and "retarded."
Curtis responded by essentially implying that Ravi was
a pervert ("shady horniness"), following through on the
"Jerry Falwell" theme of his first insult.
Ravi responded in kind but more strongly, calling *Curtis*
a pervert with regard to his purported fantasies about
young girls and suggesting Curtis might have a sexual
interest in Ravi as well, and at the same time asserting
that he'd made up his girl-at-the-bar story to pique
Curtis's curiosity.
Curtis then implied Ravi was in denial about his own
purported perversion.
That was the point at which Ravi made the accusation
that got everyone upset, about Curtis having allegedly
been thrown out of the TMO for preying on young female
TMers.
Curtis's response: "Kinda losing it, huh?" He went on
at nasty length about Ravi's use of the terms "retarded"
and "my bitch" but did not address the offensive
accusation any further.
I chimed in with a three-word comment: "Says Curtis,
projecting." Meaning *Curtis* was losing it. Those of
us who aren't violently allergic to Ravi were watching
him playing his standard casual game of insult tennis,
not even breaking a sweat, while Curtis got hotter and
hotter under the collar.
Instead of the "losing it" remark, Curtis *could*, as
I pointed out in another post, have left Ravi twirling
in the wind by cooly denying the offensive accusation
and pointing out that if it had been true, that kind of
serious misbehavior would have been hung around Curtis's
neck long since.
But Curtis didn't do that. Instead, on the basis of my
three-word comment, he accused me of supporting Ravi and
of hypocrisy for not calling Ravi out on his obviously
untrue accusation, *when Curtis hadn't bothered to do so
himself*.
I'm supposed to go to battle for Curtis over an accusation
he didn't take seriously enough to deny??
I tweaked him about that, and all of a sudden Curtis was
taking the accusation *very* seriously indeed, seeing an
opportunity to "get" two birds with one stone.
And then Marek and others began piling on, exalting Curtis
and condemning Ravi, and me for supposedly supporting him.
Nobody but me and Ravi saw how Curtis had managed to spin
the whole thing and turn what should have been an exchange
of tweaks into a federal case in which Ravi's accusation
was the potential ruination of Curtis's entire life and
career; and in which I was a detestable hypocrite for not
jumping on Ravi when I have criticized Curtis for not
jumping on Barry.
The disproportion involved in this last is astonishing.
Ravi's tweaks over a few months of a few people he finds
ridiculous and Barry's continuous vicious, dead serious
attacks on me and the rest of his hate list, over six
years just on FFL, are not even remotely comparable.
Especially given that *Curtis himself* took Ravi's
offensive accusation so lightly at first that he didn't
even bother to deny it, until he saw he could take self-
serving advantage of it and take his revenge on me and
Ravi at the same time, while Curtis himself would come
out smelling like a rose--a poor victimized rose, one
with no taint of corrupt behavior.
Bottom line here is that nobody is going to want to go
over the posts in question to see whose version of what
happened is more accurate and to the point. And Curtis
will have escaped blame once again.
>
> Let me defend myself from this twisted claim of special powers of deceit in
> plan sight.
>
> Ravi was spinning a tale of how he has no sexual desire from his self
> proclaimed "whatever" state for the umpteenth time, while describing the old
> guy in the club behavior I get to see on a regular basis during performances
> where alcohol is served. The only people I hear talking about having no
> sexual desire uninvited, and relevant to nothing that applies to us, are
> preachers running a "I'm too special for human feelings" like Jerry Falwell.
> In the end they are usually revealed to be hypocrites who were compelled to
> make their denials because they are selling a story about themselves. Like
> Ravi is. And I would have just let it pass but he also called me dishonest
> for the millionth time with zero evidence. So I commented on how he appeared
> to me.
>
> Then Ravi claimed that he wasn't really buying drinks for an underage girl
> which was his original story. I am guessing that he ended up looking a bit
> loseresque getting worked by a Tom Sawyer in hot pants and a tank top. So he
> tried to cover his tracks but once I smelled a rat I didn't buy his denial. I
> think he really did go to a club and have a young girl work him for free
> drinks before telling him she needed to go to the bathroom and run out of the
> club giggling with her friends full of Ravi financed liquor. So he flew off
> the handle and called me names, some of which are out of line so I let him
> know I felt that way. I tried to explain to him the deeper context of his
> slurs and how they really don't belong here. Labeling someone's behavior as
> desperate or his denials of having human feelings like the rest of us is not
> the same thing as being called a retard, (the N word of the disabled
> community) or an unhinged assault being called someone's bitch, which among
> men is rarely used face to face because it is an invitation to fight. Online
> it is extreme trollish behavior. Then he doubled down again and lied about
> why I left the movement.
>
> Then Judy joined in as if his tirade were just another cute thing the pool
> boy does as he cleans her pool as she sips vodka enhanced ice tea lemonades
> enjoying the view. Kiss kiss Ravi, you are so hot! See how it works Ravi,
> she would be buying YOU drinks in a bar, does it all make sense now why the
> hot young thing slipped out the back door while you found out the number she
> gave you was fake?
>
> I was reminded of her posturing against what she considered unfair posts and
> how she castigated me for not stepping in to scold other posters who attack
> her. I remember the rash of shit she has flung my way concerning me not
> busyboding myself about what other people say to her. I realized that she
> was really in the exact situation where if she has an ounce of the integrity
> and ethical values she bloviates around here like it is her special badge of
> honor, she would say in her I love hot Ravi manor, "hey Ravi, perhaps you
> could turn it down a notch, some of us read here." But no.
>
> And I frankly don't care if she didn't, and don't need her to come to my aid
> for a mouthy dude who calls other men names while out of their reach. But I
> notice the hypocrisy and I called her on it and asking her to get off my case
> for doing the exact same thing, choosing my battles here, and letting us
> fight our own. And without the rash of hypocritical shit, that would be a
> reasonable position that I endorse here.
>
> But then she chose to enter the Twilight Zone to try to slip out of getting
> called on bullshit. It was me who made Ravi use derogatory terms for
> mentally disabled people, lie about why I left the movement, and lay into a
> demeaning tirade.
>
> One that other posters noticed was over the trollish line.
>
> But not Judy. Judy saw secret Curtis deviousness at work orchestrating
> Ravi's bad behavior from his secret lair. And that defending myself from an
> unwarranted meltdown attack is because I've been fighting a computer virus
> and it has unhinged me.
>
> And only she can see it, but all you other dimwits who read these posts are
> unable to penetrate my devious ways.
>
> Out of all of this I am looking forward to a 2012 with zero "you need to
> scold other people for things they say to me" posts.
>
> Zero.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > I still am waiting to hear from you: do you think
> > > > > > > > > > it is ok for Ravi to have told that nasty personal
> > > > > > > > > > lie about Curtis?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See if you can rephrase your question so it's not
> > > > > > > > > offensive and I'll consider answering it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you think it is ok for Ravi to have told that
> > > > > > > > particular lie about Curtis's leaving the TM movement?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's see, "Does Judy think it's OK to tell lies?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope, still offensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Uh, I asked if you think it is ok if Ravi told a Particular
> > > > > > lie in a Particular instance? Not a general statement about
> > > > > > how you feel about lying in general (Does Judy think it is OK
> > > > > > to tell lies?).
> > > > >
> > > > > So you're unsure of whether a negative response to "Does
> > > > > Judy think it's OK to tell lies?" would cover all lies.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see.
> > > > >
> > > > > > A bit of difference, as you well know and would be quite
> > > > > > quick to point out in others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if I were paying attention and wanted to be fair.
> > > > >
> > > > > > But in your dodging around and unwillingness to answer
> > > > > > I got my answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can manufacture whatever answers and degree of
> > > > > willingness suit your agenda, Susan. They don't have to
> > > > > have anything to do with reality.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, whatever. I don't want to hide behind analysis of
> > > > details and words. Just simple responses would have been
> > > > enough for me. I am done with this discussion, no interest left.
> > >
> > > If one reads the words carefully, Judy is correct to not
> > > wishing to answer the questions as they were written. It
> > > was spin. Who wants to answer spin?
> >
> > Not only was it spin, the whole basis for the question was
> > disingenuous, since Susan is well aware I'm against lying.
> > But she wanted to hide behind the pretense that there was
> > some uncertainty on that point.
> >
> > There were any number of questions she *could* have asked
> > that would have cleared up what she genuinely didn't
> > understand. Even if she didn't agree, at least she would
> > have known what she was disagreeing *with*.
> >
> > It's amazing how Curtis engineered all this to make
> > himself appear to be the totally blameless victim by a
> > series of moves that's so convoluted nobody gets what
> > he's done except those he's done it *to*. And not for
> > the first time, either.
> >
> > That's one thing at which he's better than anyone here.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Just saying.
> > > Happy New Year to us all!
> > >
> >
>
