I'm glad we cleared the air on this topic Judy. I feel confident that the
behavior I object to you will alter from this exchange. I know you can't admit
it, but I am hopeful that despite your inability to admit it, you get my point.
Spoiler alert: We can say anything to anyone here if we just call it "insult
tennis". Learn how below!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Gotchya, you and Robin share this special insight on me.
>
> 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 so you think you are gunna wear me down do you you? Let's see.
>From that post: > Unlike the sexually repressed Gurus projected as avatars or
>messiahs of> intellectual dishonesty >
In previous post Ravi has been calling me the Avatar of intellectual dishonesty
and Judy dishonestly is pretending to not know that. I had ignored his previous
taunts but had had enough. So you can drop the "gratuitous" BS. Next, Ravi
himself claimed the whole post was a lie directed toward me. But you knew that.
And it wasn't a nasty comment it was accurate. His denials of his sexual
desire is exactly as phoney as from evangelists preachers. It would have been
nasty to describe his behavior in clubs as being like the Steve Martin
character in the Wild and Crazy Guy skits, an obvious connection I refrained
from making.
>
> 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.">
Glad you are cool with the term retarded Judy and saw no reason to back up my
request that he stick to other versions of poopy pants that don't involve
disabled people. It is kind of an up topic for me so I made that request of
him. As usual having found a hot button, he doubled down.
>
> Curtis responded by essentially implying that Ravi was
> a pervert ("shady horniness"), following through on the
> "Jerry Falwell" theme of his first insult.
He was buying an underage girl illegal booze and was describing himself as
being surprised how hard he got. How would you sum up that behavior? If you
don't understand how that is shady then you not only don't share other people's
ethical standards, you don't even know the law. But then you knew all all
along that it was all just a big lie right?
>
> 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.
So you did know he had directed it to me all along so the gratuitous nonsense
was bluff and bluster as usual? Are you even noticing the ditch you are
digging yourself into?
>
> Curtis then implied Ravi was in denial about his own
> purported perversion.
Which lie is the real lie? He runs this all the time. So I choose which lie
was the real lie as the second denial when he realized he was exposing himself
to criticism for breaking the law with a minor. But lucky for him your ethical
standards are too high to call him on that so he was in the clear. And you
went after me as if I am the bad guy. Nice one.
>
> 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.
Why are you trying to characterize what I wrote about his use of language as
nasty? How about his use of the language? It is OK to call someone retarded
and their bitch but not OK to describe why this is inappropriate?
>
> 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>
I don't like his constant abusive language toward me and his lies so you
characterize my objections as being "violently allergic". Do you really think
this shit can fly outside your own head?
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.>
So when he uses abusive terms and lies it is insult tennis, and if I react I am
getting hot under the collar. Got it.
>
> 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.
Instead I used it as an opportunity to point out your hypocrisy and you have
more than rewarded me by continuing to try to spin out of it. Perhaps you are
just getting hot under the collar at my causal game of insult tennis.
>
> 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??
No if you were not a hypocrite you would have told Ravi he was going too far.
But you didn't so you are.
>
> 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.
Correct. You were getting a bit of payback for the rash of shit you have sent
my way about not intervening in your battles. Payback's a bitch isn't it? And
you are nailed dead to rights and none of this is working Judy.
>
> 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.>
Right Ravi's lies don't matter but your enemy's do. That is the old H word yet
again, you are the gift that keeps on giving.
>
> 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.
No because it is you and Ravi is your buddy. Got it. Barry is serious but
Ravi is just being cute.
>
> 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.
Corrupt behavior now is it? You really are starting to crack me up, thanks for
that. I addressed it because it started to gain legs and I wanted to squelch
it. I had ignored it at first because with Ravi, if he gets a reaction he
doubles down. But once other people mentions how out of line it was I felt
that I needed to be clear. Because around here people use not responding as
agreement. A trick you have pulled many times.
BTW was the person who told the lie guilty of corrupt behavior, or only the
person who defends themselves from the lie?
>
> 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.
Escaped blame? Jesus Judy, blame for what? My reaction to Ravi's story was
appropriate, the behavior he described was reprehensible and I pointed that
out. He reported the behavior and you blame me for noticing.
Look, get off the primia donna soap box about how high your ethical standards
are and stop shaming me for picking my battle just as you do. That was my
point of dragging you into this. Predictably you would rather die than admit
you just got schooled. fine, but I believe you will now have some pause before
trying to pull that maneuver again with me.
Ravi can say anything to anyone and will never hear a peep of a
"chill out" from Judy. There is no language he uses that she will correct and
if he chooses to tell stories about plying liquor on underage girls with a
boner, she will just wait till I call him on it before labeling me nasty. His
lies are cute because they are not directed at Judy, and his abusive language
is just his adorable game of "insult tennis". (That was like Christmas all over
again Judy. I might as well program that phrase to get typed out by one key
stroke cuz that is a winner and you are gunna hear that one again.)
I know that despite your inability to give an inch, you will have second
thoughts about shaming me for doing the exact same thing you do yourself,
picking your battle here. And thanks for the hilarious, and useful, phrases.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 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!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
