--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "futur.musik" <futur.musik@> > > > > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > So if someone appears dishonest, or contrary or fearful > > > > > > to us, it is merely a difference in awareness, and no > > > > > > deliberate attempt at deception or obfuscation. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think I buy that with regard to honesty. Surely > > > > > differences in awareness account for whether a person > > > > > believes there is *justification* for saying something > > > > > they know to be false, but you really can't make much > > > > > of a case that nobody ever attempts to deceive others. > > > > > > > > So true: > > > > > > > > Judy:(In a post where she repeatedly accused me of being > > > > unethical!) > > > > > > > > The only ploy Curtis has to > > > > > rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's > > > > > made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into > > > > > concurring with me, > > > > > > > > > Definitely more of a consciously lying thing than just a > > > > difference in awareness. > > > > > > Right. I think you were consciously attempting to deceive > > > and believed it was justified (just as Barry does when *he* > > > attempts to perpetrate that deception): > > > > > > "I agree that Judy has set the agenda for this angle and I > > > have to give credit for her forceful personality that so > > > many have taken up this perspective. (And yes I know it is > > > possible that everyone just came to this conclusion > > > independently, but I don't find this as likely.)" > > > > > > That's Curtis, responding to a post in which Barry said: > > > > > > *No one else* ever had > > > > any doubts about Vaj's TM "pedigree" until she started > > > > her "Gotta find a way to demonize Vaj so no one will > > > > believe him when he makes valid points" campaign. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302040 > > > > Well I think it is big of you to cop to your bulls.... especially > > in light of your post about how this would be a better place with > > less deception. As you have proven with this quote, your > > statement that I had accused you of "brainwashing" anyone was > > absurdly false and appreciate your coming clean providing the > > evidence for me. > > Oh, so it's a matter of quibbling over words, is it?
Let me just play the tape of your answer to the many here who have tried that route with you. Let's just say it didn't go well for them, and yes, we are discussing the meaning of the words we are using in this written communication. > > "Brainwashing" is an attempt on my part to deceive, but > it's entirely truthful that my being such a "forceful > personality" that if others express a perspective similar > to mine, it's most likely they adopted it from me rather > than having come to it independently? > > Isn't that a bit, er, "Clintonesque"? Judy: (quoted from above) <The only ploy Curtis has to > rebut this uncomfortable fact is the claim, which he's > made in other posts, that I brainwashed all of them into > concurring with me, > I never made that claim, you weren't just being Clintonesque, you were being Clinton on the TV pointing his finger. Brainwashing was your attempt to misquote me directly, stating that it was something I said, knowing it would seem more foolish than what I actually said. I called you on it and you produced the proof that I never said that. We'll get into the pesky meaning issue below. You want to argue with being characterized as a forceful personality here. Reaaaaaly? On what grounds exactly? There is a specific context of who I was talking about which you are going to attempt to distort. We can deal with that below too. > > Sorta like it would have been "absurdly false" to contend > that Clinton had sex with Lewinsky when all that had taken > place was blowjobs? You know my delicate sensibilities are offended by such references. > > > So the question is, why would you make such an absurd claim > > knowing that that actual quotes would come out eventually? > > Can you actually read the quote you gave, and state that it > > is proof of your statement that I have claimed that you > > brainwashed people here? > > Given that one of the two dictionary definitions of > "brainwashing" is "persuasion by propaganda or > salesmanship," yes, I do believe so. And we can check > the definition of "salesmanship" too: "ability or > effectiveness in selling or in presenting persuasively." So it would be perfectly acceptable in your view for me to say something like: "Maharishi brainwashed his followers to believe that bouncing on their butts was the first stage of flying rather than the last stage of bouncing on their butts"? Or perhaps: "Maharishi, a well known expert brainwasher, was especially persuasive and effective in selling his TM" ? We both know what you meant by the use of the term and it had nothing to do with the dictionary definition you found which lacks the depth of our own discussions distinguishing it (forcefulness)from thought reform (social coercion). What you meant was that I was making a more unlikely claim than that you had influenced some posters here with your "Vaj is a liar" meme. > > "I have to give [Judy] credit for her forceful > personality that so many have taken up this > perspective." > > Seems awfully damn close to me. Closer even than the > difference between "onstage" and "in a private home," > or between "during seminars" and "not during seminars," > don't you think? Your attempt at deception here isn't even subtle, it is obvious. Anyway you are a forceful personality and a valuable alley for a guy like say R... rrrr... rrr, damn I can't say his name but he caught on to the Vaj is a liar deal as a key to your heart and without even doing TM himself accused Vaj of being a liar. Robin was influenced by you too IMO. It was the path to get at Barry who had called him a drama queen. I think they were influenced and rewarded by you for that POV. But I could be wrong just as I stated in the initial quote. It is my best guess. I do know for a fact that you accused Vaj of this first and that they read your accusations before making their own. > > > Personally I believe you were trying to make your writing more > > colorful through exaggeration and I can relate to that because > > I do that myself. The thing is you can't have it both ways. > > You can't give other people shit for doing exactly what you do. > > Find an example, please, of my having given you shit for > an equivalent degree of exaggeration represented in this > instance by "brainwashing." Nope. That would be a waste of time. Your little dance with brainwashing proves that. You never cop to your BS no matter how clearly it is proven. I am not doing this for you,this is for others. > > > Calling my perception of your influence over some people here > > brainwashing actually is more entertaining. It is a re-frame > > that makes my point seem silly. > > It was silly as you originally stated it, Curtis. > "Brainwashing" isn't a "re-frame," it's a term that's > commonly used to refer to exactly what you described. And here you are being disingenuous. But I get it, you are not going to get off this schtick and in your position I guess it is your only move. Other than coming clean that is. > > But it's silly in terms of the extent of my influence, > and it's even sillier when you look at the traffic about > the specific issue of Vaj's TM credentials, both here > and earlier on alt.m.t. Brainwashing was silly, being an alley for someone who had a problem with Vaj and Barry is very reasonable. And I am not talking about what happened on AMT I am talking about your influence here in the last year or whenever the new crop of posters came who took up the Vaj is a liar banner with you and received your tireless (within 50 posts) support. It is my opinion that you traded influence here. And it worked out for them, till it didn't. No one could save the fey Mr. R, and Robin took himself out of the game after he was cornered. > > > It also relates to Robin's charge, which you seem to share > > that I take someone's writing into my own context. I > > believe that is what we all do here and believe that charge > > is unfair, especially in light of this example. > > Given the givens, I'd say this is a perfect example of > your tendency to impose your own context even when it > doesn't fit. Your attempt to make me responsible for > others' distrust of Vaj is, in fact, the re-frame. Not responsible. I never said that. I was explaining a dynamic I see here, not blaming you for it. Although I believe your routine with Vaj is stupid, your behavior with R was reprehensible and your "protection" of Robin's feelings is phony. You don't care about him you care about castigating me for a perfectly reasonable interaction. > > Further, your belief that what Robin and I have charged > you with is "what we all do here" is also a re-frame. It is my opinion about what goes on here. I also had to point out to him that he was doing what he was accusing me off. You both seem to lack a certain self awareness when you go on castigation mode. > > Just as a reminder, a summary statement from Robin, > from post #300984: > > "So this, then, is the problem, Curtis: You will not give > any evidence of even your *capacity* to experience what > is said about you, *to determine whether it is true or > not*. No, what you invariably do, it seems > involuntarily, is to refuse any entrance in you of that > criticism, and before even empirically evaluating it > (for I believe, Curtis, that truth and reality always > feels better than holding fast to sense of who one is > which might be challenged by that criticism), and > therefore being able, intrinsically, to refute it. You > don't do your rejection of criticism within the > experimental—or even Socratic—principle of suspending > your self-regard for a moment, and considering the > extent to which what someone is saying about you *might* > just hold some truth." Yeah Robin was mind-reading here. He was fond of that. Me, not so much. I have responded in more detail to charges about me here from both you and him than anyone else Judy. Given my considered reasons why your attacks do not apply this charge is ridiculous. Accusing me of not considering what you have accused me of in light of my detailed responses is BS and you should know it. > > The above is just with regard to what is said about you, > but it applies to what is said about any of your > positions as well. > > I had repeatedly experienced this tendency of yours > starting way back on alt.m.t, but I had never been able > to articulate it. When Robin first described it in the > above terms, I recognized it instantly. > > It is *not* "what we all do here." I am pointing out, and you seem to lack the same qualities of self reflection Robin accused me of, that you in fact ARE doing what you are accusing me of. You are re-framing not accepting criticism from ill-wishers as me lacking in some "capacity". It isn't going to work any better for you than it did for him. > > An even more conclusive recent example is your absolute > refusal to recognize that Jim's attack on Barry for > being in thrall to you was an attack *on Barry*, not on > you. I dealt with that in too much detail to repeat. It reveals an incomprehensible lack of emotional intelligence to not get what it means when men describe other heterosexual men engaging in graphic homosexual acts. I'll chalk it up to you not having brothers or something. But believe me, all the men in that interaction knew exactly what was in play. It was in keeping with the theme of how he attacks men here, he has done it before. It is a playground taunt and everybody in the scene is being called a poopy pants. Your point is idiotic. I am more of an innuendo than a graphic guy. but if I reversed this you would get the point. And then in your post concerning Robin's "confession," > chiding him for having misled us over something that, > according to you, wasn't that big a deal--when it very > obviously was a *huge* deal to Robin. But you were unable > to see that. Slippery. I told Robin that I didn't consider his action of hitting someone that big a deal because I was able to see that he was sensitive about it. After the hours and hours on and off line with Robin, I knew the guy pretty well. I certainly didn't miss anything you saw about him Judy. And are you really so thick you are missing what I was chiding him about or are you being deceptive here too? (hint: it wasn't the demon chasing) But I made that clear enough in my post to him so I have to conclude that this is deliberate on your part. You are again mischaracterizing what I said for your own spin purposes, and you are either actually, or just pretending to miss my real point. > > Other examples of your reframings are legion. That's the > way you operate when you're challenged. One can almost > hear the gears shifting. You can be charmingly empathetic > to others' point of view when you aren't under fire So I don't like to be personally attacked here? Wow, that is a real insight. Do you? Why should I show empathy to people attacking me? Again, do you? No you don't. or > feeling the need to get back at someone (trying to reframe > "brainwashed" as a reframe on my part is another example > of the latter; Yeah that is easier than admitting I had called you on bullshit isn't it? as is your original notion that people > share my perspective about Vaj only because I'm so > influential; as was your lengthy attack on Robin after > his "confession"; "attack"? I told him he should apologize to Vaj. He should have. He didn't. I was trying to get through to the guy that we can have a more live and let live attitude about each other concerning how we relate to other posters. Could you have really missed the deepest intent of why I wrote that? Do people actually pay you to misread meaning this way? Are you just a glorified spell checker or do you understand what you read? Your summation of my post that I was getting him back showed how out of touch you are with what my intention and purpose was for that post, what I was really getting at. But you can't see that because that would humanize me and that is harder to caricaturize for demonization. as was your account of how your final > dispute with R <SNIP> began). Your position on that affair was telling for me. You are partisan to the core and will fall on your own sward for anyone who will join you in your unholy get Barry and Vaj mission. That is my opinion. > > It's your modus operandi, Curtis. Somewhere along the line > it became the core of your arsenal of psychic survival > tools. You couldn't give it up if you wanted to; you can't > even recognize it. And because you're so reasonable in more > friendly contexts, the only people who see it are those who > have occasion to confront you. Judy, let's just say you would probably be the last person I would come to for personal insight. You just aren't a people person, you lack the skills necessary. You have a lot in common with R and with Robin. But almost nothing in common with me. Except that we are both willing to take this time to hash this out, and I have enjoyed that. >
