--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > <snip> > > Second, there was a series of posts here by a person who > > is now longer allowed to post. This person threatened > > Curtis multiple times, and still Curtis asked that others > > not intervene or defend him. Partly I think this was to > > protect others from possibly getting themselves on the > > bad side of this poster. Partly he knew could handle it > > himself. > > I'm calling you on this, Susan. You were here when it > unfolded. You know many people *did* defend Curtis and > criticize Ravi, and that Curtis said he was grateful > for it.
I do know that many people "defended" Curtis during that time. My only point was that after people began defending him, Curtis made it clear that others did not need to do so. As I stated above in the last 2 sentences of my post, I think Curtis always likes to handle his own interactions on his own and secondly, he worried that R--i would go after others in ways that might harm them. Where in the above post of mine do you see it said, implied or even thought that you or others did not defend Curtis? People did defend him, and he asked that they refrain from that. I know he was grateful for the defense, but he also felt he could handle the situation himself. > > You also know not only that Curtis went after me in a > big way for not having defended him, but that *you* > went after me as well, demanding to know why I hadn't > spoken up about Ravi's lie concerning Curtis. I did disagree with you and the others who were defending the actions of R--i here. I still do. Bottom line: I think you all "got it" too late in the game. The man has significant problems, as he had admitted. It was obvious that he was spinning out of control. At the beginning of that really obvious (to me obvious, at work I have on occasion dealt with students with similar disorders, and their parents) shift in the nature of his posts here, I even posted to him (as politely as I could muster) that he might want to check in with someone he trusts before he goes over the edge and says things that might hurt himself or others or his reputation. He has/had a job and children he wanted to see. He continued to spin out, and I understand that he had no control over that. I have great sympathy for people dealing with brain disorders. That is how I was looking at it. I am sure that many here did not take it that way. Maybe they thought it was just funny or wild or interesting or lively and crazy. It was interesting, and then, it wasn't any longer. It was sad, and then it was frightening and vicious. That's my take on it. There is an issue in the medical community about how much to protect people from themselves - things like should we let them makes fools of themselves or engage in behaviors that will drive family away (for good sometimes) or get them fired even though they are so ill that their judgment is impaired? Should we let them be "free" to express just who they are in that disorganized time? Or should we protect them as much as we can? I opt for protection of them and others when things are really bad. Protection by banning them from places like FFL when in the midst of seriously imbalanced episodes. An opposing argument can be made for complete freedom , even for people who can't make thoughtful choices for themselves. I can admit that my standards might be too strict - that I should let things just be more. Let the Ra-i's ramble on. But I digress. Now, the other issue: As for whether you spoke up enough or soon enough for Curtis at that time, I only recall that it seemed there were lots of words defending R and all sorts of other people and arguing about who said what and who was allied with whom and somewhere in them a defense of Curtis from you. Yes, you did defend Curtis. Now, as you know, I do not read FFL as carefully as most - I have a fulltime job that is really demanding and then everything else we all do - so I skip over things here, miss days, skim posts. As a result, I miss the details and nuances of things, and can make mistakes. I am replying to posts hours later when people have moved on! I don't pursue links beyond the first round, and so my knowledge is frankly superficial unless it is an area I am passionate about. And I never search for old posts. I often am satisfied with the gist of things and I like the big picture; n fact, I am really good at the Big Picture. I am also grateful that others are not like me and do some of the heavy lifting of facts. But honestly, I was not even thinking of you when I wrote that post to Ann. And I fail to see that she would have made any connection between you and the that situation with R--i based on what I wrote. > Why you're now maintaining otherwise, I can't imagine, > unless it's because Ann doesn't know what happened and > you think you can put something over on her. That sure > doesn't sound like you, so I'd welcome hearing a better > explanation, as well as an acknowledgment of this > correction. > I am not maintaining anything. I had only the intention of summarizing in 2 sentences for Ann about why Curtis does not feel a terrific obligation to defend other people. I had written about how he has a healthy sense of boundaries. He has his own relationships with people, and won't interfere or even necessarily defend others in their own relationships. This can be healthy. He does not feel a need to give advice, he let's people be themselves. He does not form teams. I don't function the way he does, partly because I am female. Partly because my "boundaries" get fuzzy. I admire Curtis for this. That is all. I was not trying to mislead her and it had nothing to do with you.
