TO HIS CONSCIENCE. by Robert Herrick
CAN I not sin, but thou wilt be My private protonotary ? Can I not woo thee to pass by A short and sweet iniquity ? I'll cast a mist and cloud upon My delicate transgression So utter dark as that no eye Shall see the hugg'd impiety ; Gifts blind the wise, and bribes do please And wind all other witnesses ; And wilt not thou with gold be ti'd To lay thy pen and ink aside ? That in the mirk and tongueless night Wanton I may, and thou not write ? It will not be. And therefore, now, For times to come I'll make this vow, >From aberrations to live free ; So I'll not fear the Judge or thee. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > Share:> > AND disagreeing with Robin does not equal being compliant > > > with Curtis. > > Judy: > It does if what Curtis wants is for you to disagree with > > Robin. > > M: Again we have the condescending assumption that if I express an opinion > about Robin's post, it will influence Share's opinion about it. > > Maybe what we both noticed in Robin's piece was really how it came off to > people not dedicated to ignoring the obvious. > > For people without your condescending assumptions about Share, it isn't much > of a stretch to think that she might not agree with Robin's condescending > take on her. > > Even without my encouragement. > > What you are doing here is imagining something to shame me for: wanting Share > to disagree with Robin. And Share was right, even if I wanted it, which I > couldn't care less about, her disagreement with Robin is not her being > compliant with mine. > > She is all grown up now and doesn't need you to tousle her hair. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Judy how about acknowledging that you got a detail wrong > > > when you said I had replied to 2 questions and I had actually > > > replied to 3? > > > > Hey, Share, how about acknowledging all those mistakes > > (not trivial ones) you made in that exchange we had a > > couple of weeks ago? > > > > Let me suggest to you that demanding that others > > acknowledge things in your posts is not your best > > approach, given your own habits of response. It looks > > too much like inadvertent irony. > > > > (Also, if you're going to comment on many posts in > > one post, please at least have the courtesy to > > identify the posts by post number or URL so they can > > be looked up easily.) > > > > I did acknowledge your third question. Take another > > look at my post. > > > > I also pointed out that you didn't answer one of Ann's > > about whether what was taking place was a feud, or > > something else. You excused yourself from answering > > her four other questions by claiming she was asking > > them of herself, which didn't make much sense since > > she had directed all her questions at you; but you > > couldn't even use that excuse for the one about whether > > there was a feud. > > > > No response from you here. How about acknowledging > > that? > > > > > Another detail you got wrong is about the Hatfields and McCoys. > > > It was I not Ann who introduced this reference. > > > > You are correct on that one. > > > > > I asked you for the wiki url as a joke. > > > > Yes, a little sarcasm on my part. > > > > > And thirdly, I said that I didn't understand Robin and > > > that is what I meant. > > > > > > It's also true that I would understand him less as the > > > amount of his words increased. > > > > You didn't say that. You said he was "less understanding > > to me as the number of words increases." > > > > That was a non sequitur in context, both because we were > > talking about your understanding him, not him being > > understanding to you; and because what you hadn't > > understood was a pretty short paragraph. > > > > > Replying to other posts from Mon; all times noted are Central time: > > > > > > Mon 5:04 pm > > > I've never felt Curtis trying to make me compliant. > > > > Oh, I believe you. Of course, I never said he was. > > > > > AND disagreeing with Robin does not equal being compliant > > > with Curtis. > > > > It does if what Curtis wants is for you to disagree with > > Robin. > > > > > Mon 6:43 pm > > > > > > Everyone here, including you does what you accuse Curtis > > > of. Defending friends and criticizing enemies. > > > > Of course they do. Now see if you can figure out what my > > point was. You may need to actually read what I wrote. > > > > > And actually I've not seen you criticize friends, as you > > > purport to do > > > > You may well not have. Can you think of a reason why that > > might not be very good evidence that I haven't? > > > > > , not even those who can be over the top sometimes. > > > > Obviously that's a meaningless claim without specific > > examples that everyone would agree were "over the top" > > and thus deserving of criticism. > > > > > Mon 8:33 pm > > > IF the statement I made about psychological rape says > > > everything about me, THEN I'd say the following statement, > > > especially the "needed to be stepped on" part, says > > > everything about you: "Sal is small potatoes, just a nasty, > > > unpleasant, not-too-bright little person who needed to be > > > stepped on from time to time when she got above herself." > > > > Sorry, Share, that doesn't fly. Those two statements are > > not even remotely equivalent. > > > > > Mon 9:11 AND 9:35 pm > > > You accuse Curtis of exactly what you did! Butt in when > > > Robin and I were trying to work out something delicate. > > > Very delicate interpersonal negotiations is how you describe > > > it the 9:35 post. > > > > > > Where was that understanding when it was really needed > > > during the Russian flash mob upset?! > > > > BIG difference, Share. Curtis was trying to disrupt > > those negotiations and turn you against Robin; I was > > trying to get you to be more understanding of Robin. > > Which do you think would be more likely to help bring > > about a resolution between you? > > > > Yet you've objected to *my* butting in but not to > > Curtis butting in. You're as bad a hypocrite as he is. > > > > > Tuesday 12:52 am > > > I did not discuss psychological rape with anyone before I > > > wrote it. Neither friends nor family nor counselor nor poster. > > > > Well, I can't prove otherwise. > > > > > Everything that I said about my state at the time of Russian > > > flash mob post was true. > > > > I.e.: > > > > (1) that you were just grumpy from eating sugar > > (2) that you hadn't been hurt or insulted > > (3) that you didn't consider Robin to have been cruel or hurtful > > (4) that he psychologically raped you > > > > All four are true, that's what you're saying? > > > > Share, I'm sorry, but that just isn't sane. > > > > > What has altered my perception of Robin over time is how he > > > handled the upset between us. > > > > He handled it like the kind, honest, straightforward, and > > loving man that he is. All the twisting and hatred has > > occurred on your side. > > > > Just as with Lord Knows, the real psychological rapist > > here is not Robin but YOU. > > > > > And I'm not talking about lack of communication skills here. > > > I'm talking about continuing to complicate matters in more > > > ways than one. And continuing to ignore what I actually say, > > > especially in terms of reconciliation. > > > > Well, that's final proof that Share is living in La-la > > Land. > > > > Share, it was you who ignored what Robin actually said. > > Over and over and OVER again, you completely disregarded > > what he was telling you. You never engaged with it. If > > you had, it would never have become so complicated. > > > > That is the "habit of response" I referred to in the > > parenthetical at the top. You tend not to engage with > > anything the tiniest bit challenging. You did it with > > Robin, you've done it with me, you did it with Ann and > > with others. > > > > > TO RAUNCHY > > > I don't understand Spanish either. > > > > Portuguese. > > > > > TO XENO > > > I don't mind Robin saying that reality is asking something > > > and there is a should involved. What I mind is his saying > > > that he is the one who has THE accurate take on that. > > > > He doesn't say that, Share. Shame on you. > > >
