I've gotten plenty of them through the years. Sometimes I respond and sometimes I don't.
I might have felt exactly as you did about the content if it had been sent to me, with the exception of thinking that the email made it worse than a post on FFL. I would prefer those kind of opinions to be private without all the pile-ons it excites on the board. When straightening out animosity the board muddies the waters and makes it harder to get to understanding. YMMV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Oh, one  more thing:  > > Re:  this question: > > If I had authored such an email to you personally, as comment on a post you > thought you were sending within the appropriate context on FFL and as humor, > would you have just written it off as generic "criticism?" > > M: See, written communication can come off harsh. > > E:  You didn't answer my question.  I am actually curious about this.  > > > ________________________________ > From:Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> > To:"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > Sent:Monday, October 8, 2012 10:29 AM > Subject:Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of > Smoothing Things Out > > > > Dear Curtis:  Thank you for taking the time to respond.  Emilina (thank you > for allowing me to steal the name for this exchange - I still like it) has > left on more important matters, but sent me a short note to inform me that I > will be wearing the sparkly gold shorts at the next rehearsal.  She informs > me that I will look better in them than you - although she acknowledges that > it would be funnier to see you wearing them.  > > Yes, we are now "cool," from my perspective - cool as cucumbers (Damn! >  There I go with the snarkiness again).  I looked that word up - defined as > "sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner."  Sometimes, yes, > this is true, but no harm intended.  Emilina has also told me she is > considering you for a job in sales - if you send a picture of yourself in a > suit to her P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands, it could be a lucrative move for > you.  (Is this snarkiness, also?) > > Honestly, I have heard what you said; in part, because I sat on the other > side of the room and evaluated the situation from a different perspective. >  I am actually pretty rough on myself, and try to be honest, so I do not > worry about questioning my own motives or behaviors.  I don't expect > perfection out of myself any longer.  > > I have briefly addressed a few of your comments below.  I have only one > question, also included below under E2.  > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:35 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of Smoothing > Things Out > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS > > > > To and Re:  Curtis, gentle reader on FFL > > > > Note:  There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely > > understand this post - those who were involved in it may.  You kinda had > > to be there and be square. > > > > From:  Emilina, HR Department > > > > Re:  Situational Gory Details > > > > I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over > > the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect > > character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner. > >  My goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an > > angel within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" > > in all his doings. > > M: This is the "you" I know.  Snarky.  I get the snark and am not > completely clear on why you would write this.  It makes me scratch my head > a bit and then move on. > > To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the > pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long > ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand > Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). > > > > Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my > > interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally > > threw up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily > > to finish.  (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, > > have little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece > > this together.  I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, > > resulting from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to > > correct or ignore any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, > > as we all know Emily needs more of both (meditation and good genetics). > >  May the force be with you as you review the......GORY DETAILS...... > > M:  Are you perhaps having a little too much fun with this? > E2:  Not too much fun in my world - but fun, yes.  > > > > Note:  Below are subjective cut and pastes from posts that occurred from > > September 14 through the 18th (subsequent to the FFL Games post) in mostly > > chronological order.  Curtis, I had no idea we'd done so much heavy and > > hard emotional work together.  I am really impressed.  Perhaps you can > > clarify a few things. I'm leaving the door open for you...... > > > > > > From: curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, September 14 through the 18th, 2012 > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann  "I'm not going to > > shut up; it's my turn!" > > > > > > CURTIS:  Emily IMO likes stirring the pot here and watching what > > happens.  She did it often and well.  She is a student of the personal > > dynamics here and I seriously doubt she would object to this > > characterization of her. When she included Judy she knew exactly what the > > Judy package comes with.  I believe that she hoped for a little Judy/Sal > > smackdown in return for Sal's critical email.  And NO she didn't say this > > herself, but that doesn't mean that the reason she gave isn't also > > true.  It just may not be the complete list of motivations for why she > > chose YOU. > > > > EMILY:  Take 2:  Yes, I like to comment when the spirit hits me - > > stirring the pot?  (Alright, just with you, if you say so) and otherwise, > > no more than anyone else. Yes, I will agree that I have studied the > > personal dynamics here to some degree and tested them to other degrees. > >  But, considering it's been about a year and a half, I've been kinda slow > > about it, don't you think?  I didn't bring any pre-conceived notions to > > the table - had never heard of FFL.  Didn't even realize Fairfield was in > > Iowa at the beginning and had no knowledge of Maharishi, the Domes, or his > > University.  I thought I'd dropped into one of those aforementioned > > parallel universes, if you must know.   > > > > I was in an emotional and off-guard state when I initially sent you the > > email - you know this is the truth.  You also know I was asking for > > "review" as that was in the subject line.  Old news now, but I most > > certainly did *not* hope for a Judy/Sal smackdown.  I am almost honored to > > think you thought I was calculating enough in the moment to put together a > > "list" of motivations.  Note to self:  Calculate your moves in the future > > - no more off-the-cuff responses. > > M:  Do all our motives have to be conscious and calculated?  I take you > at your word that you didn't have that thought but I also know that you don't > invoke the name of Judy as a peacemaker around here. > > Or maybe you do.  Maybe you see her as a person you trust here and wanted > her opinion and didn't know that she would take this ball and run with her > favorite themes on FFL. > > But when I heard that you had sent it to Judy I realized where it would > lead.  That fact that you were not aware of that didn't seem likely to me. > E2:  The last sentence is now quite clear to me. It is true that I view Judy > differently than you.  > > > > > CURTIS:  Duh,she was being criticized and I was being defended. Imagine > > that, we have different perspectives on the same email, what an amazing > > thing. > > > > EMILY:  Alright, then, on a second take, I'll go for "criticized"  - but > > only if all "criticisms" in the future are posted to FFL, and not to me > > personally. > > M: Just remove your email from the board.  I get emails from people, we > can't control that unless we want to cut them all off.  Some people get all > the messages as emails on the same yahoo mail account you got this one. > > E: In my day-to-day operational world, that email was simply awful and she > had no business sending it to me personally.  She can defend you all she > likes on FFL.  I don't even know you except through this venue.  I'm not > clear to this day, why you think that it was O.K. for her to do such a thing > or say the majority of what she did to me personally and go to great lengths > to defend a watered-down interpretation of said email as appropriate. > > M: I am not taking responsibility for what Sal wrote to you, I didn't right > it.  I believe her intentions toward me were good ones.  I can understand > why you didn't like what she said.  We get a lot of that around > here.  You are about to lay one on me right now: > > E: Because I "deserved" it after the horrendous way I had offended your ego, > perhaps?  If so, you have quite the temper.  If I had authored such an > email to you personally, as comment on a post you thought you were sending > within the appropriate context on FFL and as humor, would you have just > written it off as generic "criticism?" > > M:  See, written communication can come off harsh. > > My issues with the Robin deal had to do with him using my name.  It became > a bigger deal than it needed to with Judy piling on about it being unethical > for me to say it misrepresented my views without showing how.  So I did > show how and it was met with the usual routine. > > So I hope you can also understand that I had a completely different focus > during that and your post didn't offend my ego. > E2:  Understood.  > I was already booked.  It didn't matter to me if you enjoyed it or thought > it was the best parody you ever read.  It wasn't me and I didn't want my > name on it.  If he had just posted it as Robin goofing on Curtis it > wouldn't have even garnered a response. > > > > > CURTIS:  Emily may or may not respect me but I know one thing for > > sure.  I am not exempt from her desire to have us entertain her, and she > > is not against stirring the pot when it suits her. I welcomed her wry wit > > even when I was on the receiving end it.  This whole event doesn't change > > my view of her at all. > > > > EMILY:  On second take, what is "her desire to have us entertain > > her....."?  Well, perhaps it is me who is the exalted on....sitting on my > > throne of > > blackberry bush, waiting for the jongleurs (new word) to pay homage at my > > feet.  You are all here to entertain me, make no mistake.  I am in a > > different class - an upper class, if you will allow me this discretion. > > M:  Emily I don't know you and we don't have a shared history in the TM > group. I'm happy you have found value here but you have a detachment from a > lot of what goes on built in to how you got here.  Most of us took a > different road. > E2:  Re: the second sentence.  What does, "but you have a detachment from a > lot of what goes on built in to how you got here" mean?  Is it simply > because I don't have a shared history in a TM group?  It is true that I > don't have that "shared experience" and will never "know" of it as I believe > "knowing" something requires experience of it.  I have found value here and > have been asking myself the question as to why I have stayed.  Obviously, > the curiosity factor is no longer the most prevalent.  I do have my reasons. >  I am preparing to leave for a time, however, as the next indicated step in > my life is showing up and it's important that I pay attention.   > > > -------------------------- > > CURTIS: Again, glad you recovered. You continue to be an enigma here, > > which is, I suspect, just how you like it. > > > > EMILY:  Do you mean enigma as under this general definition: > > "a person of puzzling or contradictory character?"  I think my > > character is pretty straight up and pretty consistent.  In my study of the > > human dynamics here, I have thought more than once that *you* are an > > "enigma", which is why I chose to spontaneously poke fun at you.  Your > > response was quite enigmatic...or perhaps revealing.  Perhaps mine was to > > you as well...I'll give you that possibility.  I wish you had asked me to > > clarify my intentions, instead of assuming/implying what they were in > > subsequent posts to FFL. > > M:  I still might have my own opinion even if you state what your > intentions are. > E2:  Agreed, you might.   > > > -------------------------------------- > > CURTIS: So Emily and I are cool now...... > > > > EMILY:  Now, sweetheart (this is a Mother Hen term)...when you wrote this > > on September 17th, what gave you this impression?  My heartfelt apologies > > to you?  Yes, you should be cool with me....why should I have been cool > > with you at this point? > > M: Because I didn't expect you to buy into the Judy routine that I was > calling you a liar by saying I believed you knew what you were doing when you > ordered up a side of Judy with your ham and eggs. > > I was assuming that.  I guess I was wrong.  I'm OK with that. > E2:  At the time, yes; currently, I have closure, so to speak on the issue. >  I learned a few things, which is always my goal.   > > > > > CURTIS to (Judy?):  Something that we already worked out just fine without > > your "help". > > > > EMILY:  We did?  When did we do this?  This is what we are doing now, > > Curtis.  What were the assumptions and what was the impetus for these two > > statements at the time they were made? > > M: I said it because I believed your response meant that.  If I got it > wrong, you have corrected me. > E2:  I was headed in that direction, so you weren't completely off target. >  But, given the timing of these statements relative to when I was on > vacation - I thought it was a pretty one-sided assumption at that point.  > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > RAUNCHY: Do you really think she trusts you? > > > > CURTIS: Let's see, if you really wanted to know, you would be asking her, > > so what are you getting at here? Oh I get it, you want me to worry about > > whether or not she "trusts" me. The problem I have is that so little trust > > is really required between us to post here. Let me answer your insincerity > > with some sincerity. I suspect that Emily will display an appropriate level > > of trust and mistrust for our interactions here, just as I do. > > > > EMILY:  Curtis, hon (another Mother hen term), yes, you suspect correctly > > here.  The blinders have been compromised and they are off.  Too bad > > though - I liked the innocence from whence I posted in the past. You mean > > everyone in life doesn't have my best interests at heart - you mean some > > are out for themselves at others' expense - harm intended?  Drag...big > > drag.... > > > > RAUNCHY: when Emily played off Robin's irony email did you think she was > > teasing you or did it piss you off? > > > > CURTIS: I thought Emily was sincerely expressing how she saw it, that was > > her actual POV on that. Different people here often have different POVs on > > the same thing. Does that tend to piss you off? > > > > EMILY:  Oh alright.  I went back and re-read my post to you.  Read now, > > at face value, I see your point.  But, considering the timing of when it > > was posted, you failed utterly to understand or pick up on the irony or > > humorous intent to tease you.  Clearly, you didn't appreciate my slightly > > edgy post...maybe you were in a bad mood that day. I didn't realize how > > seriously you would take it....was Sal reflecting your feelings when she > > accused me of offering up constant put-downs of you?  My > > goodness...lighten up, mon ami.  Yes, I thought Robin's email had merit > > and did capture points you've made to him (albeit using different words) > > more than once, but I was in no way condemning you or rendering judgment > > from my throne of blackberry bushes. > > --------------------------  > > JUDY:  Emily isn't fine. Curtis is lying up a storm, so clearly he isn't > > so fine either. > > > > CURTIS:  Tee hee > > > > EMILY:  This was the money shot, Curtis.  For me, at least.  It was my > > "ah ha" moment.  I was like....."oooohhhhh, reallyyyyy, wowwwwww."  Now, > > I explained my use of this term in Memorandum 1 - but I absolutely see how > > you could have misinterpreted it.  Who cares that I followed up that email > > with more than one attempt to explain myself  to you. Why cut me any > > slack....I don't cut others any, and certainly not you, with all these > > put-downs I keep posting, right? > > M: The Tee hee was directed at Judy for once again invoking her "lying" deity > and trying to cause more of a ruckus than any of this needed to be, as > predicted.  This line of hers is the perfect example of what you get when > you bring on the Judy. > E2:  My mistake, I thought it was directed at me.  > > > ------------------------------ > > CURTIS (to Ann, I believe):  Emily and I are fine, sorry to disappoint. At > > least I am fine with her and our last exchange was very friendly and full > > of understanding and tolerance for each others differences. > > > > EMILY:  Ah Ha ha ha ha.  Now, what exchange was that?  I wish we'd had > > such an exchange back during this whole situation.  You had the > > opportunity by the way - I opened the door to it.  The door is still > > open.  > > M: I hope what I have written shows you the respect you deserve for your > feelings in this situation.  After this exchange I will consider the matter > closed although I will read what you write to me, I may not respond. > E2:  Yes, it will suffice.  I am a strong believer in taking responsibility > for one's own feelings, if you must know, so even if what you have written > didn't suffice - it wouldn't matter.    > > > ------------------------- > > > > CURTIS (to Steve):  It all would have played out a little less silly if > > Emily had played ball and played her role as the "brutally" aggrieved > > party. But instead we exchanged posts and made our points clear without > > attacking each other personally. Imagine that options on FFL? > > > > EMILY:  We did?  Is all this love and light coming from how you've > > interpreted the comments you made on my draft of the FFL Games post that I > > sent? > > > > Do tell, Curtis. > > M:  I was under fire from Judy and Robin among others at the time.  I did > my best and it seems that I had assumed too much about our being cool with > each other.  I understand now that you were not. > > Here is how I see it now: > > You got an email from Sal that upset you. > E2:  Agree > > You sent it to Judy and me to review. > E2: Agree > > I did not respond to you by email but the topic ended up on FFL anyway. > E2: Agree - I moved it there. > > I interpreted what you wrote that we were cool, but now know I had assumed > something that was not true for you. > E2: Agree. Not at the time. > > You want me to know that bringing Judy into this was not with the explicit > intention of getting her to back you up with Sal. > E2: Agree. > > We do not share the same POV on how grievous it was for Sal to send you an > email or on the contents. > E2: Agree.  Her intentions, from my POV, in sending me that email were more > than simply to "show her support for you", which I would have been fine with > and reacted much better to, assuming it had been worded to respect me as a > person and did not assume I had it in for you, which I didn't.   > > My saying that you were aware of what you get when you bring Judy in was not > me calling you a liar.  You may see her participation here differently than > I do. > E2: Agree > > You may or may not be cool with me now. > E2: Agree  > > > > > > > >      >
