--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > <I am saying is he should shit or get off the pot (to put it rather crudely). > I am making no value judgements here about the quality of the discourse or > even the value of it. It is just that Curtis keeps coming back for more all > the while lamenting his "predicament". I am just tired of hearing him whinge, > that's all. Either he should get on with it or move along to the next > subject.> > > My interaction with another poster is causing YOU discomfort. Think about > that.
Curtis, for God sake, I know you are smarter than this. NO! Your interactions are not making me uncomfortable. Your lamentations are making me think you are torn between wanting to interact and not wanting to. I have said NOTHING about your posts. > > The issue here is not how I choose my interactions with another poster. It > is about the reaction you are having to it. And one of your blind spots is > that you don't have to read any of it. But you do. CURTIS. You are somehow misinterpreting everything I have said on this subject. How is is this POSSIBLE? > > Obviously there is a level of interest in the interaction for me, but it is > not unlimited, and I enforce my own level of interest boundaries, despite > being goaded to continue ad infinitum. I continue till I have expressed what > I wanted to express and then I stop. There is no end with Robin until I end > it and that cycle has repeated itself here many times. Yes and you point is? > > So your advice IS a judgement about the value of the interactions for me, you > think I should stop or if I continue, I shouldn't complain about how Robin is > acting in the discussion. I have never complained about the choices I have > made to interact with him. But somehow the way I am interacting with him > bothers you in a way that the way he is interacting with me does not. Nope, wrong interpretation. Read me again. For me to say it again is just repeating what I already wrote. You have some strange blind spot here. I am saying if you chose to jump into the water don't scream about the fact you didn't realize it was going to be wet. > > Think about why this would be important to YOU. Nothing here is important to me, about this subject at least. All I was saying was, and here I am repeating myself, you seem to know what interacting with Robin is going to result in so if you think you already know because you have experienced it at least twenty times before here at FFL, then don't complain when it turns out to be what you perceive to be the same thing again. What has Barry said on this subject? Not that different from what I am saying. The big difference is that he doesn't think you should bother interacting with the crazy NPD person and I think you should do what you want but don't then lament and cry about it as if you are some long-suffering martyr. > > You are working out your own stuff that is getting triggered from my > interaction with Robin. MY interaction with Robin is not the issue you > should be focusing on if you spent three and a half years daily with this guy. > > I'm fine. > > Are you fine Ann? > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that > > > > > could be possible, but it is. > > > > > > > > What is a "blind"? spot (my bad) > > > > > > > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical. > > > > > > > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does > > > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in > > > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him > > > that time and time again. > > > > > > > > > I think you might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here. The > > > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we > > > have little breakthroughs. That maybe we further our understanding > > > about things. And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope, so one > > > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be > > > happening. Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in > > > the towel at the first sign of resistance. I don't believe for a second > > > for that to be the case. > > > > I am only advocating Curtis stop responding to Robin, not because I think > > he should, but because he keeps saying that he doesn't want to get pulled > > into Robin's game, his repetitiousness, his mind games, his word floods, > > his rants. He has said time and time again that he has no interest in > > pursuing this never-ending revolving door of what Curtis feels is a no-win > > game of semantics. And it goes on. You've read what he has said time and > > time again. I think it might be great if the two of them kept talking but > > Curtis evidently doesn't want to so all I am saying is he should shit or > > get off the pot (to put it rather crudely). I am making no value judgements > > here about the quality of the discourse or even the value of it. It is just > > that Curtis keeps coming back for more all the while lamenting his > > "predicament". I am just tired of hearing him whinge, that's all. Either he > > should get on with it or move along to the next subject. > > > > > > I find Curtis to be extremely patient. And for whatever reason I find > > > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions. I perfectly > > > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel > > > that you, or anyone else is a little off base. And certainly you do > > > that with me. So, let's live and let live. > > > > Absolutely. I have not commented on whether I believe Curtis to be patient > > or not patient, reasonable or not reasonable, deluded or not deluded. In > > fact, the only thing I was saying was what I outlined above, I don't need > > to say it again and I won't. > > > > > > > > > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of > > > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my > > > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and > > > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I > > > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I > > > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now. > > > There is no rank pulling. > > > > > > That's all neat. > > > > Well, I wouldn't have put it quite like that. > > > > >But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has > > > emerged. And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been > > > described previously. That does make me sad a little. But it also > > > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear > > > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another > > > person. It seems the only reason to do that was to elicit some > > > response he wasn't getting any other way. > > > > Let them both go at it. No problem, just don't complain about it if you > > chose to put fingers to keyboard, that's all I'm sayin'. > > > > > > We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth > > > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement? > > > > > > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day? > > > > Nope, not lame at all. Just think of all the little personal miracles we > > accomplish within a 24 hour period. Just being able to swallow food, suck > > in oxygen, walk down a flight of stairs. > > > > >Sort of > > > that "one day at a time" philosophy. I guess to answer your question, > > > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business, > > > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the > > > spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me. > > > > Worth at least three medals. But your reward seems to be in the fact that > > you seem like a genuine and happy man. This does not happen arbitrarily. > > You have evidently been doing a few things right. > > > > > > > > Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea, you > > > perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life can > > > exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain level > > > of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent. > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant > > > choice > > > > > of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's > > > assumption > > > > > that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to > > > jolt > > > > > you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how > > > invasive > > > > > this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined > > > with > > > > > the word flooding it is quite unpleasant. > > > > > > > > > > > > Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even > > > > > close, not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around > > > him > > > > > physically up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his > > > > > "mindfuckery", his "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to > > > even > > > > > conceive of such a thing that it makes me smile, just a little. And > > > boy, > > > > > you think he can mess with you now, 30 years ago you would have > > > lasted > > > > > about an hour at the mic. And even during all that time I wouldn't > > > have > > > > > characterized it as 'psychological rape". I could and would and did > > > call > > > > > it lots of other things but never quite that. Still, you have the > > > option > > > > > to stop reading, stop responding but you don't. I noticed recently > > > that > > > > > when you have been absent for a while and Robin intermittently shows > > > up > > > > > so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep > > > gravitating > > > > > toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop whining > > > and > > > > > complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' totally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for > > > acting in > > > > > a way that would make someone think this term was the best way to > > > > > describe it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the > > > boundaries > > > > > line he had crossed... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note to Share: You will never be able to appease this unfriendly > > > > > agenda no matter what you say. It is s double bind where the > > > > > "sincerity" of even an unnecessary apology will be judged by them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or > > > > > > > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as > > > > > > > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a > > > > > > > > "psychological rapist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step" > > > > > > > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually > > > > > > > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin > > > > > > > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would > > > > > > > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your > > > > > > > > character. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long > > > <sharelong60@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making > > > > > amends part of an apology. Even in our recent exchange I asked > > > > > Robin how I could make amends for misunderstanding him about his > > > turq > > > > > post and Curtis exchange. For me it is the making amends that is > > > > > the sine qua non of an apology and this is where the cost comes > > > in. > > > > > And of course the cost or amends is meant to address the actual > > > > > consequences. Such as a restitution of money in the case of a > > > > > compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the first step is to offer > > > > > > > > > apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other > > > > > person. Robin and I did not get to the second step last > > > year. > > > > > And it seems we're not getting to it again. But I've made my > > > offer > > > > > and stand by it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic > > > upbringing. > > > > > In those days many people went to confession every week. Also I > > > say > > > > > it just in case I've hurt someone's feelings. The better I know > > > FFL > > > > > people the more I'll dispense with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM > > > > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was > > > HITLER'S > > > > > VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some > > > wonderful > > > > > > > > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis > > > > > > > > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the > > > > > > > > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the > > > > > > > > > > semantics of that) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and > > > > > > > > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no > > > difference > > > > > > > > > to what Curtis said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you. > > > > > > > > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including > > > > > > > > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when > > > > > > > > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best > > > > > > > > > *ambiguous*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin > > > > > > > > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's, > > > > > > > > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and > > > > > > > > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was > > > > > > > > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response > > > > > > > > > to your post about Barry, Ann. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite > > > > > > > > > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It > > > > > > > > > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks > > > to > > > > > > > > > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing > > > relevant. > > > > > > > > > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense > > > > > > > > > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate > > > > > > > > > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before > > > > > > > > > > they even have time to react. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone > > > > > > > > > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent > > > > > > > > > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what > > > > > > > > > will an apology from this person mean for something that > > > > > > > > > really requires an apology? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to > > > > > > > > > the person to whom it is given. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would cost Share something to apologize for calling > > > > > > > > > Robin a psychological rapist. But she isn't willing to > > > > > > > > > give that much of herself to right the grievous wrong > > > > > > > > > for which she was responsible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
