OK, that works for me. We both expressed our POV. I'm sure you have a busy weekend "getting" people to attend to, so I'll leave you to it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > So far I am happy with your response. If anyone was interested in > > following our different points of view on this, it is all here. > > > > You are arguing with me about how I felt about someone else at different > > points of time, and my intentions toward them. You are an ill wisher and > > your take on my interaction with Robin is unflattering to both of us, > > because despite your show, you don't give a damn about him either. He is > > another expendable pawn in your get people routine. > > Curtis, read this carefully: Your fantasies about the > nature of my relationship with Robin are just that, > fantasies, wishful thinking. They always have been. > > As to my response to your post, you got busted--factually-- > on quite a few of your major points. I would never expect > you to admit this, and goodness knows there isn't any > way you can refute it. But you know and I know that you > fouled up big time. > > > Some comments near the middle to end. > > (terasnip) > > > Here's what I *am* addressing: > > > > > > 1. Curtis's lie that Robin was seriously warning him, in > > > one of his very first posts to Curtis, that Curtis was not > > > to question Robin's experience of Unity consciousness. > > > > He ended up being just as touchy about that as I had > > feared. He was a master of mixed messages and none of > > it is as easy to figure out as Judy's malicious reduction > > paints it. > > Let me say it another way: Curtis's lie that Robin was > seriously warning him, in one of his very first posts to > Curtis, that Curtis was not to question Robin's experience > of Unity consciousness. Notice that Curtis's rejoinder does > not relate to what I identified as a lie. > > > > 2. Curtis's even bigger lie that his relationship with > > > Robin fell apart because Robin would not countenance > > > Curtis's refusal to accept Robin's experience of Unity > > > consciousness decades previously.> > > > > Judy is painting my opinion about what the falling out was > > as a lie because she believes she really knows what no one > > can know. Malicious bullshit. > > Hand-waving. > > > > (Note for the excessively literal-minded: Robin does > > > not consider himself enlightened *now* and thinks > > > himself lucky not to be.) > > > > He is still very attached to the so called fact that he was > > actually enlightened. > > Yes, indeedy, he sure is. I never suggested otherwise. In > fact, I do believe I made this very point myself. > > > It supports his view that his cockamamie view of God today > > is based on a profound experience of reality. > > Has nothing to do with his experience of Unity consciousness. > This is his post-enlightenment experience of reality. > > > He has maintained some of the same epistemological issues > > that I object to in "enlightened" guys. > > No doubt. Has nothing to do with the point I'm making > (except to reinforce my point that Curtis was after > Robin's epistemology from the start). > > > > The first lie was fabricated as justification for the > > > second lie. The first lie is easily disposed of by > > > simply looking at that very early exchange. The second > > > lie can only be refuted factually by reading all the > > > posts that followed the one to which I gave a link, > > > which I did yesterday just to make absolutely sure I > > > hadn't been misrepresenting anything.> > > > > Perfect example of what I was talking about. > > Hand-waving. > > > > I had not been. The issue of Robin's experience of Unity > > > consciousness did not come up as a topic of discussion > > > in any of those posts that document the breakdown of > > > his relationship with Curtis. It was a nontopic. > > > > Not for me it wasn't. I was always aware of it. > > Let me say it another way: The issue of Robin's > experience of Unity consciousness did not come up as a > topic of discussion in any of those posts that document > the breakdown of his relationship with Curtis. It was a > nontopic (except perhaps in Curtis's mind, because that's > what he had wanted to go after in the first place). > > > > > > > The issue about me not scolding [Barry] was just a smokescreen. > > > > > > It was all about my refusal to see him as ever being the > > > > > > special enlightened guy that is key to his inflated identity. > > > > > > > > > > This is also a lie. The issue about your not scolding Barry > > > > > had to do with Robin's view of Barry's behavior not just > > > > > toward Robin but toward me and others whom Barry habitually > > > > > mistreated. Robin was hardly the only person making a point > > > > > at that time of how you avoided dealing with Barry's rotten > > > > > behavior.> > > > > > > > > The assumptive bullshit projected here that I am responsible for > > > > scolding Barry for things that bother other people is amazing. > > > > > > Context-shift here. Curtis is avoiding the real issue, > > > which I stated immediately above: yet another attempt by > > > Curtis to falsely claim his relationship with Robin came > > > apart because Curtis wouldn't accept Robin's experience of > > > Unity consciousness decades previously. > > > > Here Judy is attempting to identify me making any other > > point as a "context shift" when in fact anyone expressing > > their point of view is a context shift. > > Not as I'm using the term, unless they very deliberately > shift it *away* from the point at issue to a different one > because they can't effectively deal with the original point. > > The discussion isn't about (1) whether Curtis is responsible > for sanctioning Barry for his dreadful behavior, but about > (2) whether Robin made such a point of it because Curtis > refused "to see him as ever being the special enlightened > guy that is key to his inflated identity," as Curtis claims. > > Two very different issues. Perfectly OK to bring up #1 as > a sort of sidebar after you've dealt with #2; not OK to > substitute #1 for #2 and pretend it's the issue on the > table so you don't *have* to deal with #2. (That claim > is false, which is why Curtis needs to shift the context > away from it.) > > This is what Curtis habitually does in hostile debate so that > "nothing actually of what was inside what the other person > wrote gets even faintly reflected inside what you > subsequently write." This is a particularly crude example > of it. > > (snip) > > > Curtis, what I wrote immediately above was *about Robin*, > > > not about you. How VERY weird you would make that mistake > > > twice in a single post. I'm refuting *your* assumption > > > about Robin's reasons for objecting to your refusal to > > > sanction Barry. They weren't a "smokescreen" to hide his > > > frustration about your not accepting his Unity > > > consciousness experience decades ago. They had nothing to > > > do with that. > > > > Right your guess about what set Robin off is better than > > mine, got it. > > Yes, it is better than yours. Yours was fabricated to > support the Really Big Lie about why your relationship > with Robin went off the rails. > > (snip) > > > That's right. I do not believe that you believe, even in > > > your most cynical moments, that Robin was trying to flatter > > > you in order to manipulate you. (Another instance of Curtis > > > doing what he berates me for doing, just for the record.) > > > > > > > That is the thing I object to. > > > > > > Tough. You long since destroyed any credibility you may > > > have had with me. > > > > > > > I don't care if you share you perspective and opinion, but don't claim > > > > you are proving a truth about my own perspective. This view is > > > > entirely possible within my perspective of Robin. It is not a "truth" > > > > even for me. It is one of the polarities of my perspective. > > > > > > As I say, I don't believe it's even a polarity. I think you > > > made it up because you were pissed off at Robin's "orgasm" > > > comment and were driven by the need for revenge. > > > > Here you just go all the way off the rails in your bullshit assumptions. My > > response was that I thought it was icky. > > I don't believe you, but it's not particularly important. > I don't believe your "flattering to manipulate" thesis is > even a polarity; I think you made it up to revenge yourself > on Robin, whatever reason you want to give for being so > furiously angry that you had to write a post to Barry with > more lies in it than any I've ever seen on FFL. > > (snip) > > > My emotional response to how badly Robin was hurt by the > > > dissolution of your relationship with him is 100 percent > > > genuine, however. > > > > Uh huh. That is why you are choosing to focus on the most unflattering > > view of our online friendship in the beginning. I'm sure he appreciates > > your concern. > > I was 100 percent sold on your online friendship from the > very beginning. It was some of the most fascinating and > entertaining dialogue I've ever read on this or any other > forum. It was brilliant, scintillating, enthralling. I > posted to you both about how much I was enjoying it, if you > recall. > > That is still my opinion of what went on until it finally > collapsed in a bitter, ugly heap. That it *did* collapse > doesn't detract in the slightest from what it was while > it was still alive and kicking. > > (snip> > > > > Here Judy claims that she knows "what they were about". It was about a > > > > lot of stuff Judy, in our own personal lives. You aren't the expert > > > > because you read them. The arrogance of your assumptions here are > > > > stunning. > > > > > > I'm talking about *what the two of you wrote on FFL*. I'm as > > > much of an expert on that as you are, perhaps more, since I > > > reread all that stuff just yesterday and you only reread "some" > > > of it. > > > > I love this paragraph. It sums up my whole point perfectly. > > More hand-waving. > > (snip) > > > I'm referring to things like your little sniggering > > > colloquy with Barry about Robin being unwilling to > > > condense his five-part post, and your *unconscionably* > > > cruel post to him after his "Open Letter to Barry" > > > toward the end of January. > > > > > > Robin has taken you apart pretty good on a number of > > > occasions, but he's never written anything about you > > > that even approached that kind of sadism. > > > > Bet that made you cry too, right? > > It made me very angry, showed me what kind of person > you really were underneath the Mr. Wonderful facade. I > already had more than a glimmering, but this engraved > it in stone. > > > > I also notice that recently you've been sticking in > > > as many little digs as you can find room for referring > > > to his stint as leader of WTS when he was having his > > > Unity consciousness experience and insinuating that he > > > is using the same tactics he did then. The point of > > > those digs is not to get at Robin, it's to remind > > > readers of his unsavory past. Very unpleasant and > > > thoroughly unfair tactic that reflects extremely > > > poorly on you. > > > > He has continued the same tactics revealed in the book > > about his cult. So it involves something more current > > than his cult days. > > Curtis, I've read the book. His "tactics" now aren't > what he was doing then even if you take the book's > account to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing > but the truth. Apples and oranges. > > > > > > > I get it that you think you are getting me somehow by > > > > > > doing this. But your clueslessness to how you are > > > > > > throwing Robin under the bus to achieve this end is > > > > > > amazing. > > > > > > > > > > Saving you the trouble, eh? You only wish that's what I > > > > > was doing.> > > > > > > > > But you are, and can't see it because your hate toward me > > > > blinds you. > > > > > > Which bus would I be throwing him under, Curtis? (I'm asking > > > pro forma; Curtis won't respond, or won't be specific.) > > > > I've already told you many times. > > No, actually this post is the first time you've deigned > to reveal what you've actually been insinuating. > > > You are choosing the most unflattering perspective that > > diminishes the experience we had posting together at the > > beginning. > > Well, as I've told you, the brilliance of that dialogue > isn't at all tarnished by what happened at the end of > it. > > I guess you must mean I'm throwing Robin under the bus > because I've realized you, Curtis, went into the dialogue > with ulterior motives, whereas Robin was utterly sincere > and trusting? > > Wait, no, that doesn't work. That would be throwing > *you*, Curtis, under the bus. > > Want to take another crack at it, see if you can make > it come out right? > > > > "...What is left > > > in the wake of one of your rebuttals is scorched earth, > > > moonscape, a perfect emptiness. You have assassinated your > > > critic. Or rather, the context which remains is *as if* this > > > is the case." > > > > > > --Robin Carlsen, 10/30/2011 > > > > Yes you do both share this same inability to deal with > > what I write > > *HUGE GUFFAW* > > I think I'll just let that sit there for folks to > contemplate. It's too good to spoil with a comment, > especially after *this* exchange. >
