--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, I can understand why you would want to leave it where it is rather than dig the hole you're in deeper. But I'm disappointed that you're not even going to try to repair your "Judy throwing Robin under the bus" mantra. I kind of liked the explanation you proffered in your previous post, which turned out to describe me throwing *you* under the bus, but I sure would enjoy seeing what you'd come up with for a revised version. I bet it would be even funnier. > --- 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. > > >
