Didn't bother to read this, of course, but I can't help but notice that Judy has just "fouled out" for the week at 35 posts. Again.
And I'd be willing to bet that a large number of these posts were pissed away flaming me, and trying to get others to do the same. What I said earlier about having a life vs. not... --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:17 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TIME to BAN LURK > > > > > > > > Write the ticket and get on with your life so > > I can get on with mine. Don't keep standing > > there demanding that I apologize to you. I have > > *no problem* with paying the fine. But just > > write the ticket and stop demanding my attention. > > Being booted off of Fairfield Life is the fine; > > indulging your or other people's desire to be > > apologized to isn't. > > > > I have no desire to boot you or anyone off, nor do I need you > > to feel remorseful or anything else. If you (or anyone) were > > to say to hell with the rule, I'm going to keep flaming, and > > then you did so, I'd boot you off. But you're not continuing > > to flame, so on with the party. > > OK, Rick, look, he's been flaming off and on > since the agreement not to flame was put in > force. This is just the latest instance. > > You chided him gently the first time (when he > called Bronte and idiot), and he said then it > was OK with him if you threw him off the forum > for doing so. The insult was perfectly > justified, as far as he was concerned. > > Then you stopped reading for awhile, and he > continued to flame during that period. > > You start monitoring again, and find he's just > delivered another flame, but because he doesn't > *say* "the hell with the rules, I'm just going > to keep on flaming"--even though continuing to > flame is what he has actually done--you give > him a pass. > > In terms of what he *says* about flaming, he's > a lot stricter than you are. For example: > > "In general, anytime someone tries to justify 'attacking > back' they are trying to justify a personal attack that > was just made by them. It couldn't be any clearer. In > their minds the personal attack may be justified, but > the very fact that they *are* attempting to justify it > shows that they know it was a personal attack, and > thus against the FFL guidelines." > > So he has in effect acknowledged that he knew > his flame at mainstream was against the FFL > guidelines (although the quote above is from > an earlier post). > > You seem to be suggesting now that it's OK to > flame as long as you don't prolong it and > don't explicitly proclaim your intention to > defy the rules. Is that what you mean to convey? > > If so, does that apply to all of us, or just > to Barry? > > > (Bonus quote from Barry, to be read in light > of his elaborate justification for flaming > mainstream in the discussion on abortion: > "Beliefs and opinions are easy to fixate on, > and to confuse with Truth. And when someone > pokes at one of the things you confuse with > Truth, you react. The reaction is NOT > justified, no matter how hard you try to > justify it." >
