--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > snip > > When Willytex demonizes you, you often react pretty > > strongly. How come you take him, of all people, more > > seriously than you do Barry? Because Barry flatters > > you so often? > > I take Richard much less seriously than Barry. My recent > softer response to him is something I plan to maintain.
Good, you've learned to take Willytex less seriously. Perhaps there's a next step here. > I evaluate Barry based on how we relate to each other, > not with you. I find the last sentence a bit revealing > Judy, our online friendliness framed as one side resorting > to flattery and the other (me) being susceptible to such a > tactic. I find it difficult to explain otherwise. <snip> > > The issue is the *malice*, Curtis. And I'm hardly > > Barry's only target. > > And and how is your project of changing him > working out for you? Not my project. My project is to expose him as a phony. > For me two of the most generative writers here > also have the sharpest tongues. I can live with > that since I value the writing effort. One of the reasons I don't get all excited when you compliment me, Curtis, is that the value you put on Barry's writing doesn't speak very highly of your standards (with regard to content, not use of language). <snip> > > As I pointed out in another post recently, he can't > > seem to make a case about much of anything with > > honesty. His lies where TMers are concerned are > > especially malicious. But that never appears to > > bother you. > > You seem to have a more digital filter than I do. > Lie or truth. Much of what I see here is spin and > opinion. Plenty of that too, but I'm talking about genuine, by-the-dictionary lies, saying stuff one knows is not true. > But since I don't have a horse in the enlightenment > race I can't care about some of the distinctions that > you do. But I can understand why they would matter to > you and you seem to have that base pretty much covered > here. Since I frame most of Barry's post to you under > the heading "Fucking with Judy" I don't even try to > sort out the truth. You don't even *read* them, or so you claim. Of course you can't sort out the truth. And that's basically what I'm telling you, Curtis. You don't read the posts (except when they happen to mention your name), so you have zero basis for commenting on them. And BTW, not all my posts to Barry are in response to posts of his demonizing me. Some are analyses of posts he makes on other topics that have nothing to do with me personally. There was one just before you showed up, for example, in which he blatantly lied about what was on the Global Good News site. If you didn't read my response or check the site for yourself, you'd have no way of knowing he lied. And then having been caught in the lie, he proceeded to lie some more in an attempt to cover it up. <snip> > > > Of course I could be wrong because I don't have all > > > the context from all the posts that you guys > > > generate. > > > > Right. Which is why you should stay the hell out of it. > > So I should jump in when Barry is being bad in > your view and also stay the hell out of it? No, one or the other. If you want to comment, read the posts. If you don't want to read the posts, don't comment. Simple. > This whole thing started with me saying I wanted to > stay our of your feud and your responding that you > would jump in if someone said something untrue about > me. That's not quite how it went, Curtis. My response to your complaint was, essentially, to tell you to take a flying leap. If you say something in public, you have no basis to whine about its being quoted or described in whatever context a poster chooses, as long as they don't misrepresent you (as I already said). What I went on to say about my jumping in if somebody said something untrue about you was peripheral; it was a comment about our respective ethics, not a response to your complaint. > My point seems valid still and I'm sorry you > didn't address it. I did indeed address it and did again above. > Now Barry has included the "It was Tony's idea" > option in a recent post so perhaps it was the > intent rather than the content that bothered him. Or perhaps he was performing a strategic backpedal on being reminded that you were entertaining the possibility that it was Tony's idea. <snip> > I am seeking rapport here. You guys are not seeking > rapport with each other. So little differences mean > less in my exchanges with you and between you two > they go nuclear. I don't think either of you are in > a space that would allow such a concession and to be > fair I don't see that on either side. Again, you are not in a position to comment if you haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not carry any weight with me. > > > This distinction I draw gives us the ability to have > > > good discussions here. The lack of this distinction > > > creates a lot of back and forth battle posts between > > > you guys. To each his or her own. > > > > That's just ethically vacuous, Curtis. I don't lie > > about Barry. It's his lies that create the battle. > > The solo tango dancer theory...I'm not a fan. Did I use the word "solo"? There's a distinction between drawing an exact moral equivalence and acknowledging there's more fault on one side than the other. But in any case, one more time--you don't read the posts, so you aren't in a position to comment one way or the other.
