--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: Snip > > > 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.
The context of how I interact with Barry is mostly outside FFL so that shapes my view of him more that whatever goes on here. How he interacts with you has nothing to do with my view of him. > > <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. Sounds a little malicious. > > > 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). Ouch. Snip > > 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. I think I'm gunna go with commenting on whatever I care to, at whatever level attention I choose here. > > 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. I guess I don't share your limitless fascination with this angle. To each his or her own. > > <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. Reading all your and Barry's posts and the supporting evidence posts is a project beyond my level of interest. I'll stick with my casual approach. > > > 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). The term "whine" is a misrepresentation of my send up piece in response to your using my name Judy. > > 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. Double ouch. You have better "ethics" huh? Isn't that "special." The only problem is that, just like me, you choose when to jump in based on how seriously you take it. And I don't take your deal with Barry seriously in any way. > > > 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. The reason for the idea is much more relevant. I was not using it to protect Manarishi's image so my point has nothing to do with his criticism. > > <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. I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But there is zero chance that I will begin reading your exchanges "attentively." Seriously Judy why would I want to do that? Your angle is only fascinating to you. You shouldn't judge the rest of us harshly for not giving a shit. > > > > > 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. "Acknowledging more fault" sound like a real party. I'm gunna take a pass on this little game. > > 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. Yeah, but I'll still be free with all my non expert opinions anyway. Sorry I don't match your expectation of taking the feud seriously. Fortunately there are more things to discuss. At least for me. >
