-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > > > > > > > > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > > > > > showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. > > > > > > > > One that is bogus as I have pointed out. > > > > > > > > > > You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. > > > > > > > > I accept they gave because of their good intentions > > > > towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. > > > > I do not accept to point about how "interesting" it > > > > was that non TMer didn't. > > > > > > That is not what I said was "interesting." You made > > > that up. > > > > OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that > > it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all > > about non TM people not giving. > > *You* said "ONLY." I said "all."
This is not a reasonable distinction. One more time: My point > was that contrary to Barry's sliming, TMers are happy to > do what they can to help out. OK I get it. You didn't mean it as a slight to non TMers. > > > You don't see those two things as connected. > > If what you're after is emphasizing the "flip side," > as you go on to put it, sure. That wasn't what I > was after. I live on the flip side so of course that is what interested me. > > Perhaps you mean that what was > > interesting about it was that the TM people who had been > > demonized as non givers came through? > > My point was more general, but that did happen to be > the case. Finally, some agreement. OK, so you didn't mean it the way I took it. That is what follow-up posts are for. > > <snip> > > Feeling sorry for people is not the reason people give? > > You asked me why I thought TM people gave. > > Because you had asked *me* that, and while it was clear > you had something in mind, it wasn't clear what. > > Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you > had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. If that was not a part of it they are not human. It was not a bad guess. I assumed they give a shit. Remember my view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people. > > Your response didn't make sense in terms of the question > I was asking, and you know it. > > <snip> > > > That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say > > > "I'm glad you got to donate" as if I might *not* have > > > gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. > > > > It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. > > It was a turn of phrase > > Which didn't make sense. We are not getting anywhere here. It sure makes sense to me that TM people might care about Haitians. > > <snip> > > > Curtis. See if you can give a straight answer. Why did > > > you ask why it was that TMers donated to the fund? > > > > Do you mean originally what I asked? > > > > "Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why > > that was?" > > > > Because its flip side of your "interesting" point was > > that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. > > That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made. I'm pretty sure that is how it works here. I didn't accuse you of anything I asked you a question. Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want to get involved in your agenda with Barry. And I don't give a shit who started it because there is no real start. > > > I am a non TMer so I didn't want it to look like we are > > charity deadbeats. > > As I immediately confirmed before you'd said anything > to that effect. > > > You say that was not your point, but it was only the TM > > side of the equation that was interesting? > > Right. > > > OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. > > Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am outside here in another body with another perspective. > > > You made the point that the TMers on this board gave > > to Haiti exclusively, although the reason I gave that > > you felt sorry for the people makes no sense to you. > > Disingenuous. It made no sense in context. See above. > > > I made the point that non TMers here might have other > > channels to give that didn't involve you. > > No, *I* made that point. In response to your original > question, I said I was sure many non-TMers had donated > on their own hook, remember? > > We all had "other channels to give," of course. But > since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to > the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't > join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping > Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated > waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd > think that would be one issue we could come together on, > wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as > possible. > > Even if all the non-TMers had already given through > other channels, you'd think they could make at least a > token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. > (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no > problem. But many here certainly could.) Your judgments are your own. I don't share them. Jacking up totals may not have been on people's minds, it wasn't on mine. > > I think it was because they didn't want to participate > in a TMer-initiated effort. > > > I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all > > the Barry is bad too parts. > > Of course you are. Hypocrite. Well I guess if that is where your TM practice has evolved you to I'll have to leave it at that. > > I'm going to leave it in, though: > > > > > > > And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. > > > > > > This is hilarious. In the process of correcting Barry's > > > misrepresentation of how the fund drive started in his > > > post to you, I went back and read his posts at the time. > > > They were *vicious* attacks on TMers, and on me and > > > Raunchy and Nabby specifically, much worse than what he > > > said recently about TMers never doing anything to help > > > people that I was commenting on. > > > > > > I wouldn't expect you to go back and look at his posts, > > > or at my post correcting his current misrepresentations > > > in his post to you. You don't want to know what a piece > > > of slime he is. > > > > > > But it's just fine by you for him to attack us. If we > > > criticize him in return, well, that's an *agenda* that > > > somehow invalidates anything we say. Hypocrite. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Judy > > > > > > > There was no need to ask "why that was." The *only* point > > > > > > > I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing > > > > > > > their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry > > > > > > > tried to create. > > > > > > > > > > > > That wasn't your ONLY point. You have neglected to mention > > > > > > your other point which was : > > > > > > > > > > > > Judy > Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. > > > > > > > > > > Same point, of course. What did you imagine was > > > > > different about it? > > > > > > No response from Curtis... > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > That's where your digging has taken you, Curtis. I made > > > > > a simple, obvious, incontestable point, > > > > > > > > It was the "interesting" comment that betrayed you. > > > > > > You've betrayed yourself by pretending I was talking > > > about non-TMers. You can't explain why you interpreted > > > what I wrote as somehow "different" from the point I > > > was making. See immediately above. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > and you decided > > > > > to challenge it just to pick a fight. That rarely works > > > > > out well for you. > > > > > > > > I was calling you out for trying to make a donation fund > > > > a pawn in your games. > > > > > > Right, you didn't think it was appropriate for me to > > > counter Barry's slurs against TMers by pointing out > > > that we'd donated to the fund. But Barry's slurs are > > > just fine with you. Hypocrite. >
