--- In [email protected], "wayback71" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and > > > I read nothing of any post between you and Judy. I stop as > > > soon as I get a wiff of your interactions with each other. > > > I think you need to stop reading her posts, and stop replyng > > > to her and stop writing about her in your posts. And stop > > > alluding to her in your posts or calling her a TB. That > > > would, for you, put an end to it. Judy might continue to > > > be angry and to didssect your posts, but you would not know > > > about it or reply or engage. Prtty simple, really. > > > > I have to say I find it utterly fascinating that anybody > > would ever tell anybody else not to read a third person's > > posts. I have no problem reading the most hostile posts > > directed at me; why should anybody else have a problem > > doing the same? > > Judy, Barry had said that the way for "other people" to > stop the feuding between the 2 of you was for them not to > join and support you. My point, not clearly made, was > that the way to stop it is for Barry to stop it. If his > goal is actually to stop the back and forth between the 2 > of you, he needs to stop it - either by not replying to > or not reading the posts.
OK. I just think it's really weird that one person not read another person's posts because they're critical (especially when the first person makes a big deal about how criticism doesn't affect him!). I've never understood the motivation behind "kill-filing." It seems so cowardly and juvenile. > I also mentioned that he needs to stop this referring to > you as a TB and then basing entire posts around that label, > that assumption. I do not see you as a TB and I doubt > anyone else here does either. Its an inaccurate label to > launch a discussion. Yes, I do appreciate that. <snip> > > It says *volumes* that you believe the only way for > > Barry to live with my presence on this forum is to > > pretend I don't exist. That's the kind of thing you > > might advise a little kid who's not yet up to dealing > > with the real world. But Barry's in his late 60s, > > for pete's sake. Why would you want to advocate that > > he *increase* the degree to which he's divorced > > himself from reality? Seems to me that's the real > > "enabling" behavior here. > > Mostly my advice was supposed to be practical. If he can > read your posts and not start up the usual banter, fine. > If in order to do this he has to stop reading your posts, > so be it. Whatever it takes to accomplish his goal. There's a third alternative: He could pick one of my substantive posts and respond to it substantively, without insults, as a sort of peace offering. That would be the adult way to handle it. But he's incapable of that kind of mature behavior. The only way he knows how to "interact" is with hostility and putdowns. (And yes, many of my responses to him are substantive, some even without any insults on my part. You wouldn't know that if you refrain from reading them, though.) > Fact is, I enjoy both of your posts when you don't refer > to each other. Well, thanks. > > A big part of the reason he's telling everybody not to > > respond to me, BTW, is that if they do, and they're > > not on his do-not-read list, he risks being exposed to > > to some of what I've said in what they quote from my > > post. He's just going to have to keep adding to that > > list if he can't bear to read the quotes. > > > > I think it would be far better for him to realize that > > there are quite a few folks on FFL who think he's a > > jerk and to find out *why they think that*. This is > > the reality. He can then decide to change his behavior > > or tough it out, but what good does it do his growth as > > a human bean if he just blocks out that reality? > > Barry's growth is not my interest. I don't want to improve him. Yeah, but presumably you don't want to get in the way of his growth either! > He is who he is as he is. If his goal is to stop the feud, > he can do so, easily, on his own. Not so easily. He's sworn to do what you suggested he do on a regular basis for many years. > And really, he does not need me to tell him that. He knows. > I think he was trying to get a few folks who side with you > riled up. You actually believe that "push their buttons" story he tells? That's not why he demonizes people; it's an *excuse* for demonizing people. Anyway, thanks for the response.
