You know, trying to analyse someone is kind of like trying to figure out what kind of minerals are a mile underground by interpreting sonar. I have to say Barry, you really are absolutely consistent, not necessarily POV on topics you discuss, but in your general manner in life in interacting with people, at least on the 'net. Kind of like a law of nature. I am not saying this as a value judgment involving emotion, it is just my observation. It was almost like an epiphany, reading your response, as if I had just discovered for the first time that water runs downhill.:-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > Barry shows more emotional detachment than Judy, and > > his writing does have a style that seems to me to be > > posturing at times. Whether it is an inherent part of > > his personality, or a deliberate ruse to stir up > > discussions I cannot say, but I believe the matter > > seems settled with Judy -- Barry is an extremely > > annoying, presumptuous writer, who breathes an > > atmosphere of know-it-all-ness into every paragraph. > > And not only that, he does not really engage with > > most of the posters on the forum but remains > > tormentingly aloof, and bows out of discussions if > > they go much beyond the point he is trying to put > > across. > > You're still missing the point in your last sentence. > I'm really not trying to "get across points," in > the sense that I'm selling them or trying to convince > others to buy into them. > > So a more accurate way of putting your last sentence > is that I stick around in conversations as long as > they are interesting to me. As I've said before, I > don't feel the need to defend anything I say, or > argue its "rightness" or "correctness" with anyone > else. Others here obviously feel that need, and if > they perceive my lack of interest in them when they > pursue that need as "tormenting" them, well they can > feel that way all they want. Me, I just lose interest > once I've said what I had to say and see nothing new > on the conversational horizon. Others seem to prefer > more Department Of Redundancy Dept. conversations, in > which they repeat the same poing in different words > until the other person either agrees with it or, fed > up, bows out of the conversation. Me, I bow out early > when I see such stuff coming. > > > This of course happened to me too. I found Barry's > > writing engaging, but in a more extended discussion, > > he bowed out. > > I didn't see any need to pursue any of our inter- > actions any further, that's all. > > > Barry does not send out brownie points for friendship > > cues. He just leaves you where you are. If you are > > uncomfortable where you are, guess what? > > Well said. That's pretty much how I see it, too. > > > I don't know how he is with friends (you know, real > > people currently in his life), or what he may have > > been like long ago. (Who knew Barry personally years > > ago, what was he like?) > > Neither is relevant. The Internet is not real life. > It's just writing on a phosphor screen, with no > inherent personality behind the words except what > the writer is able to put there (if the writer is > skillful) or what you assume about the person (if > they're not). > > > In other words, on the forum, he is not typically > > socially engaging, and my experience with women > > indicates they usually require some socially engaging > > etiquette to feel comfortable, and Barry does not > > provide this. > > On this score I admit to being as pragmatic in real > life as on the Internet. When introduced to a new > person, male or female, I interact with them as long > as they hold my interest. With some people, that is > hours; with others, mere minutes. > > > I am not saying I would know how to provide this either. > > If you were claiming that you knew how to interact > successfully with women in general, I might have to > drop into Judy territory and call you a liar. :-) > > > Many years ago, my sister introduced me to a female > > friend of hers. Later on that day my sister said her > > friend was very distressed because she could not read > > any social prompts from me, so she could not determine > > whether I liked her or not. > > I get that, too. Some people seem to need to be liked, > and to be constantly told that they're liked. I'm not > like that, and admit to finding this 'tude a bit too > needy for my taste. > > One of my "tests" for whether a new romantic interest > will blossom into a longer relationship, in fact, is to > take a road trip with them. While on the road, does the > person feel the need to talk at all times to "fill up > the silence," or are they content to just drive along > enjoying the scenery and listening to music and talk- > ing when we actually have something to say? Suffice > it to say that my long-term girlfriends have never > included any Chatty Cathy dolls. :-) > > > Barry seems to be deliberate in keeping people off balance, > > and maybe he always likes to win an argument. > > You're missing the point again. Please point out to > me a post in which I have *argued* about something, as > if I were trying to convince the other person to believe > what I'm saying. I don't think you'll have a lot of luck > finding such posts. My honest opinion is that a lot of > TMers *project* argumentation and the attempt to "sell" > them my ideas into my posts, when nothing of the sort > was ever there. They do this IMO because *they* can't > present a POV without trying to sell it. And they simply > cannot conceive of anyone who can. > > > Polemics does not bring a lot of insight into one's life, > > but there is sometimes a satisfaction in clobbering an > > opponent... > > Whatever floats your boat. Have you considered dating > Judy (or emptybill, depending on how you swing)? :-) > > > ...or simply vanishing when they think they have just > > got you. > > > > There are other ways to keep one off balance, and in the > > case of maskedzebra, we have a prodigious intellect that > > kind of ensnares others by its complexity, but Barry's > > compact summaries seem pretty dead on in showing that > > MZs complex presentations are mostly without substance. > > I wouldn't go so far as to say they're without substance. > I'm sure they have some to him, and possibly to those > he "ensnares" (your word, not mine, but I kinda agree > with it). I just found his positions neither as unique > nor as interesting as some others did. > > > Barry is very good at seeing through things, but not > > willing to have people see through him, at least on > > this forum. > > I have NO PROBLEM with people trying to "see through me." > What I have a problem with is them expecting me to react > to what they claim to "see." > > Pay attention. LOTs of people take potshots at me. I > mainly allow them to, without commentary. Admittedly, > many of the potshots I never even see because I gave > up on reading the posters' stuff years ago, like with > Willytex. But even if I notice I try not to get into > a battle over it. They're welcome to their opinion, > and I feel no need to either acknowledge it or try > to dispute it. It's OPINION. > > If you pay more attention, I think you'll find that > there are some on this forum who seem to be trying > rather *desperately* to get the people they obsess > over to react. If there are no reactions they often > come up with an imaginary reaction that exists only > in their heads. If that gets them through the day, > so be it. I try to acknowledge neither praise nor > condemnation, unless there's either an opportunity > for humor in responding, or if I feel like it. > > > Maybe elsewhere he is different. How would I know? > > > > But it is his stand-offishness with regard to feelings > > and an unwillingness to engage that drives many to > > distraction here, and it bothers me too, but it is in > > letting one's feelings knocking one off balance that > > destroys the ability to do battle, either in words or > > on the field of war. I think that may affect a woman > > more because they see nuance and feeling in what > > people say more than a guy. > > The phrase is "drama QUEENS" for a reason. You rarely > hear about "drama kings," do you? Unless they're talk- > ing abut TM rajas, of course. :-) > > > They do it among themselves. We guys trade in data and > > tend to be more superficial in those finer feelings in > > discourse. > > Bzzzzzt. They're not "finer" feelings. They're just > feelings. Some weight feelings higher than others do, > and are more drama queenish about them, that's all. > > > Our simpler nature perhaps results in what we say and > > do to be over-interpreted by a woman beyond what we > > really are thinking and feeling. > > Read this Dave Barry story: > http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2008/05/difference-between-men-and-women-in.html > > It's another version of the "tandem story" story you > told, and another take on the differences between men > and women. How I differ from 'Roger' in the story is > that I would never have lasted six months with 'Elaine.' >
