Well I guess everyone is happy now. Ravi got his pat, you got to drag Barry into a completely unrelated conversation and I get to call you a sour little plum.
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Curtis, In your new Avatar as the Mr. Nice Guy, > > > > > > > > Are you trying to parrot Judy's "Mr. Wonderful" putdown > > > > to score points with her? That is so cute. Usually > > > > opening with a vague ad hominem would make me skip the > > > > rest but if you are going for a pat on the head, I'll > > > > indulge you a bit more. > > > > > > That's a sleazy little trick you've picked up from Barry: > > > Anybody who makes a criticism that happens to be similar > > > to one Judy has made is only doing it to get Judy's > > > approval; it's not possible that two people could come > > > to similar conclusions independently. > > > > Mastering a little inadvertent irony are we? > > It's just a *wee* bit different when the conclusions > are patently bogus and self-serving. > > > Therefore there's > > > really only *one* person who makes that criticism, so > > > it can be considered an outlier, an anomaly, and dismissed > > > without consideration. > > > > > > Oh, and never, *ever* look to see whether Judy seems to be > > > into the point-awarding, head-patting game with the person > > > whose criticism you're claiming has been made to gain her > > > approval. > > > > That wouldn't be necessary for the point to be valid about > > the other person. > > Makes it a lot less likely if the other person has no > reason to expect it, of course. > > > > BTW, to Ravi: This isn't a "new" Curtis Avatar, not by a > > > long shot. He just happens to have been working overtime > > > on it recently. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > Sure Judy and Nabby > > > > > come against each of you guys persistently and strongly > > > > > but they do have a point that neither of you seem to > > > > > acknowledge, at least publicly. > > > > > > > > You are rambling a bit here. I acknowledge Judy all the > > > > time, what point do you mean? > > > > > > As if you didn't know. > > > > > > Jeez, Curtis, did you set out to demonstrate the validity > > > of the charge that your ethics are, well, a bit slippery? > > > > I wanted him to state it clearly rather than play the > > innuendo game of vague unpleasant shaming. But my ethics > > are just fine, thanks for asking. > > No, Curtis, your ethics *stink* when you're responding > to a hostile challenge. You're a dirty fighter. > > > > <snip> > > > > I have a sneaking suspicion that you needed some attention > > > > from me and were willing to get it in its positive or > > > > negative form. > > > > > > Ah, another sleazy move borrowed from Barry. No wonder you > > > refuse to criticize him. > > > > Judy just few lines above: > > > > <it's not possible that two people could come > > > to similar conclusions independently. > > > > > You hardly even give me a chance to write when you hand me > > all the best lines yourself. > > Sorry, but your attempt to use it crashes and burns in > its own sleaze. See above about conclusions that are > patently bogus and self-serving. >
