--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@> wrote: > > > > Barry I have read your message and I disagree with > > everything you say :-). > > Ravi, that is your right, and I encourage you to > continue doing so. :-) Compare and contrast to > several other people's approach on this forum, > in which disagreement is seen as not only a sin, > but an indication of a fatal character flaw.
"Not only a sin, but a fatal character flaw"? You lost track of your rhetoric here again, dude. Should be, "Not only a fatal character flaw, but a sin." I don't think anybody here sees disagreement this way in any case. (Well, if you take out the "sin" part, Barry does.) > I will, in fact, retract my suggestion that you > only seem to be able to come up with something > to say when it's "piling on" to one of the three > folks on the Enemies List. You have gotten into > other conversations here, and contributed to them. > I commend you for that and hope that you continue > that trend. Says Barry, inadvertently revealing that he read the post in which I pointed this out. > My comment was to poke you a little over the -- > as I see it -- LAZY aspect of your contributions > here. It really doesn't take a lot of intellect > to play "pile on." Which is why Barry does it so often, I guess. Another thing I was pointing > out is that the *instigators* of the ongoing > Bash The Three Bad Guys sessions tend to be the > same five people, over and over. It's as if -- > from my point of view -- they harbor a grudge, > and are desperate to get in the "last word." > And not just once, but over and over and over. > > We have an opportunity right now to see whether > I am correct. One of these instigators, She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, which would, of course, be me... The main reason Barry doesn't use my name is so nobody can do a Yahoo search on it to determine how many of his posts are devoted to demonizing me. told in > no uncertain terms that from the other person's > point of view the long, protracted discussion / > argument he'd been lured into had reached its > conclusion and that nothing new was ever going > to be said, the person who wanted (some would > say desperately) to prolong it responded by > posting 360 lines (2,345 words) of retort, as > her "last word." Now, this is funny. The dude who so insistently boasts about how he ignores me actually goes to the trouble to *count the words and lines in one of my posts*. And then, of course, wildly inflates his count by including all the quotes. In fact, I wrote 164 words and 908 lines--and that was in response to *three different posts*. > I think it'll be interesting to watch, and see > what happens. The other party has an opportunity > here to allow her to *have* the last word she > craves so desperately, and just let the matter > drop. He also has the opportunity to fall for > one more attempt to get him to punch back against > Uncle Remus' tarbaby and get himself stuck in the > argument again. Hard to figure how I could *both* want to have the last word *and* want to lure Curtis back into the argument to keep it going. Make up your mind, Barry. You really would do well to reread your posts before sending them so you don't make silly errors like this. Your off-the-cuff thinking isn't clear enough to keep track of what you're saying as you write; you need to go back and check when you're finished. > I personally hope that he takes > the latter route, because if he does that will > set up an interesting experiment. > > How would the instigator react if he fails to? As I said in a previous post: "I believe Curtis when he says he isn't going to respond. That's been his habit, after all, for quite a while, bailing when he finds himself in a corner." I see no reason to expect otherwise. > Will she let the argument drop and post about > other things -- NOT just for the rest of this > week but for weeks and months in the future, or > will she just lie in wait for the victim's next > post, no matter what the subject, and attempt to > insult him back into a head-to-head again? IOW, the only way I can disprove Barry's prediction is to never address a post to Curtis again. > My point in all of this -- IMO proven by the > things that the instigator carefully snips out > of her compulsive replies to every post in which > I mention them -- is that what we're dealing with > is OBSESSION. Good grief. What I tend to snip from your posts about me is the stuff you've said over and over and over again. My suspicion is that whether the > victim becomes one again and gets sucked back > into this particular argument or not, she will > within a very few days attempt to start another > one. It's like a law of nature. She's obsessed. Well, for sure, I'm not going to refrain from addressing Curtis just to falsify Barry's prediction. If he says something I want to comment on, of course I'll do so. > Or, I could be wrong about this. Watch, and > decide for yourself. > > I no longer reply to anything she says, and rarely > bother to read any of it because by this time I've > learned that I can tell what is going to be said > in the first two lines. As, I suspect, can pretty > much everyone else on this forum. Vaj also rarely > bothers to interact with her one-on-one He *never* interacts with me. He has me kill-filed. Is Barry really not aware of this? All Vaj does is make vague accusations about how I'm a chronic liar, which he can't back up. > Maybe Curtis -- > saint that he is to still be willing to talk with > her at all -- Yup, Mr. Wonderful. Barry has to keep patting Curtis on the head to ensure Curtis doesn't change his mind about never criticizing Barry. will do the same, and limit himself > to the first two exchanges in any post in which > she hides her true intent and hasn't managed to > turn it into a Bash Curtis Session again. IOW, according to Barry, I *never* address Curtis unless I'm plotting to bash him. > If so, WHAT WILL SHE DO? What will her "posse" do? > > My suspicion is that they'll go a little batshit > crazy and turn up the OBSESSION dial to 11, and > over the next few weeks redouble their efforts to > start all the bickering up again. (Is "a little batshit crazy" like "a little pregnant"?) Note that Barry has managed to fantasize a "posse" that is obsessed with Curtis. Ravi's been after him since he joined us, but he hadn't even seen any of my fights with Curtis at that point. The idea of Barry's five "usual suspects" having an obsession with Curtis is laughable. > But only time will tell. I've made my prediction. > Now it's up to the instigator herself -- and you, > as one of her co-dependents -- to see what you're > going to do. If we ignore you, will you have the > strength of character to do the same with us? But Barry, you don't have the "strength of character" to ignore us, so it's a moot point. Who is this "we" you refer to, by the way? <guffaw>
