Thanks, Robin, I appreciate this.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> I hope that what I am about to say here does not contradict the spirit of my
> last post to Curtis. I believe it does not.
>
> But I am glad you wrote as you did here, becauseas far as it is possible for
> me to understand you truthfully (that is objectively)I judge your comments
> to be solidly veracious. And, in a very real sense, not even subject to
> debate.
>
> I say this, because of the context you pull along with you. I won't take back
> anything of what I said in my post to Curtis (today); on the other hand, I
> will refuse to even read what Curtis has by way of rebuttal to what you have
> said here. Because I fear it would tempt me into a somewhat retrogressive
> step: i.e. the hunt for the true Curtis.
>
> But know this, Judy: without your presence on FFL, I doubt I would have
> continued to post.
>
> Judy: I don't claim to be "blameless," but I utterly reject the notion that
> blame in the Barry-Judy situation is anything but *hugely* lopsided. Just for
> one thing, if one were to read my posts that comment on Barry's, one would
> find that a significant number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are no
> simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. Rather, they involve
> reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made.
>
> Robin: I won't change my mind about Curtisthat is, what I have just written
> to him. But should he even *attempt* to question the above, I will have to
> bite my lip and turn my face away, because there is not a single person on
> FFL who can gainsay what you have said here. It has always been my
> experience. It remains my experience. No only this: but anyone who thinks he
> or she is up to refuting what you have said here, necessarily has to engage
> in either wilful stupidity, or else sleight-of-hand deceitfulness.
>
> There just isn't an answer to what you have said that I quote here.
>
> And I must leave it at that. Sometimes there is something more than mere
> opinions being thrown around here at FFL; sometimes there are facts. I think
> you generally deal in factsor at least when you give your opinions (as in
> your political or religious comments) it is clear you recognize the
> difference: that is, when you are being logical and truthful; when you are
> making a judgment that you know is subject to debate.
>
> I have said what I set out to say here, Judy. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > OK, I do have to intervene at this point to deal with
> > some comments made about me.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > <terasnip>
> > > Still, what you insist is the case with Judy, that does seem
> > > interesting to me. Even as your friend Barry insults her in the
> > > bitterest and most scathing (and, I believe prejudiced and
> > > unwarranted) ways. Me, if I have a friendship with someone and
> > > I notice they are being unfair and hatefuland usually
> > > ridiculousin their behaviour towards someone else (who I hold
> > > in very different terms), then I feel forced to say something
> > > to my friend [Barry].
> > >
> > > ME:Hang around a bit and you will see why I feel that it is
> > > not so lopsided. This is an actual feud and neither side is
> > > blameless.
> >
> > Curtis has said many times that he doesn't read my
> > exchanges with Barry. That's OK, but on that basis
> > he is not in a position to remark on the balance of
> > blame.
> >
> > I don't claim to be "blameless," but I utterly reject
> > the notion that blame in the Barry-Judy situation is
> > anything but *hugely* lopsided.
> >
> > Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that
> > comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant
> > number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not
> > simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all.
> > Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis
> > of points that Barry has made.
> >
> > That is never the case with Barry's posts that have
> > to do with me.
> >
> > There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't
> > *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance.
> >
> > > R: But you won't do this, Curtis, because of the fragility
> > > of his psyche*in relation to yourself*. He approves of, he
> > > depends upon, yourself. Were you to speak directly and
> > > candidly to him, you would shatter him. This is the only
> > > reason you don't speak up on Judy's behalf.
> > >
> > > ME: No its not. It is because Judy made her own bed with
> > > him. There were other choices.
> >
> > Sure. I could have ignored him completely, I could have
> > spoken sweetly to him when he attacked me, were I a saint.
> > But I don't pretend to be a saint.
> >
> > Curtis doesn't stand up for the people Barry attacks
> > because if he did, Barry would put Curtis on his shit
> > list, and Curtis doesn't want to be on *anybody's* shit
> > list if he can possibly help it.
> >
> > But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis
> > would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit
> > list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to
> > the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so
> > sanguine about the availability of "other choices."
> >
>
