-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- 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 hateful—and usually > > > > ridiculous—in 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. > > > > ME: Judy I never claimed never to have read them. > > You guys are kind of prolific and a bit repetitive. > > I have read plenty to evaluate them. > > Actually your comments on them, including in this > post, demonstrate that you haven't read nearly > enough.
ME: You actually wrote that with a straight face? I have read more than enough, we just disagree on the perspective. > > > I avoid them because they are kind of mean on both > > sides. > > And here's an example: They're always mean on Barry's > side. But not on mine. > > Moreover, many of his mean posts about me and others > *are addressed to you*. If I say something negative > to you about Barry, you usually defend him. If he > says something negative to you about me, you almost > always just ignore it. ME: Your score card might be right. I try to pick my battles here like everyone else. It wouldn't surprise me if I had bias. You guys like to take shots at each other over my bow. I ignore far more than I respond to. > > > > 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. > > > > ME: And predictibly he feels the opposite I'll bet. That > > is the nature of feuds. > > He will *say* it's the opposite. I'm quite sure he > knows better. And so would you if you'd read enough > of our posts. > > > > 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. > > > > ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much > > guarenteed to continue the ill will. > > And there's another example demonstrating that you > haven't read enough to say. Heck, you didn't even > read what *I* just said. "Reasoned, noninflammatory > analysis" is the opposite of "demeaning." ME: So you pick 50% as insulting. OK, I am not going to quibble about the numbers. Whatever the numbers it appears to be enough to keep it rolling in the same direction. Would you like me to say that many of your posts "involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis of points that Barry has made"? OK that sounds right. But whatever the number of ill will posts it seems to be working. And as prolific as you are here, and as Barry focused, that 50% number is mindnumbingly high. > > And then there's this: > > > > That is never the case with Barry's posts that have > > > to do with me. > > Barry's posts having to do with me are *always* > demeaning. ME: No need to argue with this, it sounds right. I'll take your word that this is how you feel about all of them. > > > > There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't > > > *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. > > And this. ME: He gets your goat by talking trash. Gets a rise every time. You have different styles of antagonizing each other, you are both experienced pros. I know you want to convince me you are a victim here, but that is not going to happen. You have a part in this dynamic and you are choosing it, that was my original point. > > <snip> > > > 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." > > > > ME: There are examples. Jim and I > > This isn't an example that relates to what I just wrote. ME: Sure it is. I was on Jim's shit list at one time and now am not. We both chose this. And maybe this is not an easy option for you for lots of good reasons. But from where I sit you seem to enjoy things as they are, you certainly put a lot of effort into it. > > <snip> > > And I am not even advocating that you do change your pattern > > with Barry.. You both seem to enjoy it > > I don't. There's nothing enjoyable about interacting > with Barry when one is on his "enemies" list. ME: Seriously? So it is all pain and you are a pure victim of abuse on the Internet? You don't enjoy correcting Barry or showing in a thousand ways how stupid you think he is? You don't revel in pointing out any flaw you can again and again and again and again and again? That is would be sad if it were true. > > > so I get it, that this is none of my business. I was just > > giving my opinion to Robin that the Tango rule is in full > > force here. > > And I'm pointing out why your opinion is way off-base. ME: Got, pure victim. Defenseless. Nothing you could do to change the dynamic you just have to keep cranking out the same rebuttals year after year after year after year after year. I think this problem is above my pay grade. > > <snip> > > I don't understand why you feel you need anyone to intervene > > I don't "need" anyone to intervene. I simply point out > that you don't intervene, on my behalf or anybody else's. > That's your choice. It isn't a choice I respect. Me: Point taken. But since I have known you, gaining your respect was not one of my realistic options. And don't think I haven't noted your own lack of intervening when the guns are pointed my way unfairly. >
