--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > RESPONSE: Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. [Curtis to Judy] > > Well, my friend, this *is* bullshit. Because it implies some equivalence of > engagement and honesty and sincerity.
ME: No it doesn't. It means he went after you enthusiastically. It denies the possibility for any "equivalence of engagement and honesty and sincerity:. R: Barry has scrupulously avoided any real contact with me, so as to demonstrate he is willing to stand behind what he says. "Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels". No, Curtis, Barry was "giving it to Robin" in a form of scattershot carelessness and impetuous pique which could never be understood by any honest bystander as "giving it to me with both barrels". ME: OK if that characterization works better for you. I guess we have a different view of what the analogy "both barrels" implies. For me it is full-on aggression. R: > F**k me. I *wish* Barry would give it to me with both barrels. But he never > will, Curtis. ME: You are including more in the metaphor than I did. I don't know why you are taking me to task for having a slightly different take on what "both barrels" includes. > > Now look: I take back nothing of what I have just said in that letter; I will > only say that this invidious (and implied) comparison is baffling to me. ME: I didn't say it was justified, I meant it was enthusiastic. Obviously given the difference in our interactions I didn't agree with his take on you. But it was both forceful and hostile which is what the image of both barrels means to me. R: > > Just out with it: Stand behind this one declarative statement: "Although I > like both of them, in my judgment Barry is giving it to Robin in principle at > least the same way Robin is giving it to Barry." ME: I think he took an instant dislike to you and spent some time expressing it. I don't believe that his initial attack was warranted and it put you in a weird defensive posture. You tried to work with it to get past that hostility but it did not work. Barry is not going to budge about his initial negative assessment of you no matter what you respond with. So the two barrels don't imply that there is a balance in how you have related to each other. He went after you and I believe you found it perplexing at first. But now that you know who you are dealing with you can decide how much attention to spend on interactions with him. This is a plant that will not grow without water. > > Then I shall believe that you believe what you say to Judy here, that "Barry > was giving it to Robin with both barrels". ME: I also believe that he was not interacting with you so much as an impression he gleaned about how you operate connected with his experience of people (especially leaders) in spiritual groups. You got pied. It is disconcerting I know. But in my view he was giving it to you with both barrels of hostility. R: > > Barry will have loved that you said that, Curtis, but I know *for a fact* > that this is not your true judgment of what Barry is doing when he goes off > on Robin. > > Must it come to this kind of politics? ME: I think you read too much into the metaphor. It was not meant to give Barry a chuckle but to sum up how I saw his hostile approach to you. Would it help if I characterized it as mean? But I don't need to chase after Barry with my opinion, he knows what he was doing. R: > > No matter. My letter standsbut so does my post to Judy. > > If I were you, Curtis, I would, in my off-line correspondence with Barry, > risk edifying him about how he comes off here at FFL. ME: Barry and I rarely discuss FFL. We are usually working on such different tracks here. I have long conversations with Judy and you and he would rather grill his genitals on a Hibachi than engage in either discussions. I am only concerned with how we relate, not how he chooses to relate to others. I am not interested in getting involved in a no win situation getting between people who don't like each other or who (in this case) Barry has taken an instant dislike to. The way you and I have communicated is enough information about who we both are for people to make a more informed decision about us. That is good enough for me. I can't make anyone read anything or see what I see in people. > > Meanwhile I shall just trust in the wisdom which makes you say what you say > here to which I have responded. ME: Thanks for the response. I am still processing it all. > > --- 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 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. > > > > 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. I > > avoid them because they are kind of mean on both sides. Your choice, but > > that is not interesting to me. > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > ME: I don't view my role here the way you do I guess. I don't need to > > stand up for people here very often and they don't need to stand up for me. > > And you don't stand up for me so your complaint is kind of hollow. > > > > > 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 have had some of the most rancorous > > exchanges with anyone here but we found a friendlier path and now exchanges > > are much more interesting. There are some posters who will always take > > agressive shots and I avoid them after giving it the old college try. > > > > In fact our interactions are an example of both of us choosing to interact > > in a more interesting way that is less one dimentional. But it took us > > both to decide that is what we wanted. No one had to step in and help us > > work it out. > > > > And I am not even advocating that you do change your pattern with Barry.. > > You both seem to enjoy it 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. Barry was giving it to Robin with both barrels. But he defended > > himself without any rescuers like most adults here. > > I don't understand why you feel you need anyone to intervene when you > > obviously have it all under control and are enjoying yourself in the > > interaction relationship you have both chosen. > > > > On the other hand I have stuck my nose in when the topic interests me so I > > am not making some rule for myself. I pick and choose just as you do. But > > there is no intersection between how I relate to you and how Barry does. > > Same for how I relate to him and the way you do. I might as well be > > dealing with two different people in each case. And that is by mutual > > choice. > > >
