--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > Could be, though that again raises the point -- Are we reacting > > to Ravi's behavior, regardless, or trying to set this up as "a > > teachable moment" in which we align Ravi's behavior with an > > assumption about his consciousness, or his mental health? > > What's interesting to me is that most of Ravi's posts are > loving, playful, funny, often even wise, but we freak out > when he has a negative outburst and start discussing his > mental health, even asking whether he should have freedom > of speech or be ejected from the forum. > > Yet there are others here whose posts are *routinely* > negative, whose tone typically is "demeaning harshness," > to use Curtis's phrase, frequently coldly, calculatingly > cruel and hateful, and we seem to have learned to take > them in stride, without wondering about the writers' > mental health. > > We had one of those posts this morning, in which the > writer not only went to considerable lengths to harshly > demean those he calls "crazies" (i.e., his critics), but > actually recommended his own twisted form of censorship > by counseling others not to interact with the "crazies" > in order to freeze them out and make them shut up. > > And there wasn't a peep of objection. > > Indeed, Curtis emerges from lurkdom to pompously > pronounce judgment on Ravi while arrogantly declining > to concern himself with the possibility that there may > be worse transgressors of the social compact holding > forth here. He chastises Ravi for what he perceives to > be homophobia, apparently having entirely forgotten > the remarks of the negative poster described above > intended to insult Robin by suggesting he was gay (not > to mention his betrayal of Curtis's confidence by > citing something Curtis had said to him in private > email that, taken out of context, made Curtis appear to > be impugning Robin's sexuality as well). Curtis further > fulminates over Ravi's insults to a woman when he has > never been upset by the "demeaning harshness" with > which the negative poster treats women he doesn't like. > It's fine with Curtis to call a woman a "dumb cunt too > stupid to live" as long as there's no mention of blow > jobs. > > (BTW, Curtis, the word is "aplomb," not "aplaumb," > and it's never used in the plural.) > > Bob and Obbajeeba are right, the hypocrisy around here > is so thick you could cut it with a knife. It makes me > physically ill. Thank goodness I have only one more post > left this week. >
I love you, Judy. : ) Because you have the ability to read between the lines. (oh and you agreed with something I mentioned. hehe) You notice the side takings of subjects and teaming up like the "Lord of the Flies," that create a vile pillage, and I am sure you will point out to me when I go off handle and would always appreciate your opinion. Also, I love you because you like the same kind of men I like. :p
