--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > FOAD, Curtis.
I didn't engage with your nastygram below, so you double down on unpleasantness. Interesting choice. Using an expression like "fuck off and die" in this context is revealing. > > And please go do it somewhere else. The stink > of rotting integrity is nauseating enough; > don't want to add anything on top of that. I though Ravi was being unfair to both Alex and Raunchy and that his language and intent was beyond what I was comfortable with and I expressed my opinion. Your unfriendliness toward me is duly noted. > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > (BTW, Curtis, the word is "aplomb," not "aplaumb," > > > > Thanks, I had it wrong. > > > > > and it's never used in the plural.) > > > > Just kidding when I used it that way. > > > > > --- 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. >
