Responses to two of Curtis's posts: --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > I appreciate that Steve. It is really comical that I was > handed such an extreme case as Ravi for her to dig in about. > How did you like her move that it was MY trickery that made > Ravi say those things? We are such creative creatures.
Yes, Curtis, the notion that I made any such "move" is very creative indeed. You don't have much choice but to be creative, given the reality, now, do you? > Despite the inability to ever admit that she was wrong, Undoubtedly the next nomination for the Inadvertent Irony award. Except that it isn't inadvertent; it's just a continuation of the attempted deception I've already outlined. But we'll see a *really* inadvertent example below. > I am optimistic that good will come of this. I'm pretty sure > the lip-service of a moral imperative for getting into other > people's fights will die off. Dream on. We notice how you've eagerly accepted the support from others you've received during this ugly episode. You adamantly refuse to give such support yourself, but you're happy to get it from everybody else. Plus which, you seem incapable of comprehending the concept of "taste of your own medicine," even after I pointed it out. The notion that you'd expect me to defend you when you've refused to defend me or anybody else is so upside- down and inside-out and backward it's stupefying that you thought you could strut around here and score with it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. You buttered your bread, now you get to sleep in it. Oh, you know, I'm wrong, you *do* occasionally defend others--when you think *my* criticisms of them have been unfair. Here's the deal, Curtis. Just as soon as you decide to start standing up for people when Barry trashes them, I'll consider standing up for you when you get trashed. If I don't, *then* you can legitimately call me a hypocrite. > You couldn't get a better example than his behavior. I loved > when she accused me of being nasty, but not him! Au contraire, Pierre. I characterized one of his comebacks as "nastier invective." And I referred *three times* to his "offensive accusation," as well as calling it "obviously untrue." You apparently think the two latter characterizations are somehow less incriminating than "nasty." And here's the genuinely inadvertent irony: > Ravi shouldn't be egged on, it does not serve him well. Real > friends would try to help him realize that he can just relate > to people as equals, and it is OK that he is a hapless guy > with human desires trying to find his way. Try replacing "Ravi" with "Barry" in the above. Guess we can assume you're not Barry's "real friend," huh? This is a response to post #300880 if anyone wants to check the context: --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching > of the boundaries of propriety on a public board? And why should > I be the target since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this > discussion? VERY odd that Curtis has seen Jim's remarks as an attack on *him* when every one of them was unambiguously directed straight at Barry. Sorry, Curtis, but pretending you were their target doesn't work to protect Barry. If you *really* want to protect him from attack, try to get him to keep from compulsively attacking others, the way he did Jim a couple days ago, along with the rest of the folks on his Enemies List. > So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior > in public to the extreme in an attempt to express the rage > felt at being denied the one thing they most covet, and which > they feel entitled to: being treated as if they are the > specialist boy in the whole wide world. "Yes they are, yes > they are, where's that smile, there it is, there it is." > > Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's > before you. You seem like a kindergartner lacking in self- > awareness and self-control,(I hear TM is good for that.) > throwing obnoxious sand into the eyes of readers here. I hope > you will do a little introspection during your much deserved > time out. > > If you really look deeply into your heart of hearts, you may > find that I am not the only one who has doubts about your > superior state of mind. And if you can face that, I'm here to > say that it isn't so bad seeing yourself as an ordinary person. > Your self-delusion sets you up for this kind of fall. Why > don't you orally massage THAT lolli? Funny, I've never been inclined to commit myself to any particular view of either Jim's or Ravi's state of consciousness, and as far as I can tell neither of them gives a sh*t. I relate to them as "ordinary persons" who have their faults and their virtues like anybody else. I have no reason whatsoever to *resent* what they say about themselves, nor do I hold them to higher standards of behavior than those to which I hold others. I just enjoy what I like about each of them, and that seems to suit both of them just fine. I don't find them throwing obnoxious sand into my eyes. I might also point out that one of the tactics of the Troika, here employed by Curtis but pioneered and used constantly by Barry, is to portray humorous blowback in response to their insults as representing an enraged meltdown. The truth is, they *want* an enraged meltdown, and not getting it enrages *them*.
