This post was helpful in getting to the bottom of this topic Judy. It has clarified my thinking. Points below:
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > 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. This is sort of the crux of it for me. Support can be voluntarily given and would naturally be appreciated. What I am objecting to is your insistence, along with some others that there is a moral imperative to do so. I was objecting to the accusation that my failure to do so in cases you have chosen as priorities for you,indicated a moral lapse on my part. My argument has always been that we all pick our battles here depending on lots of personal factors and that we all do this. I felt you were being unfair and that the standard you are applying to me is untenable and represents a hypocritical standard that you yourself could not live up to on a board like this. It all comes down to our own judgement calls about what needs defending. I don't believe you need any defense against Barry I believe you do a fine job defending yourself. I suspect you believe the same thing about me with Nabbie and Ravi. But then I am arguing against your judgement and opinion about what is proper and that is futile from the perspective of changing your mind, but useful in terms of articulating my own lines. As long as you have a cordial relationship with Ravi, and I have one with Barry I am all for live and let live here. We each pick our battles and if someone chooses to come to our defense, good on them. Either you get my perspective and agree with it, or you don't but at least I have stated how I see it and why I don't accept the charges from you or anyone else that I am obligated to scold someone. No one is. I don't need help fighting my battles as they arise and neither do you. I have chosen by participation my relationship with Ravi and as long as I am able to fight back am not a victim. I invite you to see your relationship with Barry in a similar way. > > 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. Yes, you have missed my point here but perhaps the above paragraph will clarify. I don't need your help with Ravi and you don't need mine with Barry. I was pointing out that you don't walk your talk and below you explain how you justify this. > > Live by the sword, die by the sword. You buttered your > bread, now you get to sleep in it. Excellent I wish I had written that. Fantastic image. > > Oh, you know, I'm wrong, you *do* occasionally defend > others--when you think *my* criticisms of them have > been unfair. Well in fairness we do both post a lot and often have opposing views on things so this is likely to be the case. And the reverse is also true. I don't see this as an indictment. It seems like a nature result of our enthusiasm for expressing our differing POVs here. > > 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. And here we have what I consider to be a breakthrough of understanding in an area that has needled me for a while and which escalated when Robin and Bob took up this banner. What you have stated here makes it clear that you are not in fact standing up for some ethical principle you are living the principle of of tit for tat. The hypocrisy charge is based on the fact that you do not walk your talk, not this system of artificial parity you are trying to construct. Our reasons for deciding to respond to a post are not related to each other for me. If I am moved to respond, I do. If it looks like not my problem, I don't. Same for you. The difference is that I don't dog you out to do so unless I am being unpleasant, pointing out what I see as actual hypocrisy rather than the contrived one you and others have accused me of. It is not hypocritical to choose ones battles here, defending one person and not another,it is hypocritical to pretend that by necessity, we all behave that way here. It has not escaped my attention that the others who have supported your perspective have remained just as silent in the face of what I have been hit with from he who will go unmentioned. > > > 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." Then I owe you an apology and thank you for that. > > 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? I am surprised that you would compare the two. Perhaps we are both skewed by the fact that we are each the target, but I don't see them on a par at all. But in the sense that we both view them in a similar way I understand your point. In that case, having made the mental adjustments to follow your suggestion I can see how you are viewing it. Are either one of us egging on the detractors of the other by being friendly with them ourselves? Good point, I retract my statement and declare it lame. I don't have a right to give you shit for egging Ravi on. He is a loose cannon and you are not accountable for anything he chooses to post here. I was unfairly shaming you with an unreasonable expectation. It is how I feel with your insistence that I shame Barry for going after you, it is unreasonable and you don't live by that standard either. No one can. Productive post in clarifying my own thinking about all this. I see where I was pulling a similar shame trick on you. But now that you caught it, I hope my own personal BS meter will go off before it hits the page next time. > > > > > 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*. >
