--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > > > Has it not occurred to you that those who gave you > > > > such support did so out of a conviction that there > > > > was a moral imperative to do so? > > > > > > Some might, but this is not either a universal or a > > > realistic expectation that it is common to all. There > > > are as many versions of this as posters I suspect. > > > > Other than "I want Curtis to like me" and/or "I can't > > stand Ravi," I have trouble thinking of what other > > reasons there might be. > > That is the precisely the problem you are having, it is an > emotional intelligence issue.
So what are some other possibilities, O Perfect Fount of Emotional Intelligence? > You seem to lack an ability to conceive that your standards > and values are not universals. Hmmm, that must be why I'm trying to get you to adopt mine on this point. > I'm gunna guess that you went through a lot of bullying in > school for this lack. Am I right? Just a guess. Nope, you aren't right. So much for your emotional intelligence. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Yup, that's the accusation. Note that the "you" in > > > > what you wrote applies not just to me but to a number > > > > of people here who are sick and tired of Barry's > > > > behavior and the effect it has on the atmosphere of > > > > FFL generally (regardless of whether they've been his > > > > targets). > > > > > > Yeah, I'll fix that right up. Glad you identified the > > > problem as me. > > I meant me. I am the problem because you have a problem > with Barry. A lot of people have a problem with Barry. (Is there an echo in here?) And a bunch of them have a problem with you not having a problem with Barry. <snip> > > > The responsibility rap is not gunna work any better on me > > > for Barry's business as it does with you for Ravi, although > > > I see the appeal in this expectation. I don't believe it > > > would work > > > > Maybe not, but that's secondary. You'd have taken a > > public stand for fairness in how people should be > > treated. If he ignored or disputed it, he'd be taking > > a stand *against* fairness, and that would be important > > for the rest of us to know. > > Yeah, you have a problem with Barry. Good luck with that. I'm going to put it on a macro: A *lot* of people here have a problem with Barry. It would be helpful for it to be on the record that his many lapses in the fairness department aren't just a matter of insousciance but rather demonstrations of his genuine contempt for fairness when he has an axe to grind. And it would make it clear that his lip-service "just my opinion" caveats were not sincere. It would *also* raise the question of how valid the cases he tries to make could be if the only way he can make them is by consciously not being fair. And in any case, if you were to take a public stand for fairness, it could rub off on other people as well and encourage them to be more attentive to the fairness quotient of their own posts. It would help establish a standard, in other words. You have the moral authority to do that here. <snip> > > > And the other two who tried to ride this shame game can > > > defend themselves just fine too so I don't know what > > > helpless poster you are referring to. > > > > WTF? If you mean Bob and Robin, I'm not referring to them > > at all. There are many folks Barry has targeted for attack > > who aren't as well armed as Bob or Robin or I. Why on > > earth would you think I was talking about them? > > OK so who is not well armed? I guess answering this is > tricky considering privacy concerns if they contacted > you offline I'm talking only about what's evident on the forum. But of course I'm not going to name names. <snip> > > > You are welcome to this opinion, but I suspect your > > > evaluation would not be a universal one here. I never heard > > > so many int the group seriously lobbying for Barry to be > > > kicked off as they have repeatedly for Ravi. > > > > People are *afraid* of Barry. > > And some people afraid of you Judy. Could be. But not for the same reasons they're afraid of Barry. I'm tough, but I'm pretty fair; I don't lie; I usually check my facts; and I rarely make gratuitous attacks. Nor do I dump nastily on posters who respectfully and sincerely say things I don't agree with. <snip> > > At what point, moving down the spectrum to situations > > of lesser significance, do you find that moral obligation > > no longer applies? That was my question. It's a standard > > way of framing an ethical issue. > > I always stop at level seven which corresponds to the color > blue on a spectrum. How can I answer this question? How do > you? When it's obviously not serious, either when the person is clearly just fooling around and/or because the posters themselves aren't taken seriously about much of anything. Ravi's offensive accusation crossed the line. Although he was just fooling around playing insult tennis, that ball went foul. I've explained already why I didn't jump on him for it, so I won't go into that again. Normally I would have (and actually did make my position clear a couple of posts later in response to your attempt to exonerate yourself from any responsibility for the set-to and make Ravi and me the sole bad guys). <snip> > > So it's a free-for-all, then. That's where you draw the > > line (or at least free-for-alls are on the other side of > > the line somewhere). > > This is a free for all by design. It is mostly a good thing. > It has some downsides. I can live with them. Including the downside that some well-meaning members who aren't skilled at fighting back when they're gratuitously stepped on get discouraged from posting or leave the group, or never join it in the first place. That's no problem for you to live with because it doesn't *affect* you. Again, my point is that you *could* help make it safer for these people to join and post and add to the terrific mix of diverse opinion and philosophy and knowledge here by making a strong plea for fairness and for refraining from mean, gratuitous attacks. This is supposedly a spiritually oriented group; it seems to me it shouldn't be limited by the ability to tolerate and deal with the kind of psychological sadism employed by a few posters here. IMHO, we should have *more* people here who aren't skilled in the art of self- defense. > > > > Of course the significance of FFL in the larger scheme > > > > of things doesn't begin to rise to that of the > > > > situations these leaders grappled with and tried to > > > > change. But at exactly what point in the spectrum of > > > > significance does the moral imperative kick in? > > > > > > That would be a personal choice wouldn't it? > > > > I believe I made that crystal clear when I first asked > > the question. What's *your* personal choice? Where do > > *you* draw the line? > > How could I answer this? Do you mean in the context of FFL? No, I meant with regard to unfair treatment generally. <snip> > > You gave your response above. If a person isn't well- > > armed, or doesn't have a high tolerance for personal > > abuse, they don't get to participate in Internet > > forums. Survival of the fittest is the rule. > > Well armed with what exactly, a keyboard? Please. You know what I'm talking about. > They can participate if they are thin skinned but they > might get their feelings hurt don't you think. Which may mean they stop or restrict their participation. > But here is a cool thing about the Internet, it is a big > place. People have set up all sorts of groups with zero > tolerance for what goes on here. But there's only one FFL. And it could still be FFL if there was less tolerance for what goes on here. Quite possibly even a *better* FFL, with a wider variety of voices. > > > I consider it disingenuous for you to try to broaden your > > > case as if you are speaking for the multitudes. I saw both > > > Bob and Robin give it right back to Barry just as you do. > > > > I'm speaking for more than just Bob and Robin. > > OK, internet privacy issues got it. Nope, sorry. > They might not be a good fit for FFL then, it isn't for > everyone. It should be for more, IMHO. <snip> > > Could you possibly just forget about Barry-and-Judy and > > look at the broader picture? I am far from the only > > person he attacks. > > Raunchy caught some fire I remember, and she fired right > back in her usual entertaining way. I don't know who you > are talking about that needs protection. You aren't very attentive, then. > I see a lot of people who deserve what he dishes out There are a lot who don't as well. and > sometimes, even when it seems prematurely harsh at first, > his analysis of new posters ends up seeming prescient in > retrospect. Sometimes. Other times they've been way off-target. It's a shame, as far as I'm concerned, that *any* new posters are driven out by his off-target attacks. <snip> > > Second, one may feel a moral obligation to be the keeper > > of all one's brothers and sisters everywhere without having > > the wherewithal to actually do the keeping for more than > > a pitiful handful of them. Where the rubber meets the > > road is whether one fulfills the moral obligation to act > > as one's brother's/sister's keeper when it costs one > > practically nothing to do so. > > I would have said the opposite. Doing it where it costs > nothing involves no rubber and road. I meant when one does *not* do it when it costs nothing is where the rubber meets the road. If you don't do it then, you can't pretend to *any* sense of obligation to be your brother/sister's keeper. The widow can't do much active keeping with her mite, but she gives it anyway because she does feel that obligation. <snip> <snip quote of Jim's attack on Barry> > > > Where do you--where does *anybody*--see an attack on you > > here? It's exclusively and unambiguously, as I said, an > > attack on *Barry*. > > If it involves my ass or dick, it is about me too Judy. "About" you, sure. But not an attack *on* you. It was an attack on Barry for his allegedly slavish devotion to you; it was in response to an extremely insulting post from Barry, pretending to be a primer for Emily, about all the folks on his Enemies List. > You're point is such BS I hear Twilight Zone music. It was > a gratuitous attack on me to include me in a scenario where > I am in one part "pitching" and another "catching". Oh, please. You were just an accessory. Again, what was being ridiculed was Barry's devotion *to you*. Jim could hardly have avoided including you if that's how he chose to attack Barry. > It was rude and offensive and like many of Jim's tantrum > outbursts include curiously homoerotic imagery. BTW, Barry's post that Jim was responding to was itself in response to Emily's proposal that portraying sexual contact between two posters without their consent should be grounds for a week's banning. And *her* post was a comment on Barry's post alleging that I'd have to take out my false teeth (don't have any false ones, BTW) to do a blowjob on Ravi. That in turn was a comment on your portrayal of me as a pathetic old woman who had the hots for Ravi. IOW, what goes around, comes around, in appropriate measure. > For you to deny it was an attack on both of us is > just beyond belief. Well, at least now you're willing to call it an attack on both of you. Your original objection portrayed it as an attack *only* on you. So maybe some progress is being made here. Me, I'd say you were just collateral damage. And it would have been fine, as far as I'm concerned, to protest the post on that basis. <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?" > > > > You *weren't* the target. Barry was. What world are > > *you* living in? > > You aren't gunna let up on this, amazing. Hey, I just quoted what you wrote. I don't blame you for not wanting to have it highlighted. Makes you look pretty silly. > So what made the acts depicting Barry and I in a gay sex > scene, more him than me? The fact that they all focused *on Barry*. The fact that the post was in response and explicitly directed *to Barry*. C'mon, Curtis. You got so upset seeing your name associated with those descriptions of gay sex acts that *you didn't notice* the whole thing was aimed at Barry. You goofed. Man up, man, and concede the point. Your attempt to justify your mistake makes you look even sillier. <snip> > > > Yeah, it was an enraged meltdown with excessively vulgar > > > language. > > > > I wonder if zarzari will jump in here and accuse you of > > mind-reading. Probably not. As far as he's concerned, > > it's just me who mind-reads. > > That was descriptive of the language. Usually it takes a > certain state of mind to over post with that kind of vulgarity. Way I saw it, what Jim considered a brilliant way to make goofy fun of Barry occurred to him after he'd made his 50 for the week. That's happened to me as well, thinking of a perfect retort when I was at 50, but I've restrained myself. Jim seems to have felt it was just too much fun for him to resist. > > > I don't like to have people write graphic scenes between > > > myself and other posters having gay sex. > > > > I wouldn't blame you. I didn't particularly appreciate > > your portrayal of me as an aging harpy trying to seduce > > Ravi with drinks, nor did I appreciate your enthusiastic > > cheering of those who piled on with vulgarities every > > bit as bad as Jim's. > > Yeah well we don't always get what we prefer here do we? > But as it turned out that you were in fact flirting as > you carefully explained to me, just a big game between > you two. So what was your objection to noticing it? The fact that in your portrayal, I was seriously attempting to seduce Ravi rather than just flirting with no expectation that anything else would ensue. If you read my careful explanation, why are you even asking? The *really* hilarious part was your attempt to "prove" that I had a big crush on Ravi, or at least to embarrass me, by digging up a couple of our flirtatious exchanges. You nailed yourself firmly to the wall with that one. You've never looked more foolish here. > > Oh, and here's your out from responding to this post, > > another spelling correction: > > Wow you really wont let that go will you. In the post you > are referring to There was more than one such, Curtis. BTW, there is no such word as "tweek"; but "cheep" is an actual word, so you wouldn't expect spell check to pick it up. Not so with "tweek."
