Impeccable timeline, Judy. How *do* you do it?
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > In fact, you should know, that Ravi takes clues from you
> > > > whom to abuse, and whom to spare. As long as you had
> > > > backed me up, he never mentioned me in an abusive way.
> > > > The moment you started to become critical at me, and
> > > > switched to your 'get-Barry' mode,(which actually
> > > > started first in our off-board exchange after two posts),
> > > > he started abusing me
> > >
> > > Yes, this is the Troika's party line whenever someone
> > > other than me begins to criticize any of them; we've
> > > seen it many, many times. I believe Barry originated
> > > it some time ago. How nice to see you've picked up on
> > > as well. I'm sure you'll get a lot of use out of it.
> > >
> > > Implicit in it is the premise that nobody would *ever*
> > > come independently to any negative conclusions about
> > > any of the Troika and their allies; it wouldn't ever
> > > even occur to anybody that there was anything to be
> > > criticized about them if I hadn't spoken up.
> > >
> > > In this case, Ravi could *never* have read your
> > > exchange with Barry speculating about Robin's mental
> > > health and thought ill of you for it unless he'd
> > > gotten it from me.
> > >
> > > Right?
> >
> > Yes, right. It's a simple observation, Judy can't help it.
> > My accusations to masked zebra where much before, Ravi only
> > started when you gave the signal.
>
> Ravi had been here only intermittently and didn't
> necessarily plow through all the posts when he *was*
> here, so he may well not have seen whatever you're
> referring to.
>
> In any case, if he had really just been taking cues
> from others, he might well have taken his anti-zarzari
> cue from *Emily's* post.
>
> Oh, but Emily took her cue from me, right?
>
> Ooops, no, wait. My first response to your exchange
> with Barry was very mild, hardly denunciatory. It
> wasn't until Robin took after you big-time that I used
> the term "slimy" to refer to your post to Barry. And
> by that time Emily had already given the two of you a
> very thorough tongue-lashing, completely of her own
> accord.
>
> And Ravi didn't start going after you until you'd
> come back after your little vacation. That was *after*
> you'd already made several posts attacking me, but
> before I'd had a chance to respond.
>
> So I'm afraid your theory just doesn't fit the timeline.
> Too bad.
>
> > No clues
>
> The term you want here is "cues," not "clues."
>
> > to take from Barry here. This is a a again your insidious
> > insinuation.
>
> It's a reasonable assumption, given how many times Barry's
> used it (you responded "Bingo" to one such post); and
> Curtis has also used it quite recently.
>
