--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: <snip> > There are probably a few more stereotypes that common FFL > posts can be "rendered down to," but these three cover pretty > much 80% of what is said here. For example, all but three of > one person's 26 posts so far this week can be parsed to fit > one or more of these three categories.
(Why is it, I wonder, that Barry is so afraid to use my name when he tells lies about me?) You would have to "parse" *very* heavily indeed to fit all but three of my 26 posts so far this week into any of Barry's categories. The only way you could do it would be to count every post that was even minimally negative--such as, for example, my comment on the article Barry pasted in about marriage and the Bible, which concerned something the writer said that wasn't correct, not Barry. (And even then Barry somehow missed counting several posts that weren't at all negative.) The other thing to bear in mind is that all but seven of my posts from Friday through Sunday were in these three threads: --Flash from the past--Andrew A. Skolnick --Fat, old drama queens and their double standards --ANOTHER DEATH THREAT All three of which were begun by Barry with a gratuitous attack on me. Many of my posts in these threads dealt with a gratuitous attack by Curtis on Ann and me on Wednesday; most of the rest were in response to further attacks on me or on Ann by Barry or Curtis. A handful were in a discussion begun by Xeno in which he challenged my opinion of Curtis. Bottom line: It seems just a *wee* bit unfair to count responses in connection with gratuitous attacks by Barry and Curtis (and Vaj) that themselves fall into one or more of Barry's three categories--with only minimal if any parsing--as if those responses were the gratuitous attacks.
