--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Isn't it a bit ironic that Barry uses FFL to criticize Rick > who started FFL?!
Well, he isn't the first to do so, and he won't be the last. I've done it myself on occasion. What *is* ironic is that Barry usually fawns all over Rick, especially for having created this forum as a place where everyone can feel free to say what they think. > As for Barry's reply to Raunchy: clearly she was not praising > Ravi, as Barry accused. She was objecting to using the family > topic to criticize Ravi. Right, she wasn't praising him in that post, but from her other posts, she's obviously friendly toward him. That's what makes Barry crazy, that other people *like* Ravi. I actually tend to agree with Barry that whatever someone has said about their private lives on FFL is fair game for comment. (Preferably appreciative or compassionate comment, but we know there are some here from whom that cannot be expected.) What I think is utterly inexcusable is to *misrepresent* what the person has said and embroider and distort it with speculations presented as if they were established fact-- which is what Barry did.  For all the reasons you mention, Judy, I think that objection was spot on. > > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:16 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Our Little Secret > > >  > Let's consider some facts for a change. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > Barry, how low can you go? Leave Ravi's family out of > > > your personal grudge against him. Whether you're lying > > > about him or not, it's none of your damn business and > > > certainly none of ours. His private life has no bearing > > > on his participation on this forum. Shame on you. > > > > Speaking of "asleep at the wheel," Ravi himself > > volunteered this information, in the context of > > telling people how cool he was to have flirted > > with his ex-wife's divorce attorney. > > Actually, here's what Ravi said: > > "My ex taunted me at the courthouse as she walked away with everything, the > kids - the complete physical, legal custody > with no visitation, even her lawyer privately apologized to > me." > > And here's what Barry said: > > "Rick doesn't seem to have considered, when allowing him to > return, that even *courts* have decided that Ravi is too > unstable to allow him access to or even visitation rights > with his own children." > > IOW, Ravi did not tell us what Barry claims he told us. > Barry does not know why the court decided what it did. > > (Oh, and notice Barry's multiplication tactic: "courts" > rather than "court." Sounds so much more definitive if more > than one court had decided the same thing, doesn't it?) > > Let's get real here. It's not as if nobody had ever > succeeded in convincing a court that a former spouse was > Bad News for the kids purely out of spite. It's a very > effective way of getting back at the former spouse for > whatever had gone wrong in the marriage. (And while > fathers occasionally manage to wangle a no-visitation > decision from a divorce court, traditionally courts tend > to favor the mother in such cases.) > > From what Ravi has told us about his interactions with > his ex-wife's attorney, it appears the attorney may have > had her doubts about the justice of the court's decision > for her client (also see the quote below from a later > post of Ravi's). > > Finally, all this happened years ago. Rick had no basis > *whatsoever* for taking it into consideration when he > decided to allow Ravi to return to FFL. > > And for all we know, the legal situation may have changed > in the interim. Is Ravi still forbidden to see his kids? > We don't know. Maybe he'll tell us. > > Here's what Ravi went on to say about his wife's attorney > in a subsequent post: > > "Like I said I was being playful with her lawyer - Kelly, she > was a bit older than me but good looking - drove my ex mad.. > LOL..she was like, don't talk to my attorney - not realizing > the stupidity and hilarity of her statement. Anyway her lawyer > starts explaining how she is a nice, honest person, goes to > bed every night peacefully (as in I'm just doing my job) and > I'm like whatever and then she looks me in the eye and says - > look Ravi, you are a really nice guy, I am still being playful > and she repeats with emphasis - No, Ravi listen - you are a > very nice guy and then I finally acknowledged and gave her one > of my patented bows." > > > I have no "grudge" against Ravi. I have stated > > my position with regard to him many times, and > > have *followed through on it*. That is, I will > > not interact with him or any of the other people > > on this forum whom I suspect to be mentally ill, > > because I have neither the training nor the > > inclination to do so. > > > > You obviously feel otherwise, and that praising > > an unstable person when he acts out is a favor. > > But Barry considers himself to have the training to > know when someone is unstable--and rather obviously > has a powerful inclination to repeat that conclusion > over and over, as if it were established fact, in an > attempt to anathematize those he has declared to be > unstable and turn other posters against them. > > When considering whether Barry is being candid when > he claims not to have a grudge against Ravi, FFL > readers should perhaps bear in mind that Barry has > pronounced his expert diagnosis of "instability"--or > worse--virtually exclusively on his critics. > > Enough said.
