--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > So unable to say anything cogent about the content of > > > my post, (as Judy did, even though I disagree with her > > > opinion about it) and having been called out for your > > > trolling personal attack behavior, > > > > > > you attempt one of the weirdest of the FFL moves, > > > > > > trying to blame me for what other people write, as if it > > > is my job to scold people for interactions that don't > > > involve me. > > > > Says Curtis, right after having administered a scolding > > for interactions that didn't involve him. To Steve: > > > > "The fact that this partial agreement and appreciation > > for what I write is followed by a rash of taunting is > > one of the weirder aspects of the joint." > > It involved me because it was jumping on Steve for > complimenting ME. He was punishing Steve for saying > something nice to me.
Actually I started it, not because he said something nice to you, but because he's so stupidly *predictable*. You and I were having an argument, so he sided with you against me, as he virtually always does (he'll side with almost anybody against me). In his very next post he said I wasn't making much sense, and I responded the same way. (He isn't *smart* enough to get what I was saying.) Ravi thought that was a cool way to deal with Steve's empty-headed predictability, so he picked up on it, and we had fun batting Steve around with it. > And that does affect how people feel about responding > positively to my posts. They know that the shit storm > will descend from the usual suspects. Oh, right, what a fierce shit storm that was. BTW, it didn't bother Steve. I don't know why it would bother anybody else. Except you, of course. You had to defend Steve from being teased by Big Bad Judy and Big Bad Ravi because he had sided with you, and you don't want to risk losing his approval. > Nice try little gadfly. > > And I am not saying I will never jump into someone else's > interaction if I choose to, this is an open message board > and we all do that sometimes if it interest me. I am just > not buckling to outside pressure to scold certain people > Jim and you don't like. I don't think anybody was pressing you to do anything, just observing what you do (or in this case don't do-- unless, of course, you need to defend one of your allies). > I am not obligated to do so. Just as you are not and > pick and choose our own battles from your own priority > perspective. This shame angle doesn't work on me. You are immune to any kind of shame, Curtis. You've been working on that for a long time. Unfortunately it doesn't stop others from commenting on what they consider shameful. > > > Did you really think you were gunna make this fly after > > > seeing Robin relentlessly try and fail the same thing? > > > > Robin wasn't the only one to call you out on your hypocrisy. > > Right, if I don't scold people you think I should scold, > then I am a hypocrite and should never scold anyone that > I choose to. The "I am king baby" routine isn't gunna > work Judy. "King Baby" is Bob Price's and Ravi's name for Barry, not you. I don't know why you're invoking it in this context, particularly in the first person as if you were *quoting* Barry. > All discussions with you end up here don't they? You are > boringly predictable. A little hammer looking for a nail. I didn't bring it up. I just noted your hypocrisy when you dumped on DrD for mentioning it. > So you got your name calling buzz on today. What a > contribution. > > Hey did you think that comparing me not scolding people > Jim doesn't like here on FFL to the German's attitude > before the Holocaust was cool? Did you jump on Jim for > this idiotic, odious comparison? He noted that it was an extreme parallel. If he hadn't, I would have. > No, because just as I do, you pick your battles here, > while trying to shame me into picking different ones > than you do. Again, we're just *observing*. It's odd that you see it in terms of "shaming" you if you don't feel any shame. > You match Jim in your appalling lack of self awareness > as well as a desire to unpleasantly attack people whose > views differ from your own. Da-da-da-da-da-da-da... > If you are worried about Emily evaluating TM unfavorably, > you might want to think about how you two pro TM guys show > up here. The only reason I mentioned Emily is that your post was in response to her queries. I'm not concerned about how Emily views me. Say, you wouldn't be trying to shame *me*, would you? Of course not. What a silly idea.
