Well, folks, after I'd finished writing this but before I posted it, I checked my post count on Yahoo Advanced Search and found I was already at 51.
I had checked midmorning as well, and it told me I had another 8 posts. I only made 6 after that, not counting this one, so there was some glitch involved. I'm not going to contest it because the regular posted count last night shows me at 51. I should have checked that instead of depending on Yahoo's count. Anyway, I figure I might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, so I'm going to go ahead and post this to correct another batch of Barry's lies and distortions. He'll have all next week to lie without restraint. That's why he obsesses over his "enemies'" post counts and gets so excited about the possibility of their posting out, because then he won't have to worry about his lies and distortions and twisted, self-serving illogic being exposed and refuted. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone find it interesting that one of the *only* > > > > > three people who caused the Posting Limits to be created > > > > > in the first place, and who has since "posted out" and > > > > > gone over the limit *several* times because she couldn't > > > > > control herself, is now arguing that they "aren't needed?" > > > > > > Notice the non sequitur. I never thought they were needed > > > in the first place and still don't. > > > > > > In any case, my point in the post Barry's commenting on was > > > how distorted his account was in the post I was responding > > > to. I wasn't making the argument he claims; he just wants > > > to distract attention from how I debunked his previous post. > > > > > > (And I've never posted out because I "couldn't control" > > > myself, BTW.) > > > > > > > > Sounds to me as if someone is trying to open the door so > > > > > that she can post as much as she used to. Just to remind > > > > > people, that was (during the months that I used the Yahoo > > > > > Search engine to track it) 400-500 posts per month. > > > > > > *Everyone* posted more before the limits were imposed, BTW. > > > There were more discussions, and they were more active. > > > > > > > > She'd like to be able to do that again. Don't fall for it > > > > > > "Fall for" what? I've always been open about what I thought > > > of the posting limits. > > > > > > > As Barry trembles in anticipation, trepidation and fear. > > > > > > Exactly. He's hysterical at the very thought. For him, the > > > posting limits have always been about *fewer posts from > > > Judy* because he finds me such a threat. > > > > Somehow Judy, I do not think Barry thinks you are a threat. > > Of course I don't. That's her FANTASY, and Ann's. They > like to imagine that they are *hurting* the people they > don't like, and that these people are cowering in fear > of them and the Mean Girls things they and their two > Cross-Dressing Mean Girls buddies ( Jim and Ravi :-) > say about them. Notice that Barry did not address any of what I said above. Barry's consistent inability to address what his "enemies" say is solid evidence that he *does* "cower in fear" of us. If he felt equal to us, he wouldn't have any trouble engaging with us directly. Nor would he go on rants against us that are crammed with lies and distortions and fantasies. The difference between the folks Barry calls "the Mean Girls" and the Mean Boy Barry has always been is that the former always tell the truth and do their damndest to be fair and straightforward. > I think that the reality is that most of their victims > figured out the Mean Girls act long ago, and now what > they say barely registers, except as 1) an opportunity > for laughter, and 2) an occasional opportunity to push > *their* buttons, and get them to focus so intently on > "getting" or "hurting" their intended victims that they > post out early. Speaking of fantasies... As anyone with a lick of common sense can figure out, if someone posts out early, it can't be laid at the feet of any one poster; Barry can't take credit for it, much as he'd like to. > As an example of the latter, after > ragging on Share and I and Xeno this week, Judy has > only a couple of posts left, and Ann hasn't got many > more than that left. Soon they'll be gone, and good > riddance. Barry's gloating would make a lot more sense if it weren't already Thursday afternoon. > > But of course, we could ask him. Will he tell the > > truth? Will he lie? > > According to the Mean Girls, I *always* lie. :-) > > I wonder if they'll think I'm lying about the number > of posts left to them this week, lose control *yet > again*, and emulate Jimbo by sitting out next week > on the Overposter's Bench? :-) I keep track of my posts myself, Barry. (Or lose track, as the case may be.) I never overpost because I've "lost control." That's just silly. > > Wouldn't it reduce the quantity of lying on the forum, > > if there were fewer posts? 'Oh what a tangled web we > > weave when first we practice to deceive!' Would truth > > in its directness and simplicity not take less space? > > The bottom line is that I was against the posting > limits when they were first proposed, too, and with > good reason. I figured that the chronic overposters > would ignore them, and "go over" the limits just to > spite Rick, and others here. And they did. Shemp was the only one who did that, as I've already pointed out. IOW, Barry is lying. He's also lying about why he was against the posting limits at first. He claimed it would be "censorship." > But then Rick reacted to *that* by creating the "go > over 50 and you sit out the next week" rule, and > things have just been hunky-dory ever since. Just for accuracy's sake, that rule was instituted when the limit was still 35 posts per week. > Inter- > estingly, if Alex had kept track of the people who > have *had* to spend not one but *many* weeks on > the Overposter's Bench, I think you'd find that > Judy, Ravi, and Jimbo would top the list for number > of occurrences. I don't think Ravi has overposted more than once. But of course it's the folks who consistently post at or near the limit who will be most likely to go over, so that's not very interesting at all. I've never once had to sit on that > bench, and most of the more balanced members of > this forum have *also* never had their bottoms > touch that bench. > > There is a certain spiritual quality in self control. > And IMO there is an opposite *non-spiritual* quality > in the *lack* of self-control. Going over the limit has nothing to do with "lack of control," at least on my part. It's always been because I've lost track, or there has been some glitch. > Those who are lobbying > for the ability to make more than 50 posts a week -- > because that's just "not enough" for them and they > deserve "special" treatment Nobody is "lobbying for 'special' treatment," of course. Nobody is asking to be able to make more posts than anybody else. Notice how how Barry is simply *incapable of being straightforward*? He had to stick the bit about "special treatment" in there, knowing it was nonsense but hoping it would make his case sound more convincing. I'll say again what I've said so many times before: Barry is a desperately insecure person who is aware of how incompetent he is at analysis and argument. He hates and fears those of us who are good at it and refuses to engage with us because he knows his incompetence will be exposed if he does. That's also why he can't be straightforward, because he lacks the ability to make a solid case for what he believes and defend it from criticism if he sticks with reality. He has to pad it and embroider it and distort it and lie about it. And then it gets really sad, because the farther his arguments are from reality, the more vulnerable he is to exposure. By not being straightforward, he invites what he fears most. It's a vicious circle whose outcome is the complete loss of credibility. -- seem to me to fall > into the second group. YMMV. >
