--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on 4/16/06 3:04 AM, TurquoiseB at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer > > <fairfieldlife@> wrote: > >> > >> This idiotic feud will end whenever either of you > >> decides not to participate in it any more. > > > > Rick, just to make a point before going back > > to silence on this subject, I haven't replied > > to a post of Judy's since I said I wouldn't, > > back on 4/11. In the future I'll go further > > and try to avoid commenting on subjects that > > even a paranoid obsessive might think were > > about her personally. Other than dropping out > > of Fairfield Life entirely, I don't see that > > there is that much more I can do. > > > > If there are comments about the "feud" after > > this, might I suggest that the commentators > > pause for a moment or two before posting to > > notice exactly where the "feuding" posts they > > are complaining about are coming from? > > > > Then, having determined exactly *who* is perpet- > > uating the "feud," flame away at that person. > > > > I think that's fair, don't you? > > Sounds fair to me. I'm over 300 posts behind, and I'll probably > have to delete most of them unread, so I haven't been keeping a > tally of who's perpetuating the feud the most. But I get the > impression that you're trying harder to end it than Judy is.
Rick, please allow me to help you out here, if you're at all interested in fairness. Here's the post that started the most recent exchange (from message 95224): ---- Look at the basic issue being *ignored* in these discussions (or the parts of them I see as a result of killfiles). The basic issue is the caste system. The original article just DEVASTATED the concept of the caste system, rather effectively. So what happened? A few people tried (successfully) to DIVERT attention away from the real subject of the parody -- the caste system and its indefensible evils -- and get people to focus on whether the style of the humor was socially acceptable. As far as I can tell, these attempts WORKED. In the posts that I can see, only Shemp kept trying to come back to the real subject -- the caste system and how much of an affront to humanity it is. Other folks got lured into the DIVERSION, and got lured into arguing with people who were (essentially) trying to dictate to them what is permissible as humor and what is not. Lesson to be learned from all this: whenever someone reacts to a joke by trying to say that the humor in the joke is politically incorrect or racist or demeaning, LOOK CLOSER. Chances are that this is a tactic, a DISTRACTION, meant to divert attention from the thing that the joke made people laugh at, and see a new side of. ---- This is from Barry, of course. And I'm the person who said that portions of the quote from the Onion article satirizing the caste system seemed racist. Barry is clearly attacking *me* for having made that suggestion, claiming that I was trying to distract folks from the caste issue. Note his reference to his "killfiles." In his most recent post (quoted at the top), he claims only a "paranoid obsessive" could possibly think he was referring to me in the earlier post I just quoted above that started the current exchange. That's patently false, and he knows it's false. (His claim about my trying to distract attention from the caste issue is *also* false, and he knows that's false as well. In my response to that earlier post, I was defending myself from that false accusation.) He's hoping nobody remembers who started it this time. But if you actually read the posts, it's clear he's attempting to deceive readers on this point. It's understandable that you don't have time to read all the posts. But if that's the case, you can't possibly have any idea of what the situation is, so it seems to me that you (and anybody else who hasn't been following the exchanges) are not in a position to make any determinations about what's fair and what is not, or who is primarily at fault. > Byron Katie says there are three kinds of > business: my business, your business, and God's business. If you > look at it that way, I think you can see everything Judy says and > thinks as her business, including stuff she says and thinks about > you. You have no control over it. You have no control over what someone else says about you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be free to correct the record if what is said about you is false. Barry portrayed me as trying to distract attention from the caste issue. Reasonable people reading his post might well think he had made a good case and assume the accusation was true and therefore read any future posts I make in that light. If you want to talk about fairness, *that* is quite egregiously unfair; and it's likewise unfair to tell me I shouldn't be able to present my side of the story so people can come to an informed conclusion. Barry has a long, long history of making such false accusations against TMers, particularly me, but also Lawson and anyone who dares to say anything positive about MMY or the TMO or TM and its teaching. Barry also has a long, long history of distorting what has taken place in past exchanges, as he does here by trying to pretend that he wasn't attacking me in his earlier post, and that I must be a "paranoid obsessive" to think he was referring to me. Barry is the *last* person on this forum who should be delivering high-minded speeches about fairness. > It is what it is. It needn't > bother you as long as you don't get involved in it. If both of you > were to do this, there would be no feud. If either of you to do > this completely, there would be no feud. Only when one > of you allows yourself to get even a little bit involved in the > other's business is fuel added to the fire. Please note once again that it was *Barry*, not me, who allowed himself to become involved in "the other's business" (mine) this time around. Finally, there is no reason why both Barry and I should not be able to make substantive comments on each other's posts when we have something to say about substantive issues raised in those posts. That's what this forum is *for*. If we all were to follow Byron Katie's advice, nobody would say anything to anybody about anything. We'd just make our individual posts setting out our personal points of view, and there would be no actual conversation. The issue is not *that* we "become involved in somebody else's business," but *how* we become involved. If we stick to substance and don't make false accusations and don't insult one another and try to be objective and *fair* in our exchanges, there will be no feuds. Feuds don't exist in a vacuum. They get started for a reason, and they're perpetuated for a reason. Reasonable people don't get involved in feuds when others do their best to be fair in their communications. > I don't mean to sound preachy. I hope this is useful advice. Rick, you clearly mean well, but if you're not informed about what's actually going on, you aren't likely to be able to come up with any useful advice. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
