--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer <fairfieldlife@> > wrote: > > on 4/16/06 11:22 AM, authfriend at jstein@ wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > This is the best paragraph in your whole post. Unfortunately > > there are a lot of "ifs" in it. The problem is that you and > > Barry seem to be incapable of living up to all of them. > > You'll probably say that you are but Barry isn't. Barry > > would probably say that he is and you aren't. > > Barry is in the process of *demonstrating* that he > can leave this silliness behind. There will be no > further comments from me about Judy Stein. Judy > does not exist.
The issue, of course, isn't whether Barry can pretend I don't exist (he has already demonstrated that he cannot, but that's another story). The issue is whether he is capable of having an exchange with me (or others with whom he disagrees) in which he maintains honesty, fairness, and objectivity and refrains from insults. > If I follow through on what I say above, and she > continues to makes further negative comments about > me, I think that should settle once and for all > who has a vested interest in perpetuating the > "feud," who is obsessed, and who cannot let go > of the past. Barry appears to be suggesting that he should be free to continue to tell falsehoods, and that if I object to them, it's because I "cannot let go of the past"--by definition, since by the time I respond to a post, that post (the one I'm responding to now, for example) is already *in* the past. Just a little experiment here: "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." --Barry, yesterday (Saturday, April 15) "I haven't replied to a post of Judy's since I said I wouldn't, back on 4/11." --Barry, today (Sunday, April 16) I'm the *only* person who suggested that the "style of the humor" in that parody was not "socially acceptable" (i.e., that portions of it--not the whole thing--were racist). Is there *anybody* on this forum who is willing to speak up and confirm that what Barry said in his post today about not having replied to one of my posts since 4/11 is a falsehood? Anybody? 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/
