--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > This is the type of seed that evolves into bickering and > > an endless cycle. > > > > Did Barry start it? Maybe. > > > > > "There are some people who > > > have resisted the rule strongly, perceiving it and railing > > > against it as some kind of limit on or censorship of > > > their seemingly divine right to express themselves -- as > > > often as they want and in any way they want. Me, I couldn't > > > help but notice that some of the people who feel this way > > > are the very posters who -- in my opinion -- have the least > > > to say. All they do is react to Other People's Ideas and/or > > > spout Other People's Dogma. They rarely seem to have any > > > of their *own* creative thoughts to contribute." > > > > The use of "some people" is a thinly veiled code for "Judy" > > -- plus selected others. > > It's also true. Just pay attention to what the > people who have reacted to this strongly actually > *say* on this forum. Then pay attention to the ones > who actually have something *to* say. 'Nuff said.
Two points. First, "the people who..." is another of Barry's thinly veiled codes for "Judy." Second, what nobody here seems to understand is that it's *Barry* who gets to determine whather what "people" (that is, "Judy") say here is "something" or not. Not Rory, nor claudiouk, nor trinity, nor Alex, nor feste, nor any of the others who have risked crossing Barry to say they enjoy my posts (not to mention those who have contacted me privately). Their views don't count. Only Barry's does.
