[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > My contention is that a reason for this is that Curtis > > > is allowing the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* > > > it to do so by allowing himself to be sucked in to > > > Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My contention is > > > that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing > > > himself to be a codependent enabler. You couldn't make this stuff up, folks. Barry's a walking case history of projection, which is, according to Wikipedia, "a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people." What follows, and what preceded it, is a classic case of projection. > > I think you got an important thing wrong here. Although I > > don't want to get in the middle of the feud, I don't care > > if you guys keep it up. > > As I said, Curtis, a feud is only a feud if more > than one person is participating in it. If only > one is, it's clearly a one-sided obsession. > > What I wrote was not to you solely but to a number > of people on this forum who have, in the past, said > that they didn't like the feud mentality and that > they wished it would stop. However, my impression > was that almost every time the subject of "Barry > and how evil he is" was interjected into a conver- > sation that had previously had nothing to do with > him, they couldn't resist chiming in, That "impression" is not of anything that has actually happened on FFL. It's a product of Barry's out-of-control fantasy life. I do once in a while mention Barry in passing in a conversation that had nothing to do with him, but it's rare; and it's virtually always an observation related to something in that conversation, e.g., Barry as an example of whatever is being discussed, or something he said that's relevant to the discussion. But the "chiming in" part happens only in Barry's obsessed imagination. The kinds of observations I make don't invite chiming in and don't elicit it. thus giving > the person who interjected the irrelevant topic > the opportunity to go on and on about it. Which > was, in my opinion, the point of interjecting it. Also pure fantasy. What started Barry off on this kick was a discussion Curtis and I had a few days ago concerning Curtis's refusal to criticize Barry when he tells lies about me and others, even when the lies are in posts addressed directly to Curtis. This is a beef I've had with Curtis for quite some time, and we've had a number of exchanges about it in the past. The supreme irony is that what instigated this discussion--wait for it!--was *Barry* interjecting "Judy and how evil she is" into a post to Curtis-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/279083 --EXACTLY what Barry falsely accuses me of doing in his current post. Did he really think I wouldn't point this out? Or did he simply wipe the earlier post from his memory so he genuinely doesn't realize he's projecting his own rotten behavior onto me? The further irony is that in his exchange with me, Curtis *stood on his head* to defend Barry. And the thanks he gets? Barry accuses Curtis of being an "enabler." Some friend.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > My contention is that a reason for this is that Curtis is allowing > > the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing > > himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My > > contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing > > himself to be a codependent enabler. > > I think you got an important thing wrong here. Although I > don't want to get in the middle of the feud, I don't care > if you guys keep it up. As I said, Curtis, a feud is only a feud if more than one person is participating in it. If only one is, it's clearly a one-sided obsession. What I wrote was not to you solely but to a number of people on this forum who have, in the past, said that they didn't like the feud mentality and that they wished it would stop. However, my impression was that almost every time the subject of "Barry and how evil he is" was interjected into a conver- sation that had previously had nothing to do with him, they couldn't resist chiming in, thus giving the person who interjected the irrelevant topic the opportunity to go on and on about it. Which was, in my opinion, the point of interjecting it. It seemed to me that some of these folks -- not intending to single you out -- didn't seem to perceive the pattern, the game that was being run on them. So I pointed it out. I shall now retire from the fray, and allow those who seem to somehow get off on the feud to "talk amongst themselves," as that character on SNL used to say. If the "But enough about this talk about philosophy...let's talk some more about what a bounder Barry is" ploys continue, those who claim that they're not interested in the subject will have the opportunity to walk their talk. Or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.>
I think you got an important thing wrong here. Although I don't want to get in
the middle of the feud, I don't care if you guys keep it up. I don't enjoy
reading it because it is not a match for how I see you two. It harshes my
buzz. But I am in control of what I read so I don't have to worry about what
you guys write.
If I gave the impression that either of you should stop, that would be
incorrect. How you choose to relate to each other is none of my business.
And talking to either of you here does not cause or allow or activate you guys
to act the way you do towards each other, so I'm not accepting any co-dependent
rap for your style of interaction.
I'll continue to interact with each of you in the way I choose ignoring how
each of you uses posts to me to take swings at the other. I am only interested
in ones that are directed toward me which are thankfully very few these days.
>
> "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it
> make the sound of Barry lying?"
>
> Many on this forum have said that they are tired of the "Barry-Judy
> feud," and would like it to end. I contend that some of them are talking
> through their hats, and that *they* are one of the primary reasons it
> continues. In this post, I will propose a way that I think that *they*
> could help to end this "feud" forever, by simply refusing to participate
> in it.
>
> I think that the koan above presents the case I'm going to make in this
> post. I think that the "Barry-Judy feud" to some extent exists primarily
> in the mind of the person who is obsessed with...uh...Barry. That
> obsession is never going to end. Judy continues to feel the need to post
> "corrective" or "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and
> does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have commented, she
> does the same thing *even when I am no longer on the forum*.
>
> But that's just one sad, lonely, obsessive old woman, hardly a "feud."
> WHY do occasional "outbreaks" of the old "feud" back-and-forth mentality
> still "break out" on FFL from time to time, as they have in her recent
> discussions with Curtis?
>
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.
>
> The game, as I see it, is this. Judy feels the need to keep dumping on
> Barry. *Forget* the WHY of this; it's simply obvious *that* she feels
> this need, and on the level of an obsessive compulsion. But in recent
> months she has become frustrated because she can't draw me into the
> one-on-one confrontation and extended argument with her that she wants.
> So what she *does* about this is to glom onto a discussion on some other
> topic altogether ("Does a tree falling in an empty forest make a
> sound?"), and then re-introduce the B-word ("Doesn't that remind you of
> how big a liar Barry is?"). She finds a way to insinuate "Barry, and all
> his sins" into conversations with the few posters still willing to have
> them with her, conversations that had nothing to do with Barry, *hoping
> that the other party will fall for it and give her a chance to dump on
> Barry even more*.
>
> This is my honest opinion of what she does on a regular basis. She will
> in my opinion *keep doing this*. Nothing that any of you who *claim* to
> be tired of the "Barry-Judy feud" do will ever be able to stop this sad
> game.
>
> What you *can* stop is your participation in the game.
>
> If you really *are* tired of the "Barry-Judy feud," *stop being a
> codependent enabler of the feud by "piling on" to it and reactivating it
> every time she tries to get you to do so*. Just say No. Ignore the
> provocation, and the attempt to get you to re-launch a "pile on Barry"
> session, and turn the conversation back to its original subject. The
> solution to ending the supposed feud is as simple as that in my opinion,
> and here's why.
>
> From my side, unilaterally, I will try to ignore the silly bitch, and
> her compulsive "gotta get Barry" posts. This will require no small
> amount of effort on my part, because she's *such* an easy target for
> satire and derision. However, to test the theory that some on this forum
> really *do* want this silly "feud" that she attempts to perpetuate to
> end, I will deny myself the pleasure of pointing out what a nutcase she
> is. :-)
>
> From her side, I think we all know that she will cont
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > I agree. It takes two to tango and Turq seems to be obsessed > too. How many times have I read one of his movie reviews where > the first paragraph was about the movie and the rest about the > movie brought up TB'ers or a certain obsessive personality. > Probably time for the kids to grow up. To be fair, he hasn't done that in a while, and he really only did it a few times. I think those "reviews" ended up embarrassing even him. These days it's his "cafe raps" or "walking the dogs raps," in which he starts out by musing about this-a and that-a and then inevitably segues into some nastiness about the denizens of FFL he doesn't like, or TMers in general, or me in particular, or all the above. He always tries to make it seem as though the random musings came first, and they just *happened* to remind him of something about whoever he goes on to demonize. In fact, it's just the reverse: he decides who he's going to demonize and how, then backtracks to manufacture some minimally plausible train of thought that he can portray as having led to the topic of his "rap." Next time you read one of those, notice how carefully constructed it is according to this formula. If he hadn't done so many dozens of these exactly the same way, any single example might pass muster as genuinely spontaneous thoughts just flitting through his mind. It's the repetitive pattern over many instances that gives him away. Ravi did a hilarious parody of this back in March.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and > > > I read nothing of any post between you and Judy. I stop as > > > soon as I get a wiff of your interactions with each other. > > > I think you need to stop reading her posts, and stop replyng > > > to her and stop writing about her in your posts. And stop > > > alluding to her in your posts or calling her a TB. That > > > would, for you, put an end to it. Judy might continue to > > > be angry and to didssect your posts, but you would not know > > > about it or reply or engage. Prtty simple, really. > > > > I have to say I find it utterly fascinating that anybody > > would ever tell anybody else not to read a third person's > > posts. I have no problem reading the most hostile posts > > directed at me; why should anybody else have a problem > > doing the same? > > Judy, Barry had said that the way for "other people" to > stop the feuding between the 2 of you was for them not to > join and support you. My point, not clearly made, was > that the way to stop it is for Barry to stop it. If his > goal is actually to stop the back and forth between the 2 > of you, he needs to stop it - either by not replying to > or not reading the posts. OK. I just think it's really weird that one person not read another person's posts because they're critical (especially when the first person makes a big deal about how criticism doesn't affect him!). I've never understood the motivation behind "kill-filing." It seems so cowardly and juvenile. > I also mentioned that he needs to stop this referring to > you as a TB and then basing entire posts around that label, > that assumption. I do not see you as a TB and I doubt > anyone else here does either. Its an inaccurate label to > launch a discussion. Yes, I do appreciate that. > > It says *volumes* that you believe the only way for > > Barry to live with my presence on this forum is to > > pretend I don't exist. That's the kind of thing you > > might advise a little kid who's not yet up to dealing > > with the real world. But Barry's in his late 60s, > > for pete's sake. Why would you want to advocate that > > he *increase* the degree to which he's divorced > > himself from reality? Seems to me that's the real > > "enabling" behavior here. > > Mostly my advice was supposed to be practical. If he can > read your posts and not start up the usual banter, fine. > If in order to do this he has to stop reading your posts, > so be it. Whatever it takes to accomplish his goal. There's a third alternative: He could pick one of my substantive posts and respond to it substantively, without insults, as a sort of peace offering. That would be the adult way to handle it. But he's incapable of that kind of mature behavior. The only way he knows how to "interact" is with hostility and putdowns. (And yes, many of my responses to him are substantive, some even without any insults on my part. You wouldn't know that if you refrain from reading them, though.) > Fact is, I enjoy both of your posts when you don't refer > to each other. Well, thanks. > > A big part of the reason he's telling everybody not to > > respond to me, BTW, is that if they do, and they're > > not on his do-not-read list, he risks being exposed to > > to some of what I've said in what they quote from my > > post. He's just going to have to keep adding to that > > list if he can't bear to read the quotes. > > > > I think it would be far better for him to realize that > > there are quite a few folks on FFL who think he's a > > jerk and to find out *why they think that*. This is > > the reality. He can then decide to change his behavior > > or tough it out, but what good does it do his growth as > > a human bean if he just blocks out that reality? > > Barry's growth is not my interest. I don't want to improve him. Yeah, but presumably you don't want to get in the way of his growth either! > He is who he is as he is. If his goal is to stop the feud, > he can do so, easily, on his own. Not so easily. He's sworn to do what you suggested he do on a regular basis for many years. > And really, he does not need me to tell him that. He knows. > I think he was trying to get a few folks who side with you > riled up. You actually believe that "push their buttons" story he tells? That's not why he demonizes people; it's an *excuse* for demonizing people. Anyway, thanks for the response.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and > > I read nothing of any post between you and Judy. I stop as > > soon as I get a wiff of your interactions with each other. > > I think you need to stop reading her posts, and stop replyng > > to her and stop writing about her in your posts. And stop > > alluding to her in your posts or calling her a TB. That > > would, for you, put an end to it. Judy might continue to > > be angry and to didssect your posts, but you would not know > > about it or reply or engage. Prtty simple, really. > > I have to say I find it utterly fascinating that anybody > would ever tell anybody else not to read a third person's > posts. I have no problem reading the most hostile posts > directed at me; why should anybody else have a problem > doing the same? Judy, Barry had said that the way for "other people" to stop the feuding between the 2 of you was for them not to join and support you. My point, not clearly made, was that the way to stop it is for Barry to stop it. If his goal is actually to stop the back and forth between the 2 of you, he needs to stop it - either by not replying to or not reading the posts. I also mentioned that he needs to stop this referring to you as a TB and then basing entire posts around that label, that assumption. I do not see you as a TB and I doubt anyone else here does either. Its an inaccurate label to launch a discussion. > > And no, wayback, I wouldn't "continue to be angry" > because I haven't been angry to begin with. Ok Barry to me > is a freak show and a fraud. You can't be angry at > someone so helplessly twisted in their own egotistical > delusions. But boy, those delusions, and the arrogance > with which they're presented, are an irresistible target > for dissection. > > It says *volumes* that you believe the only way for > Barry to live with my presence on this forum is to > pretend I don't exist. That's the kind of thing you > might advise a little kid who's not yet up to dealing > with the real world. But Barry's in his late 60s, > for pete's sake. Why would you want to advocate that > he *increase* the degree to which he's divorced > himself from reality? Seems to me that's the real > "enabling" behavior here. Mostly my advice was supposed to be practical. If he can read your posts and not start up the usual banter, fine. If in order to do this he has to stop reading your posts, so be it. Whatever it takes to accomplish his goal. Fact is, I enjoy both of your posts when you don't refer to each other. > > A big part of the reason he's telling everybody not to > respond to me, BTW, is that if they do, and they're > not on his do-not-read list, he risks being exposed to > to some of what I've said in what they quote from my > post. He's just going to have to keep adding to that > list if he can't bear to read the quotes. > > I think it would be far better for him to realize that > there are quite a few folks on FFL who think he's a > jerk and to find out *why they think that*. This is > the reality. He can then decide to change his behavior > or tough it out, but what good does it do his growth as > a human bean if he just blocks out that reality? > Barry's growth is not my interest. I don't want to improve him. He is who he is as he is. If his goal is to stop the feud, he can do so, easily, on his own. And really, he does not need me to tell him that. He knows. I think he was trying to get a few folks who side with you riled up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
On 06/13/2011 06:57 AM, wayback71 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>> "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it
>> make the sound of Barry lying?"
>>
>> Many on this forum have said that they are tired of the "Barry-Judy
>> feud," and would like it to end. I contend that some of them are talking
>> through their hats, and that *they* are one of the primary reasons it
>> continues. In this post, I will propose a way that I think that *they*
>> could help to end this "feud" forever, by simply refusing to participate
>> in it.
>>
>> I think that the koan above presents the case I'm going to make in this
>> post. I think that the "Barry-Judy feud" to some extent exists primarily
>> in the mind of the person who is obsessed with...uh...Barry. That
>> obsession is never going to end. Judy continues to feel the need to post
>> "corrective" or "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and
>> does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have commented, she
>> does the same thing *even when I am no longer on the forum*.
>>
>> But that's just one sad, lonely, obsessive old woman, hardly a "feud."
>> WHY do occasional "outbreaks" of the old "feud" back-and-forth mentality
>> still "break out" on FFL from time to time, as they have in her recent
>> discussions with Curtis?
>>
>> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
>> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
>> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
>> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
>> himself to be a codependent enabler.
>>
>> The game, as I see it, is this. Judy feels the need to keep dumping on
>> Barry. *Forget* the WHY of this; it's simply obvious *that* she feels
>> this need, and on the level of an obsessive compulsion. But in recent
>> months she has become frustrated because she can't draw me into the
>> one-on-one confrontation and extended argument with her that she wants.
>> So what she *does* about this is to glom onto a discussion on some other
>> topic altogether ("Does a tree falling in an empty forest make a
>> sound?"), and then re-introduce the B-word ("Doesn't that remind you of
>> how big a liar Barry is?"). She finds a way to insinuate "Barry, and all
>> his sins" into conversations with the few posters still willing to have
>> them with her, conversations that had nothing to do with Barry, *hoping
>> that the other party will fall for it and give her a chance to dump on
>> Barry even more*.
>>
>> This is my honest opinion of what she does on a regular basis. She will
>> in my opinion *keep doing this*. Nothing that any of you who *claim* to
>> be tired of the "Barry-Judy feud" do will ever be able to stop this sad
>> game.
>>
>> What you *can* stop is your participation in the game.
>>
>> If you really *are* tired of the "Barry-Judy feud," *stop being a
>> codependent enabler of the feud by "piling on" to it and reactivating it
>> every time she tries to get you to do so*. Just say No. Ignore the
>> provocation, and the attempt to get you to re-launch a "pile on Barry"
>> session, and turn the conversation back to its original subject. The
>> solution to ending the supposed feud is as simple as that in my opinion,
>> and here's why.
>>
>> From my side, unilaterally, I will try to ignore the silly bitch, and
>> her compulsive "gotta get Barry" posts. This will require no small
>> amount of effort on my part, because she's *such* an easy target for
>> satire and derision. However, to test the theory that some on this forum
>> really *do* want this silly "feud" that she attempts to perpetuate to
>> end, I will deny myself the pleasure of pointing out what a nutcase she
>> is. :-)
>>
>> From her side, I think we all know that she will continue to reply to
>> many posts I make trying to "correct" them or prove them "wrong" or
>> otherwise find a way to turn them into "a perfect opportunity for the
>> putdown she has already prepared." I think that we also know that her
>> full-time codependent enablers -- Jim, Nabby, Willytex, and occasionally
>> others -- will play "pile on" to her obsessive "gotta get Barry" posts
>> to give her the chance to post even more of them.
>>
>> But what are YOU -- the people who claim that you're tired of this feud
>> and want it to end -- going to do?
>>
>> My suggestion is that you try the experiment I described above. For a
>> month or two, ignore all of Judy's attempts to get you to "talk about
>> Barry." If she tries to get you to participate in such "pile on"
>> sessions -- and she will -- just ignore the attempts and, if you are
>> enjoying other aspects of an ongoing discussion with her, gently come
>> back to the topic. :-)
>>
>> Consider this a challenge to those who claim that they're tired of the
>> feud, but who *enable* it to continue by falling for Judy's "But enough
>> about; let's talk about Barry" routine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and > I read nothing of any post between you and Judy. I stop as > soon as I get a wiff of your interactions with each other. > I think you need to stop reading her posts, and stop replyng > to her and stop writing about her in your posts. And stop > alluding to her in your posts or calling her a TB. That > would, for you, put an end to it. Judy might continue to > be angry and to didssect your posts, but you would not know > about it or reply or engage. Prtty simple, really. I have to say I find it utterly fascinating that anybody would ever tell anybody else not to read a third person's posts. I have no problem reading the most hostile posts directed at me; why should anybody else have a problem doing the same? And no, wayback, I wouldn't "continue to be angry" because I haven't been angry to begin with. Barry to me is a freak show and a fraud. You can't be angry at someone so helplessly twisted in their own egotistical delusions. But boy, those delusions, and the arrogance with which they're presented, are an irresistible target for dissection. It says *volumes* that you believe the only way for Barry to live with my presence on this forum is to pretend I don't exist. That's the kind of thing you might advise a little kid who's not yet up to dealing with the real world. But Barry's in his late 60s, for pete's sake. Why would you want to advocate that he *increase* the degree to which he's divorced himself from reality? Seems to me that's the real "enabling" behavior here. A big part of the reason he's telling everybody not to respond to me, BTW, is that if they do, and they're not on his do-not-read list, he risks being exposed to to some of what I've said in what they quote from my post. He's just going to have to keep adding to that list if he can't bear to read the quotes. I think it would be far better for him to realize that there are quite a few folks on FFL who think he's a jerk and to find out *why they think that*. This is the reality. He can then decide to change his behavior or tough it out, but what good does it do his growth as a human bean if he just blocks out that reality?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > If those who choose to continue it turn out to be > all from the pro-TM camp, that will say something in > itself, won't it? The TM technique, touted as the > most effective form of meditation on the planet, > creates people who would much rather perpetuate a > feud and hang onto a grudge than discuss ideas. The interesting thing is, I do a whole lot of idea- discussing in my posts in response to Barry. Barry's problem is that my ideas don't agree with *his* ideas and frequently raise questions about the validity of his ideas that he isn't prepared to confront.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > Judy continues to feel the need to post "corrective" or > "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and > does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have > commented, she does the same thing *even when I am no > longer on the forum*. Er, that was me who commented, in connection with some of the discussion here about Barry leaving the forum last year. But as I pointed out at the time, that discussion concerned what he'd said *before he left*. I'm not going to bother to address the rest of the silliness in this post; everyone who reads it will know exactly how much sense it makes and take it for what it's worth. Just one additional comment: > But in recent months she has become frustrated because > she can't draw me into the one-on-one confrontation and > extended argument with her that she wants. Actually, I have a great deal of fun dissecting his posts regardless of whether he (or anyone else) responds. And we all know why he refuses to get into one-on-one confrontations: He realized long since that he doesn't do very well in them. Also, for the record, even way back in alt.m.t days, he's periodically announced he was going to "ignore" me, and has managed to do so for a while. Or sometimes did. In recent years, instead of breaking his latest vow and "interacting" with me directly, he writes long "original" screeds demonizing me while pretending they have nothing to do with what I've been saying about him. Everybody understands the game, although Barry has somehow managed to convince himself nobody gets what's going on. The bottom line is that Barry hates solid criticism and for some weird reason thinks he should be immune from it. I'm his chief critic here, although he has many others. He's been trying for many years to find a way to get me to stop, and if he can't do that, at least to keep other people from reading what I have to say in the hope that it'll discourage me. It hasn't worked yet on either count and never will. But he'll keep trying. The one thing he *could* do, as I've pointed out many times, is to stop doing what I criticize him for. As long as he keeps at it, he'll just have to live with my criticisms.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and > I read nothing of any post between you and Judy. I stop as > soon as I get a wiff of your interactions with each other. > I think you need to stop reading her posts, and stop replyng > to her and stop writing about her in your posts. And stop > alluding to her in your posts or calling her a TB. That > would, for you, put an end to it. Judy might continue to > be angry and to didssect your posts, but you would not know > about it or reply or engage. Prtty simple, really. That's the whole idea. A "feud" is only a feud if two people are participating in it. If only one is, it's an obsession. Besides, the response to this idea, from the people I do continue to read, will give me (and others) a pretty clear idea of who here only claims to want an end to this "feud" and who only say they do. :-) If those who choose to continue it turn out to be all from the pro-TM camp, that will say something in itself, won't it? The TM technique, touted as the most effective form of meditation on the planet, creates people who would much rather perpetuate a feud and hang onto a grudge than discuss ideas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it
> make the sound of Barry lying?"
>
> Many on this forum have said that they are tired of the "Barry-Judy
> feud," and would like it to end. I contend that some of them are talking
> through their hats, and that *they* are one of the primary reasons it
> continues. In this post, I will propose a way that I think that *they*
> could help to end this "feud" forever, by simply refusing to participate
> in it.
>
> I think that the koan above presents the case I'm going to make in this
> post. I think that the "Barry-Judy feud" to some extent exists primarily
> in the mind of the person who is obsessed with...uh...Barry. That
> obsession is never going to end. Judy continues to feel the need to post
> "corrective" or "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and
> does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have commented, she
> does the same thing *even when I am no longer on the forum*.
>
> But that's just one sad, lonely, obsessive old woman, hardly a "feud."
> WHY do occasional "outbreaks" of the old "feud" back-and-forth mentality
> still "break out" on FFL from time to time, as they have in her recent
> discussions with Curtis?
>
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.
>
> The game, as I see it, is this. Judy feels the need to keep dumping on
> Barry. *Forget* the WHY of this; it's simply obvious *that* she feels
> this need, and on the level of an obsessive compulsion. But in recent
> months she has become frustrated because she can't draw me into the
> one-on-one confrontation and extended argument with her that she wants.
> So what she *does* about this is to glom onto a discussion on some other
> topic altogether ("Does a tree falling in an empty forest make a
> sound?"), and then re-introduce the B-word ("Doesn't that remind you of
> how big a liar Barry is?"). She finds a way to insinuate "Barry, and all
> his sins" into conversations with the few posters still willing to have
> them with her, conversations that had nothing to do with Barry, *hoping
> that the other party will fall for it and give her a chance to dump on
> Barry even more*.
>
> This is my honest opinion of what she does on a regular basis. She will
> in my opinion *keep doing this*. Nothing that any of you who *claim* to
> be tired of the "Barry-Judy feud" do will ever be able to stop this sad
> game.
>
> What you *can* stop is your participation in the game.
>
> If you really *are* tired of the "Barry-Judy feud," *stop being a
> codependent enabler of the feud by "piling on" to it and reactivating it
> every time she tries to get you to do so*. Just say No. Ignore the
> provocation, and the attempt to get you to re-launch a "pile on Barry"
> session, and turn the conversation back to its original subject. The
> solution to ending the supposed feud is as simple as that in my opinion,
> and here's why.
>
> From my side, unilaterally, I will try to ignore the silly bitch, and
> her compulsive "gotta get Barry" posts. This will require no small
> amount of effort on my part, because she's *such* an easy target for
> satire and derision. However, to test the theory that some on this forum
> really *do* want this silly "feud" that she attempts to perpetuate to
> end, I will deny myself the pleasure of pointing out what a nutcase she
> is. :-)
>
> From her side, I think we all know that she will continue to reply to
> many posts I make trying to "correct" them or prove them "wrong" or
> otherwise find a way to turn them into "a perfect opportunity for the
> putdown she has already prepared." I think that we also know that her
> full-time codependent enablers -- Jim, Nabby, Willytex, and occasionally
> others -- will play "pile on" to her obsessive "gotta get Barry" posts
> to give her the chance to post even more of them.
>
> But what are YOU -- the people who claim that you're tired of this feud
> and want it to end -- going to do?
>
> My suggestion is that you try the experiment I described above. For a
> month or two, ignore all of Judy's attempts to get you to "talk about
> Barry." If she tries to get you to participate in such "pile on"
> sessions -- and she will -- just ignore the attempts and, if you are
> enjoying other aspects of an ongoing discussion with her, gently come
> back to the topic. :-)
>
> Consider this a challenge to those who claim that they're tired of the
> feud, but who *enable* it to continue by falling for Judy's "But enough
> about ; let's talk about Barry" routine.
>
> Just say No, and see what happens.
>
I did not read this post, just the first few sentence - and I read nothing
[FairfieldLife] Re: Codependent Obsession, or How to end the Barry-Judy feud
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it
> make the sound of Barry lying?"
>
> Many on this forum have said that they are tired of the "Barry-Judy
> feud," and would like it to end. I contend that some of them are talking
> through their hats, and that *they* are one of the primary reasons it
> continues. In this post, I will propose a way that I think that *they*
> could help to end this "feud" forever, by simply refusing to participate
> in it.
>
> I think that the koan above presents the case I'm going to make in this
> post. I think that the "Barry-Judy feud" to some extent exists primarily
> in the mind of the person who is obsessed with...uh...Barry. That
> obsession is never going to end. Judy continues to feel the need to post
> "corrective" or "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and
> does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have commented, she
> does the same thing *even when I am no longer on the forum*.
>
> But that's just one sad, lonely, obsessive old woman, hardly a "feud."
> WHY do occasional "outbreaks" of the old "feud" back-and-forth mentality
> still "break out" on FFL from time to time, as they have in her recent
> discussions with Curtis?
>
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.
>
> The game, as I see it, is this. Judy feels the need to keep dumping on
> Barry. *Forget* the WHY of this; it's simply obvious *that* she feels
> this need, and on the level of an obsessive compulsion. But in recent
> months she has become frustrated because she can't draw me into the
> one-on-one confrontation and extended argument with her that she wants.
Gee, I wonder why Barry wants us to *forget* the WHY of why Judy calls him on
his lies? His desperate plea to ignore Judy, is just silly because it's an
obvious admission that Judy has been right all along. She has so effectively
proven that Barry lies that even Barry now knows he lies. But, rather than
become a nicer, more truthful person, he wants us to forget WHY Judy exposes
his lies and stupidly thinks he can continue to lie and get away with it. Not
gonna happen.
> So what she *does* about this is to glom onto a discussion on some other
> topic altogether ("Does a tree falling in an empty forest make a
> sound?"), and then re-introduce the B-word ("Doesn't that remind you of
> how big a liar Barry is?"). She finds a way to insinuate "Barry, and all
> his sins" into conversations with the few posters still willing to have
> them with her, conversations that had nothing to do with Barry, *hoping
> that the other party will fall for it and give her a chance to dump on
> Barry even more*.
>
> This is my honest opinion of what she does on a regular basis. She will
> in my opinion *keep doing this*. Nothing that any of you who *claim* to
> be tired of the "Barry-Judy feud" do will ever be able to stop this sad
> game.
>
> What you *can* stop is your participation in the game.
>
> If you really *are* tired of the "Barry-Judy feud," *stop being a
> codependent enabler of the feud by "piling on" to it and reactivating it
> every time she tries to get you to do so*. Just say No. Ignore the
> provocation, and the attempt to get you to re-launch a "pile on Barry"
> session, and turn the conversation back to its original subject. The
> solution to ending the supposed feud is as simple as that in my opinion,
> and here's why.
>
> From my side, unilaterally, I will try to ignore the silly bitch, and
> her compulsive "gotta get Barry" posts. This will require no small
> amount of effort on my part, because she's *such* an easy target for
> satire and derision. However, to test the theory that some on this forum
> really *do* want this silly "feud" that she attempts to perpetuate to
> end, I will deny myself the pleasure of pointing out what a nutcase she
> is. :-)
>
> From her side, I think we all know that she will continue to reply to
> many posts I make trying to "correct" them or prove them "wrong" or
> otherwise find a way to turn them into "a perfect opportunity for the
> putdown she has already prepared." I think that we also know that her
> full-time codependent enablers -- Jim, Nabby, Willytex, and occasionally
> others -- will play "pile on" to her obsessive "gotta get Barry" posts
> to give her the chance to post even more of them.
>
> But what are YOU -- the people who claim that you're tired of this feud
> and want it to end -- going to do?
>
> My suggestion is that you try the experiment I described above. For a
> month or two, ignore all of Judy's attempts to get you to "talk about
> Barry." If she tries to get you to participate in such "p
