--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> > wrote: > > > > Judy, there's way too much to argue about with you and > > that's why I didn't reply to your earlier posts, nor will > > I reply to you anymore after this. As you said last week, > > you enjoy going at it "hammer and tongs". I don't, and I > > won't with you. I argue by profession but, unlike yourself, > > not for enjoyment. > > Or, seemingly, out of need. One has to wonder > what well of self-unknowledge and fear that > behavior springs from. > > . . . > > You are, and unfortunately so in my opinion, an endlessly > > disputatious individual. You apparently thrive on > > disagreement and dissent. Furthermore, you are ungracious > > and vindictive with anyone who doesn't agree with your > > point of view. It's an ugly trait. > > If I may point out the obvious, by my count > Judy has made 40 posts in one day, ALL of them > fitting the description Marek suggests above. > ALL of them. Even after having been challenged > by me halfway through to provide an example > of an alternative style of posting, even one.
You know, the above two paragraphs are perfect examples of what has been called here "the power of myth," in terms of the personal stories one tells oneself and how one's own stories may differ from those of others, even when looking at precisely the same data. To start with, Yahoo's Message List "story" is different from Barry's own with regard to the number of posts I made yesterday. Yahoo thinks I made 38, Barry thinks I made 40. (Yahoo's Advanced Search thinks I made 24, but it's apparently gone into the depressed phase of its bipolar cycle, after having been on a nicely even keel for some weeks.) More importantly, Barry sees all "40" of my posts yesterday as fitting Marek's description, whereas when I look at them, less than half even come close. Most were "disputatious" in one sense or another, but some weren't even that; and of the minority that one might characterize as "ungracious and vindictive," about half were pretty mildly so. And of that minority, almost all were in response to posts that were themselves "ungracious and vindictive." Even my post to Mark that provoked the rant from him that Barry quotes was in no sense vindictive, although it *was* ungracious in a couple of spots. I think what particularly stung Marek was when I said at the end that I'd rather work for Obama, if he's nominated, alongside my fellow Hillary supporters than alongside Marek himself. The extraordinary vindictiveness and ungraciousness of many Obama supporters toward Hillary and her supporters has made it extremely difficult for the latter to feel cordial toward the former, and the former's apparent assumption that of course the latter would welcome a rapprochement on *their* terms strikes the latter as being so out of line as to boggle the mind. And I'm sure Marek was not happy with my response to his rant, which pointed out, among other things, *his* ungracious and vindictive and remarkably vicious attack on me based on his own wildly off- base "story" concerning a metaphor I had used regarding his hero Obama. (To his credit, he later apologized.) <snip> > In my "setup" post on Friday, I made the parallel > between Judy and Brunhilde or any of the other > Wagnerian heroines, suggesting that that's how > she sees herself. As far as I can tell, she > actually sees herself and her tendency to try > desperately to find something -- anything -- to > demonize or attack in the people who disagree > with her as a *positive* thing. Barry's "story" about my posts yesterday is even easier to understand. I had, as I often do, called him on his ignorance, in this case about Wagner, the predominant theme of whose works is the redemptive quality of self-sacrificing love-- *particularly* in the case of Brunnhilde. (Needless, perhaps, to say, that isn't at all the way I see myself. I'd put myself pretty squarely in the middle of the spectrum between Brunnhilde's self-sacrificing nobility and Barry's myth of me as some kind of monstrous anger-driven demon.) Anyway, Barry typically freaks out when I laugh at him for having made one of his whopping bloopers, so of course his "story" about my posts reflects that unhinged state of mind. The rest is just Barry's elaboration of the "story" he tells about me in his mind; we've seen it here many times before, so no need for me to comment. Just a couple of quick observations: <snip> > But you can also see the face in the photos > she posted to Fairfield Life, and in them you can > see what this addiction to anger has done to her. Just in case anyone hasn't seen the photos Barry refers to, here are the URLs: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=26 http://tinyurl.com/5dnafu Yup, an anger-addicted face, no question about it. I mean, the laugh lines around the eyes really give it away, right? http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27 http://tinyurl.com/66bfwq Note the title I gave the second one. ;-) > > You won't be pleased with this response, I'm sure, but let me > > suggest that there's no need to insult me anymore or be further > > appalled by my intellectual dishonesty, or my dirtyness, or > > whatever you would prefer to call it. There'll be no need for > > further discussion between us. > > Bravo. It's the only sane thing you can DO with > an anger addict. Arguing with them is what they > WANT. The argument is the drug they're SEEKING, > the one they NEED. These paragraphs are the most remarkable of all. Marek's "story" is that if he doesn't respond to my posts, somehow it means I don't get to comment on his. And Barry's "story" is that nobody will see the extreme anger in his denunciations of me if he doesn't address them to me directly. "The Power of Myth," indeed.
