I agree that Judy's got a good mind, capable of depth, but it is her manner some of us take issue with. Maybe some of her fanatical and absolutist tendencies also. but it's mostly her manner. I've watched her attack Sal, for example, for having "no integrity." That's just pure personal attack with no intelligent substance behind it and having nothing to do with the discussion at hand--it's the nastiness so many women show to other women. Her exchange with Marek is on a slightly more elevated level. He's a guy and he'd have cut her out of his life long before this if she'd have taken the tone with him that she's taken with Sal or me. That's just implicit in the kind of gentleman Marek is--it's all over his tone and the tone IS the man. This whole thing about Judy is about tone.
--- Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marek, > > You know how good you and others have been in > reminding me when I go > too far? > > I'm asking you to cut Judy a break for your own > sake. As a modeling > to you, okay as a bribe to you, below, I will say > some nice words > about the War Monger and Turq just to show I can do > breaks too. > > When I post some vitriol, there's always "something" > in my daily life > that can resonate with it, and, as much as I don't > want to examine > this concept, I have to admit that I start kicking > the dogs here more > often when the dogs in my "real" life cannot be > directly whomped. > > Got any real life bow-wow-bastards pulling your > chain over there > Surfer Dude? Seems to come with the lawyer > territory. Working harder > than usual? > > Even if I have a strong case to promote here, if the > energy is > borrowed from something else, then that sublimation > is a Tad Tawdry in > Terms of one's inTegrity. My bad. > > I think Judy is maybe in my same boat. I think that > -- lately -- > she's been battered very forcefully by several > irkables here, and > that, plus my speculation that she's having > unkickable dogs in daily > life, can easily explain her shorter-than-usual > temperament. I've > been here about a year, but I think only in the last > month or so has > Judy been uncharacteristically knee-jerky and, I > think it's > unfortunate that she's been so hard pressed here by > others when maybe > all that she really needs a hug. > > I was rather surprised at how she's "written off" so > many posters here > lately. Given her red-penciling strengths, it seems > odd for her to > disengage others -- with a low personal attack -- > when she can hold > her own with such excellent attention to detail and > willingness to > document her "debate points." > > I don't get her on several of her issues. > > Why she thinks Turq's worth the sound beatings she > delivers is beyond > me, cuz he's got all his shields on red alert and > his life works for > him, so he's almost impossible to get cornered with > truth. Let him do > his posts, sez moi, cuz half the time at least he > gets out a neato > concept or two and well expressed too. But Judy's > got this decade > long fight with him, and considering his > dialog-style, I just don't > get what she thinks she can accomplish -- except > that, like me > battering the War Monger, she just does it to > protect the readers here > from his bootstrapping tissues of flimflam -- > entertaining as they can > be. > > I don't get her support of Hillary or her 9-11 > conspiracy denials, but > she sure isn't losing those debates here -- even if > she's not > converting others (not sure she would have that as a > goal.) > > In short, she's huge here, and it is a pain to see > her struggles with > so many who have benefited from her posts. > > She can't pull in those chits, but I wish she could. > > > She deserves respect, and breaks, and our > acknowledgment of her > contributions here. > > Consider that the War Monger has -- beyond all my > expectations -- > recently begun to actually engaged others here with > dialog. He just > went up three notches in my regard for him. It > could be just that > easy for Judy to you, maybe, sorta? > > Like that, Judy's past alone should have all of us > completely-notched-up by her. I'm not giving her a > license to snark > by any means, she's got to face her own emotional > integrity > challenges, but we should examine -- hard and long > -- any of our > motivations to reject her. Her brilliance alone > tells us how > approachable she is on any issue if we would only > try a little > kindness at the beginning of the dialog. > > Miss not that she's reading -- putting her precious > attention -- on > all of our minds, and what attention is placed upon > grows. Her brand > of awareness nurturing might be an emetic tonic to > some, but as quaffs > go, she only about as bitter as black coffee. > > Just needs some sugar! > > FFL without Judy would be like FFL right after L.B. > left. > > Edg > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. > > > > In my post I chose certain things to comment on; > but you > > are "appalled" that I didn't comment on more or > make points that you > > agree with. I chose to make a point, *my* point, > regarding > > Clinton's use of the Rocky Balboa analogy, but you > believe I didn't > > understand her use of it. I did, of course, but > chose to point out > > a humorous (or tragic) flaw in it. (And, yes, > there are thousands > > of "true" stories that echo and parallel the > "untrue" story that > > Senator Clinton chose to repeat many, many times. > That was an error > > made by her, a judgment flaw made by her; and one > that will be > > magnified and amplified by the media. She should > have known better.) > > > > 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. > > > > There are so many more holes in your arguments in > reply to my post > > (below) that could be addressed. But I won't. > And not because I > > don't have the intellectual chops, Judy, or the > discriminative > > ability, but rather, because I don't share your > peculiar emotional > > makeup and wish to involve myself in endless > disputes. > > > > 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, === message truncated === Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
