--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay. That was the post of the week. (maybe the month) One thing I > want to add.
Hey Steve, thanks. I know you care about this "thought venue" as I do. Early on in my posting here your positive comments set a tone for how how I thought of the "place." You continue to do that for me. As soon as someone expresses some doubt as to whether > they can continue posting here, their days are numbered. It happens > every time. Ruth indicated at some point that she was "on the > fence" whether she could continue posting here. Well "fuck her" > and "fuck Edg" when he would make the same veiled threat. What they > are saying is, "Okay group, you need to modify the conversation here > if you want me to stay" To Edg's credit he went out without some > lame parting shot. Ruth went out in a pretty classy way, putting > the blame on herself in not being able to handle Judy. But I think > we saw that coming. She always let us know that we were on thin ice. > > The tone here changed irrevecably when alt.med came on board. Many > would say that the group lost much of its charm and uniqueness which > was then replaced with pettiness and bickering. In particular, > the "feud" Posting limits were instituted, and that has helped. > Also it cut down on Lawson's incessant, obsessive posting. > > As I see it, the truffles here are buried under a little more dirt, > and we don't see them as often, but enough of them appear to keep me > interested. > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's > > > made a point of telling you how much he likes you > > > might have something to do with your positive > > > opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as > > > snark; I'm just calling your attention to > > > something that may not have occurred to you. We're > > > all inclined to think well of people who say they > > > think well of us, moi included.) > > > > > > I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts > I've > > had about the dynamic here. > > > > I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of > discussion > > here. I think the best response to not reading what interests you > > here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more > > interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain > > assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and > many > > here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's > > internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go > > beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more > special > > (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume > > again. I think it was a blind spot.) Jim and I had some pleasant > > discussions. I think he was genuinely confused that he had a > > superiority tone and didn't understand why some would not want to > > interact under that premise of relationship. So liked parts of Jim > > and that was enough to keep the ball rolling occasionally. > > > > Same with Michael. We didn't share much in would view but he was > > willing to open up and let me see his a bit and I really enjoyed > the > > ride and respected his ability to accept how far I was willing to > go > > with it all. > > > > Ruth and I shared a comfort with each other's perspective. But > > ultimately I'm not sure her interest could be sustained here. I > think > > she was genuinely interested in why people would hold some of the > > beliefs some people do here, and I remember when she first started > > interacting with Judy in fruitful discussions. I was sorry to see > > that fall apart whatever the reasons because I think they often > > brought out the best from each other. I don't blame Judy for that > > ultimately working not out. It was a fascinating unnatural mix and > > that interaction is the coolest thing that happens here IMO, but > it is > > a fragile creature and unsustainable. Judy was being Judy and that > > either works for you or it doesn't. For Ruth it didn't in the end, > > but I'm sure her mind was not going to be fulfilled here after she > had > > mined some of the groups richest intellectual veins a bit more. I > > think people who hang here are more into the process of what goes > on > > there rather than the content. I miss her perspective. > > > > Judy and Turq love their war. I've already said I am gay for both > of > > them, but the relationships are completely different. With Turq > there > > is natural affection. We know the edges of where our beliefs don't > > line up but I can't imagine a reason for us to argue about any of > it. > > We agree more than disagree, so keeping rapport is easy. But we > have > > also taken some time to get to know each other in a bit more > detail so > > our friendship online is more specific. I feel as if he has taken > the > > effort to understand what is important to me and I have done the > same. > > (how gay is that?) So even if we find something to disagree about > in > > our world view it is in a context of friendliness. > > > > With Judy it is more of an understanding rather than a natural > > comfort. Having gotten bored with my own cartoonish view of her, I > > consciously tried to see who was behind the light saber and grew to > > appreciate her POV. Not share always, but appreciate and to my > > surprise sometimes learn from it. So now even though I can be a > bit > > reactive and defensive with her, I am usually able to see > something of > > value beyond my own touchiness in our interactions that I value. > She > > has met me half way in this and it has allowed for some of the more > > fruitful discussions I have had here. I can't count on her > defaulting > > to seeing me in the best light as I can with Turq. Every > interaction > > is kind of an emotional clean slate with nothing assumed beforehand > > with her. It could always go either way. It is a bit edgy and > fun. > > > > But both of them would prefer the all out war that engages them > > together to almost any other interaction here I think. I'm just > going > > by the numbers of posts devoted to it. This may not really > represent > > an emotional preference. Their joy in enhanced by their lack of > > seeing each other in a more 3 dimensional way. They love their > anime > > co-created world. People who read it and freak out are just > dealing > > with their own conflict issues IMO. It is optional, but if you > choose > > to read it, you can often find some really entertaining verbal > > sparring from two creative, intelligent ( I am so gay) minds who > are > > fully engaged in a Tarantino like script that they have honed to a > > high art. My natural affinity with Turq does not mean that in > every > > exchange I "take his side." Many times I am more in agreement with > > Judy's point. But never in the absolute way that she might like. > I > > agree only on the specific issue sometimes, not the general "Turq > is > > bad" general overtone. (the word "bad" is in place of a series of > > invectives that would cause my laptop to overheat) And conversely, > > when I appreciate a point scored by Turq, it is not an acceptance > that > > the match is his, and that I agree with his total characterization > of > > Judy. (again "bad" will have to do) > > > > So "should" they see each other in a more friendly way, taking the > > time to get to know the good parts of each other in an Ecstasy > fueled > > rave love fest bringing a spirit of Kumbaya to FFL and through it > to > > the whole world? HELL NO! As long as you guys slug it out I will > be > > an occasional fan at the match and for those people who find this > too > > much heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. This is not Darfur, > this > > is two writers who get a kick out of mixing it up online. > > > > They don't need to change, FFL doesn't need to get > more "anything." > > It either servers your needs or it doesn't. To my surprise it has > > been a real pleasure to post and read here for quite some time. > The > > place rocks IMO. And it rocks because of every person who puts > fingers > > to keys and contributes more than a complaint that it isn't more > > "whatever." > > > > I am gay for FFL. There, I've said it! > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > > > > > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > > > > <jstein@> wrote: > > > [to Geeze:] > > > > > Look, I know you have to defend him because he's your > > > > > friend, but I've known him for almost 14 years now-- > > > > > not as long as you have, and only via this medium-- > > > > > but long enough to have a pretty clear idea of who he > > > > > is. I have never *once* seen him laugh at himself. > > > > > Maybe he does it in "real life" with people he's close > > > > > to and not threatened by, but he has a need to present > > > > > himself quite differently in this venue. > > > > > > > > He doesn't come over like that to me at all. I've > > > > seen humility in the guy on these pages many times. > > > > He's always the first to put his hand up when he makes > > > > a mistake, I'm sure if he was arrogant he wouldn't > > > > bother. > > > > > > You've apparently missed a substantial number > > > of his "mistakes." I'd say the ratio of mistakes > > > made to mistakes acknowledged is about 50:1. > > > > > > > > And enough others over the years have validated my > > > > > take on him, both in public and in private, for me to > > > > > know I'm not indulging in some purely personal fantasy > > > > > about him. He's one of the most mean-spirited, > > > > > hypocritical, dishonest, ego-driven, angry, unhappy > > > > > individuals I've ever encountered anywhere. > > > > > > > > I'm not writing this to have a go Judy, just as a > > > > different opinion from a different perspective. > > > > > > No problem, I take it as such. > > > > > > > Usually I steer well > > > > clear of your arguments as I don't think they are any > > > > of my business and I've only been here a short time > > > > so I don't know the full in's and out's. > > > > > > That could make a major difference in how you > > > perceive Barry. (And on a public forum, anything > > > anybody posts is everybody's business. Whether > > > you have any *interest* is a different question > > > entirely.) > > > > > > > And I don't feel I have to defend > > > > Barry at all, he's more than capable of looking after > > > > himself but I think your analysis here is way wide of > > > > the mark, maybe you're projecting most of this, I > > > > really don't know how you got into this state but it > > > > seems to be a hallmark of your online relationships. > > > > Can we admit that? > > > > > > I'm not sure what "state" you're referring to, > > > so you'll have to elaborate before I can comment. > > > > > > > But Judy, Mean spirited? I think the guy's all heart. > > > > Unhappy? A joke, surely. Dishonest? I don't know where > > > > you're getting this from. > > > > > > You know, I could write pages and pages with > > > illustrative examples from his posts documenting > > > meanspiritedness and dishonesty, among other > > > traits. I can't document "unhappy"; it's just a > > > very strong sense I (and others) have gotten. But > > > happy people are not typically meanspirited and > > > dishonest, etc. > > > > > > Maybe it all just boils down to the fact he doesn't > > > > like you. I've had hundreds of pleasant conversations > > > > with Barry about all sorts of things > > > > > > Barry has no problem making himself pleasant and > > > likable to people he wants to like him. But try > > > getting into a real argument with him, in which > > > you strongly challenge his perspective and don't > > > back down. You may see a different face entirely. > > > > > > , obviously we are similar > > > > in a lot of ways but I *don't* get the feeling that > > > > is the sole reason we get along. It would be boring > > > > if it was. > > > > > > > > And I agree whith Sal that anyone who blames Barry > > > > for them leaving is a bit of a sad case. > > > > > > But Barry (as well as Sal and Geeze) have no problem > > > whatsoever blaming me for Ruth leaving. Do you see a > > > bit of inconsistency there? > > > > > > People have *reasons* for leaving. That doesn't mean > > > they're claiming they didn't leave of their own > > > volition. Michael certainly didn't make such a claim, > > > nor did Ruth. > > > > > > > Maybe the real reason Jim > > > > left is because he couldn't answer Barry's tough > > > > questions? > > > > > > Barry's questions to Jim, IMHO, weren't "tough," > > > they were irrelevant. Barry wasn't making any > > > attempt to grasp what Jim had been saying, so > > > all he could come up with was non sequiturs. Jim > > > tried over and over to get him on the right track > > > but wasn't able to do so. Barry wasn't interested > > > in having a discussion; all he wanted to do was > > > put Jim down. > > > > > > > My instinct is NOT to press send here I'm not writing > > > > this to be critical or in expectation of you, or anyone, > > > > liking the Barry but just to give you the idea that > > > > some see him differently to you and and Nabluss etc. > > > > > > Fine with me. I'd just suggest that if you really > > > want to know why I see Barry as I do, you'll need > > > to follow a few of our exchanges--both sides thereof > > > --with attention. Or go back and read some of his > > > diatribes against Nabby or Lawson or any of his > > > favorite targets. His last exchange with Michael is > > > pretty revealing as well. > > > > > > You might want to have a look at my response this > > > morning to Barry's reply to Geeze (Barry's post is > > > #184320). See whose characterization of recent > > > exchanges you think is more accurate (you may have > > > to go back and look at those exchanges if you don't > > > remember exactly what went down). > > > > > > > Or maybe his Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence > > > > (TM) have blurred my brain too. > > > > > > Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's > > > made a point of telling you how much he likes you > > > might have something to do with your positive > > > opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as > > > snark; I'm just calling your attention to > > > something that may not have occurred to you. We're > > > all inclined to think well of people who say they > > > think well of us, moi included.) > > > > > >
