Hugo and Geeze have expressed doubt as to whether Barry is, as I've claimed, dishonest and meanspirited.
Hugo, following is a bunch of examples from Barry's two most recent posts. Geeze, just this single response from me constitutes several pages of what you didn't believe I could produce. #184410 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've noticed a trend lately in the flurry of "Pile > On Barry" posts. One of the things that each of the > posters have complained of is that some other posters > on Fairfield Life actually *like* me, or enjoy some > of my posts. > > Michael complained of it in his "parting shot." He > specifically talked about how threatened he was by > this, and interpreted it as me "dominating" the forum. For the record, here's Michael talking about how "threatened he was by this": "Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical argument." Note Michael says "TRIES to dominate" the group. Also, it's obviously not a matter of his being "threatened" by people "liking" Barry or "enjoying some of his posts," it's that Barry's posts depend on his "literary eloquence" at the expense of logic, making it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with him. > Judy has made almost a *career* of complaining when > one of my posts strikes a resonance with people here. > When they respond positively to something I have > written, her response is *always* the same -- to > attempt to shift that positivity into negativity, > aimed at me. Blatantly false. I did this once recently, but I can't even remember the previous instance, and neither can Barry. I actually do it very rarely. > Richard Williams and Shemp don't say it outright, but > if you track the posts in which they lash out at me, > seemingly at random, I think you'll see that they > *aren't* random. They always follow a post of mine > that has gotten a favorable response from someone, > or that has made a few people laugh. Same with Nabby > and Jim. A little paranoia here, it looks like, not to mention a large dose of self-importance. I'd be willing to bet a considerable amount that they *are* entirely random. Note that nowhere in either of these two posts (or anywhere else, for that matter) in which Barry is vigorously defending himself does he give any hint that he ever considers the possibility that people "lash out at" him because he lies, exhibits gross hypocrisy, or butchers logic--in other words, that there's a good reason for them to criticize him. As far as he's concerned, it's all because we just don't like him, and heck, there's nothing he can do about that, right? #184404 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" > <steve.sundur@> wrote: <snip> > > What they are saying is, "Okay group, you need to > > modify the conversation here if you want me to stay" > > I agree in principle, but with a change in what they > were *really* trying to do. They decided to leave > because they didn't enjoy the dynamic on FFL any more, > but AS they went they each wanted to take one last > "parting shot" at someone they didn't like, in an > attempt to get other people to not like them, too. > > Ruth took her "parting shot" at Judy. > > Judy responded by trying to create a diversion, invoking > a McCarthyeaque parting shot that was made to her in > private by Michael, and which worked on her because she > *already* didn't like me. She wanted to make that public > in an attempt to get *other* people to not like me, and > to shift people's attention away from Ruth. A blatant, knowing lie. My comment about Michael was jsut an aside in response to another of Barry's knowing lies--in his post to Ruth about what a terrible person I was--that I always try to run strong women off any forum I'm on (I've documented that this last was a lie in another post.) Far from trying to shift people's attention away from Ruth, the rest of the post was largely about Ruth leaving and my previously excellent relationship with her. I also discussed this in a post responding to Geeze pretending to have emails from Ruth that contradicted it. As I said in an earlier post, I'm happy to discuss Ruth and her leaving FFL as much as anybody wants. That escalated > into Jim taking *his* parting shot (revealing in the pro- > cess that he was reading FFL obsessively and communicating > via "channeling" while pretending to have unsubscribed) > and Michael doing exactly the same thing. Another blatant, knowing lie. Actually, the only reason Jim and Michael emailed the moderators was in response to Barry's meltdown trying to figure out who I had been referring to when I said someone had left because of him, and his repeated accusations that I had made it up. Had Barry not freaked out about this and started attacking me and calling me a liar, they wouldn't have written the emails. <snip> > > Ruth went out in a pretty classy way, putting the blame > > on herself in not being able to handle Judy. > > *Mainly* on herself. I agree that that was the focus of > what she said, but it was still a "parting shot" at Judy. > Not that the insane bitch (Judy) didn't deserve it. She > *purposefully* harassed Ruth by responding to pretty much > anything she posted, attempting to suck her back into a > head-to-head argument. Totally, utterly, completely, blatantly false, and Barry knows it. Check the record. > Ruth left because she knew that she couldn't resist the > constant taunting. There was no "constant taunting," and Barry knows it. Check the record. > > The tone here changed irrevecably when alt.med came > > on board. > > Yes it did, and for that I take some responsibility. > I did mention this forum on FFL. At the same time, I > *specifically said that it was IMO a better forum, > and that the conversations were better there, but at > the same time, I *begged* a.m.t.ers to leave their > baggage at home if they wanted to check it out. > > They didn't. Judy and Lawson brought it with them, and > attempted to turn FFL into a.m.t. To my discredit, I > fell into the routine enough that I helped them do so, > by responding to their consistent attempts to make > *every* conversation an "argument starter." This is *such* a blatant and absolutely outrageous lie, you can only shake your head in amazement. The person who did the most, by far, to turn FFL into alt.m.t is none other than Barry. This becomes clear as crystal if you go back and review the traffic for May and June 2005. Just look at my posts for those two months. <snip> > I, for one, have to stand up for Lawson lately. He still > has the occasional overreactive "got my buttons pushed" > posting binge, but he's been MUCH more reasonable in > recent months, and has contributed some good stuff IMO. > I think that some of Judy's recent vehemence and over- > the-top-ness is because she's not HAPPY that Lawson isn't > as much of a kneejerk fundamentalist as he used to be, > and that makes it all the more obvious that she and Nabby > are pretty much the only ones left. Barry (and everyone else here who reads my posts) knows this is a ludicrous characterization of me. And as far as Lawson is concerned, I couldn't be more delighted that he's moderated his tone. <snip> > I posted a little yesterday morning, and then took off > and had an enjoyable day in Barcelona, ending with a > concert under the stars by Loreena McKennitt. I came > home to find that Judy had basically gone insane again > trying her best to get people to dislike me to the same > extent she does. Translation: What Barry found was that I had, as I typically do, exposed a large bunch of his lies and pointed out his gross hypocrisy in claiming he doesn't give a shit what people say about him. This current post, of course, is another in the ever-growing sequence of recent posts defending himself from what others have said about him. > While I don't think that it is *possible* to dislike me > as much as she does, and that she has thus set herself > an impossible task :-), at the same time I don't think > it's ever going to change. There is NOTHING I can possibly > do to change the focus of this insane person's obsession. Actually, it would be very easy for Barry to get me off his back: stop telling lies, stop attacking TMers, and strive for a balance between "literary eloquence" and logic in his posts. <snip> > By now everyone has noticed the change that comes over her > when the name of Andrew Skolnick or John Knapp comes up. > She basically LOSES it, and goes ballistic on them, even > though John rarely crosses her radar and Andrew hasn't *for > over a decade*. And she *still* hates them so much that she > loses all control when their name comes up. Blatantly false. Check the record. > Some have agreed with her, and whenever she launches one > of her "Gotta Get Barry" campaigns, they "pile on" like > the mindless little robots they are. You all know who you > are; I listed your names specifically in a post yesterday. Also blatantly false. Check the record. > If that's what gets her off, and her buddies-in-demonization > off, so be it. I'm not going to worry about it, or them. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Says Barry, after a whole long string of tirades worrying about what folks are saying about him.
