--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Aw Judy it's a lot of work, you didn't have to go to all that trouble just for me. I just keep on keeping on and if something happens to make me change my mind about someone that's when it happens, not when other people insist they aren't what I think. Sure Barry has got strong opinions about a lot of things, it's obvious, I don't always agree but I don't *need* to, it'd be dull as anything if we all thought the same about everything and everyone. I don't expect to get along with everyone I meet, all I can do is try to meet people half-way on things but it takes two or it's destined to fail. I've met people I consider unreachable, best to just ignore them or you're always compromising yourself to get along. Agree to disagree, what does it matter? As I always say: It won't mean shit when the sun blows up. > 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 > > <no_reply@> 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 <no_reply@> 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. >
