"Your hypocrisy is stunning, Curtis. You've seen the misogynistic vomit (including death threats) hurled at me and raunchydog and other women who attempt to post here, not to mention at Hillary and Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain and even Jackie Kennedy."
Was *actual vomit* being hurled at us? Of course not. Only words can be hurled on an electronic forum. "Misogynistic vomit" was obviously a metaphor, and so, equally obviously, was the reference to "death threats" as part of this metaphorical vomit. Stop the muthaf'n presses. This is your lame attempt to backpedal on your ridiculous accusation that someone had made death threats? You have had many opportunities to deny this inflammatory, and now we know, consciously FALSE claim. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you dodged the question. No it wasn't "obvious" since I have asked you to provide examples and they didn't hold up. Now you want to try to pull a it-was-only-a-metaphor bullshittery on us. Listen Judy, I am more of a fan of your writing here than most. There are plenty of things we disagree with, and you often turn me off with your caustic posting style. But on a balance you are a contributor whose posts (with Barry directed posts exempted) I usually read and often learn from. But this was over the top and you should have backed down from such an absurd claim long ago IMO. You got caught spinning some bullshit Judy. I will be interested to see how you handle this. I have never seen you back down from one of these kinds of examples in the past. But I am open to a first. I'll even overlook your calling me a hypocrite when all the time it was you who earned the 'H" word. For trying to bullshit this group on an ugly, and now we know FALSE, accusation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" > <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <jstein@> wrote: > > > I'll be happy to explain how I was using the > > > term "death threats" and why Barry's finely > > > crafted definition and his humor excuse don't > > > apply, if anybody is interested. > > > > Do tell. > > > > > I doubt anyone will be, and that's fine, except > > > in that case, they aren't in a position to have > > > an opinion on whether my claim is valid. > > > > Since I'm on Barry's hit list, I'm VERY interested. > > I don't mean it in the sense that you or I need > to be worried that Barry's going to come after > us with a flamethrower, or hire someone to do so, > or was urging someone to do so. > > That was never the point, and Barry is well aware > of it. > > My original post that threw Barry into such a > tizzy was in response to Curtis insisting that the > men on this forum couldn't possibly be accused of > misogyny because they all had "loving relationships > with the women in their lives," and that the only > men we had real reason to distrust were religious > fanatics who hated sex (and therefore women). I > wrote, in part (in post 194534): > > "Your hypocrisy is stunning, Curtis. You've seen the > misogynistic vomit (including death threats) hurled > at me and raunchydog and other women who attempt to > post here, not to mention at Hillary and Sarah Palin > and Cindy McCain and even Jackie Kennedy." > > Was *actual vomit* being hurled at us? Of course > not. Only words can be hurled on an electronic > forum. "Misogynistic vomit" was obviously a > metaphor, and so, equally obviously, was the > reference to "death threats" as part of this > metaphorical vomit. > > Barry's a writer; he knows what a metaphor is. So > his frenzied denials were bogus from the start. > > "Dumb angry cunts too stupid to live" to whom > "something more drastic may happen...[they may] > actually burst into flame" are Barry's metaphors > for his hatred of women he finds threatening. > > That's what he's desperately trying to cover up > with all his hysterical rants and now even, if > you can believe it, threats of legal action! > > He realizes he went just a little too far and > opened up more of a window than he should have > into his twisted mind. He was hoping folks > would overlook it, and when I called attention > to it, he panicked. > > His excuse that it was all a "joke" is irrelevant. > "Pants on fire," which he claims is what he was > leading up to, is a non sequitur, since neither > of us has done any lying. > > But more importantly, fantasies of the violent > death of people toward whom someone has repeatedly > and quite seriously expressed the deepest hatred > simply don't qualify as jokes--even if they're > actually funny. > > Barry *can* be quite funny when he's just having > a good time and isn't all riled up about > something. You can always tell when he's in one > of his vile, hateful moods, because his attempts > at humor are lame-o: leaden and contrived. >
