> (And if John is so conditioned by the lack of good > will between us that he has to respond with such > hostility, what does that say about Barry's claim > that the "grudge" is all on my side?)
I don't think that the grudge is only on your side. I disagree with Barry on that. > > > I hope you will think about this a bit Judy and be > > honest with yourself. I'm willing to speak up if > > someone takes an unfair shot at you first. > > Ah, Curtis, but you don't. Barry's comment was a > whole series of unfair and blatantly untrue shots, > yet you decided to go after my response to him > instead. I'll think about why this is. Maybe it is because I feel you guys are even. Not that Barry doesn't often shoot first, I believe he does. But trying to go behind you to "correct" things seems pretty pointless to me. It is true that if you took such a shot at me I might be less reactive because we have established a history of civil posts. Not that you can't get me to react defensively, but that I am inclined to see it with a different balance in our total communication. I don't feel that you have seething contempt for me. (Please don't correct me if this is wrong, this belief is working for me!) I sense that John seems willing to discuss thing on a less hostile level. It might lead to some good discussions between you if you chose to pursue it. I don't believe you and Barry will ever achieve a more cordial relationship, or even want to. But I'll bet you and John could generate some interesting discussions if the contempt (mutal) could be ratcheted down. > Evidently that last is true. But John is promoting > himself here as a therapist, and he certainly didn't > react like one. He isn't posting here as anyone's therapist. He is just a guy with computer here. Expecting him to act as if you are having a client session with him seems like an unfair shot at his professional life. Who of us really wants to be judged in our professions for some of the crap we sling here? He reacted in a personal way loaded with the weight of personal history with you. I don't expect either of you to disregard your humanness with all its pettiness while posting here. On reflection I think I should amend my claim to speak up for you when someone posts something unfair about you. It will probably exclude the Barry and Judy show. I like you both for different reasons and getting involved with that has no upside for me. Getting involved with that would require reading a lot of material that doesn't interest me between you guys. You have Raunchy and now ED in your corner for backup. I think that has added some helpful balance to your experience posting here. You'll notice that although I don't try to defend you, I also don't pile on even when I agree with Barry. So I'll try to pull a Switzerland to the best of my ability. We all have to chase our own muse here, and deal with our own personal demons I guess. I've got mine and you've got yours. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > There is no question who started this fight, and > > > > why. > > > > > > Right, John did, wildly overreacting to a little > > > tweak from me. > > > > How many times have you protested to this group that > > Barry "started" a rally of exchanges by insulting > > you Judy? That your reaction was compelled by his > > negitive characterization of you that you HAD to > > correct in the name of fairness? > > First, I'll note that you carefully refrain from > chiding Barry for any of the misstatements in his > post I was responding to. > > Second, Barry's insults are rarely as mild as my > tweak of John. > > Third, there was no "correction" called for in that > tweak, unlike most of Barry's insults, which > typically involve gross distortions and/or lies. > > > Your shot at John was just that, a shot. Trying to > > spin it as a "tweek" doesn't work given your history > > of rancor. (on both sides) > > Tweak, shot, what's the difference?? How about "jab"? > "Prod"? "Dig"? "Poke"? > > > I also don't buy characterizing his reaction as "wildly > > overreacting." > > We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. > > Like my big brother in the backseat of > > the family car just "tweeking" my ear with his finger, > > the result was predicable. > > "Predictable" and "overreaction" aren't mutually > exclusive. > > Your response was unfriendly > > and unflattering and he took it just how you meant it and > > responded to the unfriendliness in your intent. You guys > > don't have any good will to ride on to feign innocence at > > the reaction. > > Evidently that last is true. But John is promoting > himself here as a therapist, and he certainly didn't > react like one. > > He *could* have responded as you would have done had > the tweak/shot been directed at you: acknowledge with > a chuckle the irony of what I pointed out, thus > defusing any perceived unfriendliness. > > (And if John is so conditioned by the lack of good > will between us that he has to respond with such > hostility, what does that say about Barry's claim > that the "grudge" is all on my side?) > > > I hope you will think about this a bit Judy and be > > honest with yourself. I'm willing to speak up if > > someone takes an unfair shot at you first. > > Ah, Curtis, but you don't. Barry's comment was a > whole series of unfair and blatantly untrue shots, > yet you decided to go after my response to him > instead. >
