--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
> > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > might want to think about whether you really > wanted to set me off. ME set YOU off. Thanks for giving me all your power. > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept > working at it, and eventually you succeeded. Everybody needs a dream. I wanted to be the one person in the history of a TM discussion board to set you off. It was an almost insurmountable task and I know that many had failed in the past, but I put my heart and soul into it. Yup. One might even say you were a victim. > > > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > > which failed since everyone could read all the posts > > and decide for themselves. > > Most people don't read the posts carefully enough to > be able to analyze what's going on in an exchange like > this. You knew they hadn't gotten it. You engineered > the whole thing, getting back at me for our alt.m.t > clashes. And that was despite the effort I made when > you first joined us here to be cordial. > Nice taking responsibility there Judy. What an evil genius I must be in your mind. And you even know my motive for my diabolical scheme! I had nothing to get you back for from the past, I had a blast on AMT and your relentless attacks were a part of it. I told you that when I joined here. The consensus opinion at the time did not follow your evil Curtis angle. I seem to have much more respect for the ability of the posters here to see through any such bizarre schemes than you do. What went on was obvious and not too subtle for a casual reader to grasp. I was disappointed by your reaction then as I am now. Snip > It was Curtis-created. And my expectation was that > you'd tell the truth about how it developed. That was very weird Judy. We will never see eye to eye on this. > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > snip[ > > > > > > > > > > Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses > > > > > your behavior? > > > > > > > > You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people > > > > who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when > > > > I came here. The tribe spoke and you got voted off. > > > > Deal with it. > > > > > > We could go back and look at that, Curtis, if you like. > > > > > > What actually happened > > > > You are expressing your POV which differs from mine. It > > is very revealing that you would think of it as what > > "actually" happened. > > Unbelievable. It's exactly what happened. Anybody can > go back and verify it for themselves. > > > was that I was trying to *avoid* > > > a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went > > > right ahead anyway. > > > > What exactly do you think "laying" off might mean in a > > public board? > > Same thing it means anywhere else. Don't play stupid. > > > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > might want to think about whether you really > wanted to set me off. > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept > working at it, and eventually you succeeded. > > > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > > which failed since everyone could read all the posts > > and decide for themselves. > > Most people don't read the posts carefully enough to > be able to analyze what's going on in an exchange like > this. You knew they hadn't gotten it. You engineered > the whole thing, getting back at me for our alt.m.t > clashes. And that was despite the effort I made when > you first joined us here to be cordial. > > > I've never understood why you took such offense to me > > telling you that I used to get pissed off at you and it > > made me write more back in the ALT Med era. I remember > > that as a key point in the breaking of our initial rapport. > > You bet it was. See post #97718 to refresh your > memory. You turned tail and ran after that. > > > You expected me to bail you out of your own self-created > > mess. > > It was Curtis-created. And my expectation was that > you'd tell the truth about how it developed. > > > You are still trying this routine in blaming me for > > NOT getting involved in your Barry deal as if it is > > a ethical failing to not get involved. > > It's an ethical failing in my book not to defend > someone who's being viciously lied about. But it > wouldn't have come up if you hadn't done your whine > about my quoting you. > > <snip> > > > Oh, please, Curtis. Your whole "mommy/daddy" riff > > > was a whine about how you were being victimized by > > > my quoting you in a post to Barry. That you put a > > > humorous spin on it doesn't change what you were > > > communicating. > > > > You missed my point. By expressing that it made me > > feel icky to have my points used as weapons in your > > game I was rejecting the role of victim. > > Who offered you the role of victim? As I said before, > I've *never* seen anybody complain about being > "victimized" because somebody quoted them in a post > to someone else, unless they were misrepresented, > which you were not. If you felt "icky," that was > something you offered yourself. > > <snip> > > But I am beginning to come around to the idea that my > > victim theory my not be completely fair. Perhaps your > > responses are how you avoid being a victim just as it > > is for me. > > It never *occurs* to me to consider myself a victim. > That's just ludicrous. > > > So I am reconsidering this charge. But you do portray > > yourself the victim of Barry's "bad behavior" frequently > > so I am still not sure. > > As I already said: There's a difference between > portraying oneself as a victim and portraying someone > else as a (would-be) victimizer. I'm doing the latter. > I often use Barry's attacks on me as examples of his > attempts to victimize because there's so many of > them, but I don't limit myself to those by any means. > > > > I could dig up plenty of other instances of your > > > complaining about how you're being treated. And you > > > just got done complaining about Nabby calling you > > > an idiot, remember? > > > > I didn't complain about Nabby's typically mean-spirited > > remark. I used it as a counter example to your claim that > > you would jump in if people said unfair things to me. > > That's a ridiculous counter-example, for reasons I > already pointed out. > > > You made the claim to make it seem reasonable that you > > should judge me negatively for NOT jumping into your > > feud fixation. As if this is everyone's moral duty here. > > I object to that expectation and ensuing judgment. > > You're right, I *do* consider it a moral duty. I do it > pretty frequently. I've even defended *Barry* from > unfair attacks. > > I don't typically defend anybody from folks like Nabby > and Willytex and Off_World, for reasons that should be > obvious. I do do it with people who are generally > taken seriously. > > > We all pick our battles. > > > > I am not even saying that you should stop the Barry thing, > > you enjoy it so it is none of my business. But I choose > > to stay out of it and feel weird if what I write gets used > > in the battle. > > That belongs entirely to you. Don't try to lay it on me. > > <snip> > > > > I don't enjoy your shame vibe. > > > > > > So it's perfectly OK for you to send a shame vibe my > > > way by suggesting I was making you feel bad by > > > quoting you in a post to Barry, and by pinning the > > > "grudge" and "victimhood" labels on me, but it's not > > > OK for me to point out what you're doing, right? > > > > Everything is OK here. That is the fun of a public forum. > > Which you don't enjoy when you're the target of a > "shame vibe." Do you read over your posts before > you send them? > > > But I don't shame people for NOT acting according to my > > expectation here. You do. I find your self-serving moral > > imperative to be annoying and overly judgmental. > > It isn't "self-serving." I practice what I preach. > > > I am judging you for what you do here which I consider > > fair game. > > But (again) it's wrong of me, in your mind, for me > to judge you for what you do. (And don't play do/don't do > word games. Behavior is as much what one doesn't do as > what one does do.) > > > And yes I do believe you still hold a grudge that goes > > back to my first posts. You pretty much confirmed that > > in this post. > > I keep having to repeat myself: it's not a grudge if > the offense is ongoing. > > > > With or > > > > without horselaughs you are portraying yourself as a > > > > victim and I'm not buying it. It has become part of > > > > your identity now and challenging it meets with > > > > survival level push-back. > > > > > > There's a difference, Curtis, between feeling that > > > one is a victim and portraying someone else as a > > > (would-be) victimizer. "Victimhood" is most definitely > > > *not* part of my identity; I have way too much self- > > > esteem for that. You're damn right I'm going to push > > > back at the accusation and point out that it's > > > designed to relieve you of any responsibility for your > > > behavior. > > > > Or more accurately, my lack of joining your shame > > campaign against Barry. This is what bothered you. > > Totally wrong. As I've already said, the problem is > that you stick your nose in when you feel like it > and issue all sorts of judgments about it without > having read enough of it to come up with a fair > evaluation. You're trying to connect two different > threads in this discussion. > > > It was a bit slippery to try to shift it into a > > "behavior." > > Non sequitur. > > > It sets me up since I am unlikely to see things your way > > and act according to your expectation. And you get offended, > > not from what I do, but for what I fail to do. Can you see > > why such an expectation is unreasonable here? > > Nope. You clearly don't think you should have to be > your brother's/sister's keeper. That's your choice > of how to live your life, but I sure don't have to > respect it. > > (And don't play games with the word "keeper," please. > In this context, it means being concerned for the > welfare of others.) >
