--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > And of course Curtis and Barry both, when it > > served their self-interest, have insisted that > > similar records of words on a page represent > > what actually happened. > > When if comes to my motives, which was what was most > in question here, I do claim to be the authority. > I know what I felt at the time, why I wrote things, > and how weirded out I got seeing it go so far off > the rails from my own intention.
Here's what I said "actually happened": "What actually happened was that I was trying to *avoid* a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went right ahead anyway. Folks jumped on me for continuing to try to provoke you when in fact it was just the opposite. You knew that, and you let me take what you knew was a bad rap." This was in response to your reframing: "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." Which conveniently *leaves out* what's so clearly on the record--that I was *restraining* myself from giving you shit, suggesting that you drop it. But you insisted. And that's what folks jumped on me for, giving you the shit I wanted to withhold but that *you* insisted I provide. That is unquestionably what actually happened. Yes, your "motives" per se are my speculation. But your attempt here to reframe what happened doesn't exactly do anything to call that speculation in question. (And BTW, you didn't need to "argue" with anybody, just point out that I had been reluctant but you pushed me into it.)
