OK, Curtis, this is my last post of the week. You're free to continue to dissemble to your heart's content without fear of correction until Friday or Saturday.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > You know what would have worked better than another > round of bluff and bluster? Examples that would prove > your point to a reasonable person. And pointing to a > bunch of old posts with me asking you the same thing > doesn't count. You know as well as I do that the full context was crucial with regard to that exchange. "Examples" wouldn't cut it; the whole exchange was the example. You read it, then refused to acknowledge it showed exactly what I said it did. "Doesn't count" is disingenuous (right there is an "example"). It "doesn't count" only because you claim it doesn't count, not because it isn't evidence. You also know as well as I do that that exchange was highly personal between you and me; that's why nobody else got what you were doing even at the time. How much less would a "reasonable person" *now* have command of all the context necessary to see what was happening from an out-of-context "example"? More disingenuity. You demand the impossible, quite deliberately, so you can claim I haven't been able to produce. And your *response* to my citing the exchange itself-- the elaborate interpretation of my behavior that you claimed gave you "closure"--was, as I said, so convoluted in its dishonesty--its outright misrepresentations of the earlier exchange as well as the current one--that to untangle them in a post would also be impossible. In fact, I gave untangling it a shot, offline, and realized all I was doing was describing every post in the earlier exchange one by one to show the actual development and how you'd misrepresented it, because, again, the context was crucial. No point to it when the original exchange is easily available. I will give you one example from your response, what you called your "recap": "You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what set you off." A tangle of misrepresentations about what the original dispute involved. First, what I warned you not to do was to demand an explanation of why I said your first post showed that you hadn't changed from what you were like on alt.m.t. Subsequent posts show you doing *exactly that*--you even acknowledge it in what I just quoted: "trying to figure out what set you off." I warned you *not* do do this because--as should have been obvious--the reason had to do with your behavior on alt.m.t. I couldn't explain why that first post showed how you hadn't changed without referring to what you hadn't changed *from*. I didn't want to dig all that up any more than you professed not to. What you described in that first post of your experience of our alt.m.t exchanges was starkly at variance with my experience, and as such it was distinctly snarky, although you tried to pretend it had been intended as a compliment. But that first snarky post was actually not that big a deal; that's why I was willing to drop it and suggested you do the same. What "set me off" was your continued prodding after that. All this is explicitly clear from the sequence of posts in the exchange. But *even this* wasn't what I found so reprehensible. If you were willing to take the consequences of the prodding, fine with me. What was reprehensible was that you refused to acknowledge that you'd prodded me into doing what I had been trying to resist doing--describing my experience of your alt.m.t behavior--when folks were jumping on me for doing it. So that's the most recent example of your penchant for dishonesty. Let's recap: It wasn't that first snarky post; it wasn't the prodding; it was your refusal to acknowledge the prodding, allowing me to take the entire blame for prolonging the exchange. (You didn't even need to take the entire blame yourself; it would have been enough for you to say it was mutual.) Let's compare with your version already quoted above: "You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what set you off." (The interesting thing about your misrepresentations quoted above is that around a month later in email, you made it quite clear that you understood *exactly* what my beef was, and you summarily dismissed it.) Anyway, that's just one example of the disingenuity of your "closure" post. It was relatively self- contained, but look how long and complicated it was to demonstrate. If I'm in the mood, I may see if I can find some examples from other threads and post them this weekend. But your kind of disingenuity typically involves little twists and leaps and sidesteps and corkscrews and ambiguities and strategic omissions that are very difficult to untangle and require a lot of context, like the quote above. It's also hard to locate them with Yahoo's still-crippled search feature. I'd have to be able to recall a specific word or phrase in the thread. You are, of course, aware of all this. It's why you keep demanding "examples" and claim I'm making it all up if I don't provide any or just refer you to a specific sequence of posts. So if I can't find something quickly that's self- contained enough to deal with briefly, I'm not gonna bother. But I stand by what I've said.
