--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > > > > showing that for you this proved a point about TM people. > > > > > > > One that is bogus as I have pointed out. > > > > > > > > You just said you *accepted* it. Make up your mind. > > > > > > I accept they gave because of their good intentions > > > towards the people in Haiti and not to prove a point. > > > I do not accept to point about how "interesting" it > > > was that non TMer didn't. > > > > That is not what I said was "interesting." You made > > that up. > > OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that > it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all > about non TM people not giving.
*You* said "ONLY." I said "all." One more time: My point was that contrary to Barry's sliming, TMers are happy to do what they can to help out. > You don't see those two things as connected. If what you're after is emphasizing the "flip side," as you go on to put it, sure. That wasn't what I was after. Perhaps you mean that what was > interesting about it was that the TM people who had been > demonized as non givers came through? My point was more general, but that did happen to be the case. <snip> > Feeling sorry for people is not the reason people give? > You asked me why I thought TM people gave. Because you had asked *me* that, and while it was clear you had something in mind, it wasn't clear what. Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. Your response didn't make sense in terms of the question I was asking, and you know it. <snip> > > That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say > > "I'm glad you got to donate" as if I might *not* have > > gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. > > It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. > It was a turn of phrase Which didn't make sense. <snip> > > Curtis. See if you can give a straight answer. Why did > > you ask why it was that TMers donated to the fund? > > Do you mean originally what I asked? > > "Very interesting indeed. Can anyone else guess why > that was?" > > Because its flip side of your "interesting" point was > that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. > I am a non TMer so I didn't want it to look like we are > charity deadbeats. As I immediately confirmed before you'd said anything to that effect. > You say that was not your point, but it was only the TM > side of the equation that was interesting? Right. > OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. > You made the point that the TMers on this board gave > to Haiti exclusively, although the reason I gave that > you felt sorry for the people makes no sense to you. Disingenuous. It made no sense in context. See above. > I made the point that non TMers here might have other > channels to give that didn't involve you. No, *I* made that point. In response to your original question, I said I was sure many non-TMers had donated on their own hook, remember? We all had "other channels to give," of course. But since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd think that would be one issue we could come together on, wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as possible. Even if all the non-TMers had already given through other channels, you'd think they could make at least a token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no problem. But many here certainly could.) I think it was because they didn't want to participate in a TMer-initiated effort. > I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all > the Barry is bad too parts. Of course you are. Hypocrite. I'm going to leave it in, though: > > > > > And an anti-Barry issue at that by your own admission. > > > > This is hilarious. In the process of correcting Barry's > > misrepresentation of how the fund drive started in his > > post to you, I went back and read his posts at the time. > > They were *vicious* attacks on TMers, and on me and > > Raunchy and Nabby specifically, much worse than what he > > said recently about TMers never doing anything to help > > people that I was commenting on. > > > > I wouldn't expect you to go back and look at his posts, > > or at my post correcting his current misrepresentations > > in his post to you. You don't want to know what a piece > > of slime he is. > > > > But it's just fine by you for him to attack us. If we > > criticize him in return, well, that's an *agenda* that > > somehow invalidates anything we say. Hypocrite. > > > > <snip> > > > > > Judy > > > > > > There was no need to ask "why that was." The *only* point > > > > > > I was making was that TMers aren't slackers about doing > > > > > > their bit, contrary to the impression your pal Barry > > > > > > tried to create. > > > > > > > > > > That wasn't your ONLY point. You have neglected to mention > > > > > your other point which was : > > > > > > > > > > Judy > Interestingly, the donors were all TMers. > > > > > > > > Same point, of course. What did you imagine was > > > > different about it? > > > > No response from Curtis... > > > > <snip> > > > > That's where your digging has taken you, Curtis. I made > > > > a simple, obvious, incontestable point, > > > > > > It was the "interesting" comment that betrayed you. > > > > You've betrayed yourself by pretending I was talking > > about non-TMers. You can't explain why you interpreted > > what I wrote as somehow "different" from the point I > > was making. See immediately above. > > > > <snip> > > > and you decided > > > > to challenge it just to pick a fight. That rarely works > > > > out well for you. > > > > > > I was calling you out for trying to make a donation fund > > > a pawn in your games. > > > > Right, you didn't think it was appropriate for me to > > counter Barry's slurs against TMers by pointing out > > that we'd donated to the fund. But Barry's slurs are > > just fine with you. Hypocrite.
