It's Sunday, time for the weekly tortured "debate" autopsy from Judy at FFL.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Notice that Curtis fails to acknowledge his error in > > > > > eagerly adopting Barry's ass-backwards interpretation > > > > > of my question to Curtis as to whether "The Simpsons" > > > > > and "The Family Guy" were funny, or mean. > > > > > > > > Actually it was his analysis of your shifting of the > > > > discussion from the topic to "Curtis is bad because..." > > > > that interested me about Barry's post. > > > > > > I'll deal with this bit of nonsense and the rest of > > > the post later. Here I want to address one point: > > > > > > > The fact that you failed to make it clear that you had > > > > never seen the shows is irrelevant to me. > > > > > > > > > Nor does Curtis acknowledge what he knows to be the > > > > > case (yes, Joe, "knows," because he's been the one > > > > > directly involved in this discussion) that virtually > > > > > everything *else* Barry said about that discussion > > > > > was factually wrong. (Specific documentation on > > > > > request.) > > > > > > > > You are not going to get away with this dodge Judy. Both > > > > Barry and I didn't know you had never seen the Simpsons > > > > and you let us know. Pin on a medal for being right about > > > > something we couldn't have known from your writing and > > > > move on, unless you are trying to sidestep the important > > > > points. > > > > > > Too funny. You're in Barry's Master of Inadvertent > > > Irony territory here, Curtis. > > > > > > That I hadn't seen the shows was the *least* of > > > Barry's "mistakes" in that post and is indeed > > > irrelevant to the actual issues I dealt with in my > > > response. > > > > > > The biggie > > > > For you. > > > > was that he assumed I was suggesting the > > > shows were "mean," when in fact I was suggesting > > > they were *funny*. > > > > None of it mattered because we didn't know you hadn't > > seen the shows. > > And *I'm* the sophist in this discussion?? Wow. > > Curtis: > "I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the Simpsons > and the Family Guy. > > "I have a feeling this is a Curtis-only policy." > > Me: > "Are they really funny, or are they just mean?" > > Translation: If they're really funny, no, my disapproval > wouldn't extend to those shows. What I disapprove of is > *mean* mockery. If they're not really funny, if they're > mean, then, yes, my disapproval would extend to them. > > Translation of translation: Whether I've seen them doesn't > matter. I stated my criteria for disapproval, which is > what you were asking about. > > > Once we knew that your point is moot. Who cares if you > > think something is funny if you haven't seen it. > > I *assume* they're funny because they're so popular. > That isn't an unreasonable assumption. But that wasn't > the point anyway; you weren't asking me whether I > thought the shows were funny. My "policy" would be the > same whether they were funny or mean. > > > I didn't need to address it. > > You needed to acknowledge that it wasn't a "Curtis-only > policy." It was a mean-only policy. You're hardly the > only person who mocks religion in a mean way. > > You asked a question about my "policy." I answered it. > Barry assumed I was implying the shows were mean and > based his entire lengthy demonization rant on that > mistaken assumption. You congratulated and thanked him > for it when you *should* have guessed from my Carlin > comment that I wasn't doing that at all. > > <snip> > > Barry said a lot of things. I focused on the fact that > > he hit my main beef with you in this exchange which was > > to shift the conversation to me being mean. > > Nooooo, you didn't. You said: > > "Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my > life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man. Now I can > get back to this Blind Boy Fuller song I'm working one with > nothing to add here." > > No "focusing on" anything there, sorry. Just a blanket > seal of approval, nothing you needed to add. He'd said it > all. > > And even so, Barry didn't say anything about my having > "shifted the conversation" to you being mean. According > to him, that's all I was *ever* talking about from the > start. Which, as you know, was not the case. So that > excuse goes into the crapper as well. > > <snip> > > You did shift our discussion of challenging religious > > claims into a discussion of "bad Curtis." I have come to > > expect this from you and when it happens I usually state > > my case and you have the last word which is fine with me. > > Let's have a look at this. You told Willytex that if he > didn't believe and follow every word of every scripture, > he had made the same choices you had. > > I commented that--"speaking for myself" was the phrase I > used--I didn't believe *any* scripture, but that I chose > not to insult and demean religious people. So our choices > were different in that regard. > > *That* is where you took offense. That's where the > discussion "shifted." But here's the fun part: I didn't > shift it, *you* did. I had just made a side comment on > your post to Willytex about *my* choices, but all of a > sudden the discussion became about how I was portraying > you as "Bad Curtis." > > You and Barry started batting around the term "mockery" > as if that's what I had been focusing on. You claimed I > was shielding religious people as if they were "delicate > children whose feelings must not be hurt by someone > challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable evidence." > > Which was a crock, as I said. And when I objected to > that crock, you pretended you had been referring to my > criticizing you for indulging in mockery. That was also > a crock. I had only mentioned mockery once at that > point, to describe your use of the term "special," which > sounded to me like the Church Lady (you subsequently > denied that). > > Since *you* had shifted the discussion to mockery, I then > explained why I thought mockery was less effective than > addressing behavior and made the distinction between funny > and mean, the latter being the least effective of all. And > then the discussion became entirely about how I had said > you were mean--after a good dozen posts from each of us in > which that had never come up. > > Man, once you've decided to confuse an issue, you do a > really fine job of it. It's virtually impossible to > untangle so as to show what actually went on. > > And if I take a stab at it, as I've done above (and > I've had to leave out a *lot* of your fancy two-stepping > and misrepresentation), you conveniently bow out of the > discussion with some dismissive remark, as you'll do > this time as well. > > You can take your sophistry and shove it where the sun > don't shine. Once again, *you* know I know what you've > done and how you've done it. You just trust that nobody > else will see through it. And you're probably right. >
