--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.>
I think you got an important thing wrong here. Although I don't want to get in
the middle of the feud, I don't care if you guys keep it up. I don't enjoy
reading it because it is not a match for how I see you two. It harshes my
buzz. But I am in control of what I read so I don't have to worry about what
you guys write.
If I gave the impression that either of you should stop, that would be
incorrect. How you choose to relate to each other is none of my business.
And talking to either of you here does not cause or allow or activate you guys
to act the way you do towards each other, so I'm not accepting any co-dependent
rap for your style of interaction.
I'll continue to interact with each of you in the way I choose ignoring how
each of you uses posts to me to take swings at the other. I am only interested
in ones that are directed toward me which are thankfully very few these days.
>
> "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it
> make the sound of Barry lying?"
>
> Many on this forum have said that they are tired of the "Barry-Judy
> feud," and would like it to end. I contend that some of them are talking
> through their hats, and that *they* are one of the primary reasons it
> continues. In this post, I will propose a way that I think that *they*
> could help to end this "feud" forever, by simply refusing to participate
> in it.
>
> I think that the koan above presents the case I'm going to make in this
> post. I think that the "Barry-Judy feud" to some extent exists primarily
> in the mind of the person who is obsessed with...uh...Barry. That
> obsession is never going to end. Judy continues to feel the need to post
> "corrective" or "deserved putdown" responses to anything I post, and
> does so even when I don't reply to them. As others have commented, she
> does the same thing *even when I am no longer on the forum*.
>
> But that's just one sad, lonely, obsessive old woman, hardly a "feud."
> WHY do occasional "outbreaks" of the old "feud" back-and-forth mentality
> still "break out" on FFL from time to time, as they have in her recent
> discussions with Curtis?
>
> My contention is that the reason for this is that Curtis is *allowing*
> the feud to resurface, and even *enabling* it to do so by allowing
> himself to be sucked in to Judy's "gotta get Barry" obsession. My
> contention is that Curtis -- as much as I like him -- is allowing
> himself to be a codependent enabler.
>
> The game, as I see it, is this. Judy feels the need to keep dumping on
> Barry. *Forget* the WHY of this; it's simply obvious *that* she feels
> this need, and on the level of an obsessive compulsion. But in recent
> months she has become frustrated because she can't draw me into the
> one-on-one confrontation and extended argument with her that she wants.
> So what she *does* about this is to glom onto a discussion on some other
> topic altogether ("Does a tree falling in an empty forest make a
> sound?"), and then re-introduce the B-word ("Doesn't that remind you of
> how big a liar Barry is?"). She finds a way to insinuate "Barry, and all
> his sins" into conversations with the few posters still willing to have
> them with her, conversations that had nothing to do with Barry, *hoping
> that the other party will fall for it and give her a chance to dump on
> Barry even more*.
>
> This is my honest opinion of what she does on a regular basis. She will
> in my opinion *keep doing this*. Nothing that any of you who *claim* to
> be tired of the "Barry-Judy feud" do will ever be able to stop this sad
> game.
>
> What you *can* stop is your participation in the game.
>
> If you really *are* tired of the "Barry-Judy feud," *stop being a
> codependent enabler of the feud by "piling on" to it and reactivating it
> every time she tries to get you to do so*. Just say No. Ignore the
> provocation, and the attempt to get you to re-launch a "pile on Barry"
> session, and turn the conversation back to its original subject. The
> solution to ending the supposed feud is as simple as that in my opinion,
> and here's why.
>
> From my side, unilaterally, I will try to ignore the silly bitch, and
> her compulsive "gotta get Barry" posts. This will require no small
> amount of effort on my part, because she's *such* an easy target for
> satire and derision. However, to test the theory that some on this forum
> really *do* want this silly "feud" that she attempts to perpetuate to
> end, I will deny myself the pleasure of pointing out what a nutcase she
> is. :-)
>
> From her side, I think we all know that she will continue to reply to
> many posts I make trying to "correct" them or prove them "wrong" or
> otherwise find a way to turn them into "a perfect opportunity for the
> putdown she has already prepared." I think that we also know that her
> full-time codependent enablers -- Jim, Nabby, Willytex, and occasionally
> others -- will play "pile on" to her obsessive "gotta get Barry" posts
> to give her the chance to post even more of them.
>
> But what are YOU -- the people who claim that you're tired of this feud
> and want it to end -- going to do?
>
> My suggestion is that you try the experiment I described above. For a
> month or two, ignore all of Judy's attempts to get you to "talk about
> Barry." If she tries to get you to participate in such "pile on"
> sessions -- and she will -- just ignore the attempts and, if you are
> enjoying other aspects of an ongoing discussion with her, gently come
> back to the topic. :-)
>
> Consider this a challenge to those who claim that they're tired of the
> feud, but who *enable* it to continue by falling for Judy's "But enough
> about <insert real topic here>; let's talk about Barry" routine.
>
> Just say No, and see what happens.
>
