--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > My contention is that a 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.
As I said, Curtis, a feud is only a feud if more than one person is participating in it. If only one is, it's clearly a one-sided obsession. What I wrote was not to you solely but to a number of people on this forum who have, in the past, said that they didn't like the feud mentality and that they wished it would stop. However, my impression was that almost every time the subject of "Barry and how evil he is" was interjected into a conver- sation that had previously had nothing to do with him, they couldn't resist chiming in, thus giving the person who interjected the irrelevant topic the opportunity to go on and on about it. Which was, in my opinion, the point of interjecting it. It seemed to me that some of these folks -- not intending to single you out -- didn't seem to perceive the pattern, the game that was being run on them. So I pointed it out. I shall now retire from the fray, and allow those who seem to somehow get off on the feud to "talk amongst themselves," as that character on SNL used to say. If the "But enough about this talk about philosophy...let's talk some more about what a bounder Barry is" ploys continue, those who claim that they're not interested in the subject will have the opportunity to walk their talk. Or not.
