--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
You couldn't make this stuff up, folks. Barry's a walking case history of projection, which is, according to Wikipedia, "a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people." What follows, and what preceded it, is a classic case of projection. > > 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, That "impression" is not of anything that has actually happened on FFL. It's a product of Barry's out-of-control fantasy life. I do once in a while mention Barry in passing in a conversation that had nothing to do with him, but it's rare; and it's virtually always an observation related to something in that conversation, e.g., Barry as an example of whatever is being discussed, or something he said that's relevant to the discussion. But the "chiming in" part happens only in Barry's obsessed imagination. The kinds of observations I make don't invite chiming in and don't elicit it. 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. Also pure fantasy. What started Barry off on this kick was a discussion Curtis and I had a few days ago concerning Curtis's refusal to criticize Barry when he tells lies about me and others, even when the lies are in posts addressed directly to Curtis. This is a beef I've had with Curtis for quite some time, and we've had a number of exchanges about it in the past. The supreme irony is that what instigated this discussion--wait for it!--was *Barry* interjecting "Judy and how evil she is" into a post to Curtis-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/279083 --EXACTLY what Barry falsely accuses me of doing in his current post. Did he really think I wouldn't point this out? Or did he simply wipe the earlier post from his memory so he genuinely doesn't realize he's projecting his own rotten behavior onto me? The further irony is that in his exchange with me, Curtis *stood on his head* to defend Barry. And the thanks he gets? Barry accuses Curtis of being an "enabler." Some friend.
