--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > You weren't here the first time around. You were > > > > > absent from the group from before Thanksgiving > > > > > till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took > > > > > place in January. > > > > > > > > And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] > > > > > > Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan > > > battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting > > > absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a > > > feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for > > > the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out > > > loud?) > > > > What Curtis had said that I was responding to: > > > > "As if my non particiapation the first time around was > > not enough of a message that I didn't care about the > > hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures > > of people who hate each other [yada yada]..." > > > > Curtis, when you're standing on your head trying to > > cobble together a plausible case out of nothing for > > someone else lying, it really doesn't look too good > > when you lie yourself, and then when caught, lie again. > > > > (Yes, I get the "joke." No, it doesn't excuse the > > dishonesty.) > > Yeah. So the deal is that it wasn't interesting enough when > I saw it the first time and I'm sure I didn't read every post > because it was pretty easy to identify the type of thread, > and my second reading didn't make the mess look any better, > so that is what happened. I can't even follow your > dishonesty bullshit enough to address it.
Allow me to explain. The first lie was the "enough of a message" part. There was no such "message," whether you were lurking for four months or not. If nobody knows you're watching, you can't send a message by not commenting on what you see, obviously. The second lie was in your response to Steve, pretending that "enough of a message" wasn't a lie. > My reporting on what I was doing when I was not posting is > pretty much gunna have to be the last word Not the issue. But now we may have another issue. If you did remember the episode, as you indicate above, how come you asked Dan if it had really happened? Either you saw it the first time and knew the answer to your question, or you did not see it after all, contrary to your "lurking" claim. > and your opinion is not being solicited by me. Of course not. > I nailed you on your lie, and made my case. You failed utterly to make any such case, and you know it. Not one of your claims held up. > However, since you have pursued this to the point of me > having to triple think myself, <snort> Try thinking straight the first time. Saves energy and embarrassment. > I would like to say that I am not privy to Dan's intentions > in posting that sentence the way he did. He may be more of > an innocent than my summation "bullshit" conveys. So since > I have had some nice posts with the guy I will give him the > benefit of the doubt and assume that my reaction was more > than he bargained for and was not his intention. Good, that's well done, at least. Of course it further demolishes your pretensions to having made a case for my misrepresenting your objection: "Since you yourself made a post to Dan making my objection clear..." And then a few paragraphs later: "Judy is knowingly misrepresenting my objections..." The only representation I made of your objection was the one you validated. You know that, I know that, I know you know that, you know I know you know it. > I am still happy to have spoken up when I read it because > it conveyed something I do not support. Which, according to what you say above, you knew hadn't happened anyway. You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper, Curtis. My assessment of > what I read in the posts remains. I am most sorry that it > was brought to my attention at all on a day with otherwise > very compellingly deep communications with other posters. Too bad MZ hasn't been around to see you mess up, see what's under the Mr. Wonderful veneer when things don't quite go your way. That's 50 and out for me. If decide you have more to say, I'll address it when I come back. But if I were you, I'd stop digging.
