Damn Yahoo ate my response. I guess the universe wanted me to take another crack at it despite the witty repartee and even sticking the landing at the end. Let's put on the slicker and L.L. Bean Maine swamp boots.
-snip<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. I could have come out of lurk mode, I didn't. I didn't say it was a clear message. And it was you who reminded me when I was not posting, I don't even remember myself. But if you big point was it wasn't much of a message then you got me. It was an offhand comment and you notice an inconsistency which you are trying to use as proof of deception. It is a typical Judy dickish move. But even if I had been posting and I had read every one of the posts, I would not have posted about it because it was a clusterfuck of snarling accusations and I am sorry I read as much as I did the second time around. And when I wrote that I hadn't made the connection that it was during the time I wasn't posting. That is the kind of detail you obsess on. I couldn't tell you what periods I have been on and off posting there have been a few. > > The second lie was in your response to Steve, pretending > that "enough of a message" wasn't a lie. Here you indulge in the Judyisim of trying to paint something like this as a "lie". I won't need to clarify why this is bullshit, it is obvious to any reader over the age of 10, no 8, no as soon as a child can read like in a baby Einstein program they could tell this is complete nonsense. > > > 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. Another Judy BS technique, trying to parse something like this beyond all reason to make is sound inconsistent. But this time I will spell it out. I must have seen the thread because I lurked when I wasn't posting. I must have read enough to categorize it as uninteresting which is what happened the second time too. But for you to assume that I cared enough about it to have remembered it and its connection with what Dan said...no. My response was innocent and strong that it sounded like a real violation. And you filled me in on the history, which I felt did not support the accusation. Which you tried to spin as me protecting Barry in a blatant misrepresentation of my point. But you were being Judy and you wanted to create a chance to use your favorite word, by doing what that word means. > > > 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. We (as usual) will have to agree to disagree. I am satisfied that if any reader took the time and was willing to take a long hot shower afterwards they could sort this out for themselves and I am comfortable with the conclusions they would draw. We both made our cases and (big surprise) have our hands held in the air at the end. > > > 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. This is a big difference between you and me Judy. I learn from posts and incorporate feedback. Sometimes I find that in being distracted with some point I miss another one and am not embarrassed to amend my POV. It is you who should exert MORE positive energy and should feel embarrassed because you don't do this. You come in with guns blazing and no matter what is presented, you double down with your original prejudice. I think it comes from an emotional need to "get" someone. It makes these discussions very unpleasant. In fact this whole sequence of posts was a huge waste of time trying to defend my self with an unreasonable attacker. I have made my points and as Steve said a while back, should have ended on a high point. I guess you do get my goat with your bullshit accusations. I am going to have to give this some thought, I think it is a weakness of mine here. A desire to straighten something out when I am misunderstood. But this is an illusion because you have another agenda which you reveal at the end. > > > 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 do not agree but have made my case elsewhere. > > > 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. WTF, this is incoherent. I did not know it didn't happen because I do not have a photographic memory of every topic that doesn't catch my interest. I think you are making a case that I do or should. In either case it is your own fantasy. > > You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper, Curtis.> Another Judyism. Part of the winning formula. I am digging myself nowhere. You are trying to manufacture a case out of bullshit. It is because you lack the ability to listen and understand another person's POV that is different from your own. You had something to prove and I wonder why...let's see if it gets revealed... > > 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. Bingo! The energy behind the agenda. The seething rage that was building up over Robin and I getting along and having a discussion while disagreeing that involved us thinking well of each other despite our different POVs. He even said nice things about me and I about him! So you trumped up some bullshit so you could vent your unhappiness. The fact that you would bring this up speaks volumes about your petty agenda. I am confident that if Robin is reading any of this ( and I sincerely hope he has spared himself) he will see through your routine just as I have. I love that you even used the term Mr. Wonderful veneer. Only Judy can see the real me! A bad person. And by dogging me into a petty battle like this one she feel she has succeeded in her mission. When all you have done is waste my time when I could be having an actual discussion of ideas with people like Robin. Although I appear "nice" you can badger me into reacting, getting angry. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is also a shitty unfriendly agenda that drives you Judy. And no matter how many friendly posts we share it rears its head eventually. And on self-reflection, THAT is all on me. Food for thought and for self improvement. The striking contrast between my discussions and disagreements with Robin and with you is that Robin disagreed without a nasty hateful agenda of discrediting me as a person driving the discussion. You do. I have learned a lot from it. I don't want to have these kind of niggling non discussions that you thrive on Judy. But I get it that only I can enforce it. You will always try to get me into some unpleasant discussion to show the world that I am a bad person. It is behind every post you make to me. I see it so clearly. Thanks for that unguarded moment Judy. > > 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.> Yeah well thankfully you are not me Judy. I've said my peace. >
