--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: <snip> [Curtis wrote:] > > > 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.
Well, yes, Curtis, you did: "As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care..." You're a writer. You know the "as if" construction here means you think it *was* enough of a message. And as I noted and you ignored, *nobody knew you were lurking*. Four months, not a word. There was *no* message at all. > 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. You'll have to pardon me if I take seriously "offhand comments" designed to help justify the bogus accusation that I deliberately misrepresented you. Especially when the "offhand comments" are so obviously bogus as well. > 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 Virtually all of them from Barry, speaking of dickishness. <snip> > > 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". Pretending a lie wasn't a lie is itself a lie, of course. <snip> > > 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. I don't know why you expect me to believe you at this point, frankly. I think you're now in self-protective mode and will say just about anything. I've seen this behavior too many times before from you. > 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. Wrong. I represented your point to Dan to your explicit satisfaction. And you most certainly did try to protect Barry: "It was a confusing situation as it unfolded Judy. You are taking the worst possible spin on Barry as usual and missing the jokes in his email to whoever it was who was writing to him. Being offended by this is such a lame choice IMO.... "So when the smoke cleared he realized it really was a person, a female person and he apologized. It took a while to sort out but he came out decently in the end. I am not a fan of faux outrage myself so I guess he had his reasons for not believing Dan needed and apology." I submit that it was hardly "false outrage" for Dan to be unhappy that Barry had accused him of (1) deliberately sending an insulting private email; (2) lying about having done so; (3) not being who he said he was; and (4) being a woman masquerading as a man. You don't think Barry deserves criticism for any of this, but that Dan does for pretending (in your mind) to think it was crappy behavior. None of the rest of your attempted defense of Barry holds water either. I took it apart in an earlier post, but you've refused to address it. Not to mention the hypocrisy-squared of your complaining that I've taken the "worst possible spin" on Barry, when what Barry did was to take the worst possible spin on Dan-- and then *you* took the worst possible spin on Dan *and* on me. <snip> > 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. This is a misrepresentation. The only guns I had blazing initially were aimed at Barry, not at you, because I had found the original episode so despicable. The guns got turned on you as well only when I saw that you were defending Barry's atrocious behavior in that episode. There was no "prejudice" against you to start with (as should be obvious given my explanation to Dan of your objection--you know, the one you approved). <snip> > > > 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. No, actually you've never addressed this stubborn fact. > > > 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. That a "photographic memory" is required is *your* fantasy. All that's needed is a memory of the general gist. <snip> > > 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! Incredible. *You* brought it up, toots. If you're going to try to trade on your Mr. Wonderful credentials to distract attention from the issue at hand, you damn well better expect I'm going to take a shot at them. > So you trumped up some bullshit so you could vent > your unhappiness. That's not even a plausible *fantasy*. I explicitly told MZ I thought you were doing a great job, and I was surprised when he withdrew so suddenly. <snip> > I love that you even used the term Mr. Wonderful veneer. > Only Judy can see the real me! A bad person. Off the rails, Curtis. Anybody can see what I see if they pay attention. It doesn't mean you're a "bad person" or that only what's under the veneer is the "real you." It means that the "real you" has more than one layer, as it does for everybody. You do go to more trouble than many to create a Mr. Wonderful layer and keep it front and center, so when it slips, the contrast is something of a shock. I think MZ may have backed out because he feared one of you might let his own benign layer slip, whereupon the other would as well, and the result would be calamitous. <snip> > Although I appear "nice" you can badger me into reacting, > getting angry. In fact, I never know when you're suddenly going to take offense. If I could tell, maybe this fantasy would make some sense, but I can't. I just say what I'm thinking, and sometimes you get pissed at me. The thing is, when you get pissed, you lose all sense of proportion and fairness, and you too often become actively dishonest, hauling out one straw man after another, as you just did above. You pull out your sophist debating tricks and make it impossible to discuss misunderstandings and grievances on either side. <snip> > 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. Nope. You discredit yourself. All I do is point it out when it happens. Also consider the circumstances of your first exchanges with me on alt.m.t, and then our return engagement here, versus your first exchanges with MZ. It's a lot easier to make nice with someone with whom you have no history.
