--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "danfriedman2002" <danfriedman2002@> > wrote: > > > > Curtis, > > > > In reply to your first paragraph: You are not "seconding > > the motion", but rather introducing your own "motion", as > > your charactarization of my suggestion as "outing of people > > against their will" is incorrect. > > How is it "incorrect?" That is EXACTLY what you > are asking for, and have been asking since you > descended upon this forum. > > > Your other 4 paragraphs devolve further. I interpret them > > to be support for your critisism of my suggestion, which > > you mischaracterized anyway (see above). > > IMHO, Curtis didn't mischaracterize your intent in any way. > You made your intent very clear. You want to know the names > of people who post on this forum.
A little clarification here, since of course we can't expect Barry to do anything but attempt to confuse the issue: Dan has been very clear that what he doesn't like is Rick's posting of anonymous emails from nonmembers. I don't recall Dan complaining about members using handles. As Nabby just pointed out, the difference is that members who use handles tend to have an ongoing presence on the forum and to respond to comments and questions; and they therefore have some ostensible accountability for what they post, unlike the anonymous writers of the emails Rick posts. So far, you have only > wanted to know the names of the people whose ideas you > disagree with. I leave it up to the conspiracy theorists > here to determine the "why" of this. No conspiracy theory required. The vast majority of emails from nonmembers that Rick posts anonymously involve ideas Dan disagrees with. I can't remember the last anonymous email posted by Rick that was positive about TM/MMY/the TMO. So this remark from Barry is disingenuous as well. > When you first appeared here, I took you to task for this > 'tude, and do so again. When you first went all drama queen > on having your Holy Opinion questioned, you pitched a hissy > fit and demanded that I stop referencing you on this forum. > I did so. I neither mentioned you nor referred to you in > any post since February. And then, out of the blue, you > come barging in and run the same number all over again, > upbraiding me for "speaking your name in vain." This is false, and Barry knows it. Dan had been having conversations with others here since June 23 that had nothing to do with Barry; he did not just "come barging in out of the blue" and demand that Barry stop using his name. And by the time Dan did address Barry on this issue, Barry *had* been referring to Dan, using his name. What happened was that on July 11, Dan made an offhand reference to the unpleasant episode involving Barry from January, without mentioning Barry's name. Curtis wanted to know who the perp was, and I posted message numbers from the archives for the January episode. Curtis read the posts and then accused Dan of having misrepresented the episode. Then *Barry* "barged in" and piled on to Curtis's accusation, using Dan's name, and himself misrepresented the episode. That's the point at which Dan "upbraided" Barry for using his name after promising not to do so. (To be fair to Barry, he could hardly participate in the discussion about the January episode in which he had been involved without mentioning Dan's name. On the other hand, Dan had not used Barry's name, as noted, when he mentioned the episode and was not participating in the discussion about it, which was primarily between Curtis and me until Barry got involved.) For the record, I don't have any objection to Rick posting the anonymous emails, although I understand Dan's gripe about them and think he had a perfect right to bring it up and make his point. I also think, however, that Dan's point has been more than made, and if I were Dan, I'd back off. Rick isn't going to change his policy based on Dan's complaint, and that's *Rick's* right. But I don't feel the need to demonize Dan about this as Barry does. And I think if Barry finds the temptation to demonize him irresistible, he at least ought to refrain from *misrepresenting* what Dan has done and said, as he has in this post and several others. This is my 50th for the week. See you in a few days. > > Get The Fuck Over Yourself. > > Neither you nor your opinions of How Fairfield Life Should > Be Run are terribly of interest to me. I suspect I'm not > alone in this, and that most on this forum -- judging from > their lack of "piling on" to your adolescent demands -- > probably agree with me. What makes this forum special, and > of value to those who appreciate it, is exactly the thing > that you seem to find most threatening. > > People can come onto this forum and speak their minds. They > can do so using their legal names or using an alias. If one > of them isn't a member and chooses to send something to Rick > to repost anonymously, they have the right to do so, and > he respects that right. > > YOU want to "out" them. Don't you think that's more than a > little sick, and straying over the line into spiritual > fascism? I do. > > And now I'll go back to what I was successfully doing before > YOU dragged me back into this -- ignoring your silly ass. > I suggest you do the same thing with me, and with other > perfectly legitimate opinions expressed here, whether you > agree with them or not.
