I'll be merciful to Barry here and not quote from the many posts in which he's denounced me for digging up past posts to illuminate current discussions (that is, unless he denies he ever made any such posts).
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > Well Judge Judy has convicted me for being a cop and handing > > out tickets, though I am not sure what the ticket I seem to > > have issued was for. > > > > What is my sentence Judge? > > Just for the fun of it, Xeno, and because you haven't > been around for the Judge Judy act as long as some of > us have, here's a Golden Oldie from alt.m.t. from 2002. > Note that her role(s) have not changed in all this time, > and that the question I posed at the end has never > really been answered: Unfortunately, since he's read only Xeno's post and not the post of mine to which Xeno was responding, Barry has not the foggiest idea what Xeno was referring to, and the post he dug up turns out to be completely inapropos. Not only that, but since he made his post before I'd responded to Xeno, he wasn't aware that Xeno was mistaken; I hadn't "convicted" him of any crime (as I pointed out, I play the cop role and hand out tickets too, as does Barry, as do quite a few others here). That wasn't my beef at all. But let's take a quick look at Barry's old post on its own terms: <snip> > JUDY THE PARTICIPANT: Logic dictates A, B and C. > VICTIM: I don't have to agree with that. Logic is a made-up > convention, restricts me to a limited number of choices like > A, B and C, and what I really believe is X, Y and Z. > JUDY THE WHINY, ABUSED PARTICIPANT: You can't do > that. It's illogical. It's cheating. > VICTIM: Why can't I? > JUDY THE REFEREE: Because it's against the rules. > VICTIM: Who made up the rules. > JUDGE JUDY: I did. > VICTIM: Oh. Well, what happens if I don't agree with the > "rules" and agree to play by them. > JUDGE JUDY: You lose. You are a cheater. Two can play this game. I'll quote my response to this on alt.m.t: ----- So clever, except that whole attack depends on the pleasant fantasy that somehow they're *my* "rules" that I made up and administer to my own advantage. But, as I've pointed out elsewhere a number of times now, (and as UT [Barry] inadvertently confirmed at one point), they aren't "my rules"; I didn't make them up; and inherent within them is the capacity for anyone to evaluate how well a particular piece of discourse conforms to them. Not that there's never any room for argument about a particular evaluation; but astute readers will have noted that UT never seems to take issue with my evaluations--in fact, he acquiesces to them by default in declaring that he is exempt from evaluation altogether. If he were able to make a good case against the evaluation, he wouldn't have to declare himself exempt. The idea that I "like to run things" is another of UT's fantasies, of course, except it's not such a pleasant one for him. It reflects a deep-seated (but entirely unjustified) fear of his own lack of competence. ---- And that last remains true to this day.
