--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis > > > would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants > > > to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly > > > indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) > > > > Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding > > Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: > > I was chiding him for equating my interest in long > discussions with a pathology. I was in no way chiding > him for being unable to appreciate our dialogue.
Um, OK. You chided him for saying nasty things about you because he couldn't "get beyond his personal preferences," i.e., was unable to appreciate your dialogue. So if he wasn't able to appreciate your dialogue, he should have kept his mouth shut, right? Wait. What would it have looked like, I wonder, what would he have said, if he *could* get beyond his personal preferences? What might he have said in that case, instead of equating your interest in long discussions with a pathology? I get it now. He might have said you were a saint-- the "Mother Teresa of the Internet," for example-- while equating *Robin's* interest in long discussions with a pathology, one for which you had great compassion, to "provide these oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so desperately seek." As long as it's Robin who is said to have "an almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly possible to convince others of that [self-]importance, all while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even original ideas)," and you're feigning interest in what he says out of your saintly commitment to "selfless service," that's fine with you. That's what "getting beyond personal preferences" might look like, as far as you're concerned. Right? I've misjudged you, Curtis. I thought that by chiding Bhairitu, you were sending a subtle signal to Barry that he too ought to get beyond his personal preferences. I should have known better. > I don't expect anyone to give a shit about our > discussion. I would prefer that people didn't try > to use it as evidence that I have an "overstimulated > intellect" or too much "vatta" which he went on to > describe as in modern terms as neurotic. Right. Fine for somebody to try to use your discussion with Robin as evidence that *Robin* is neurotic, as long as you're portrayed as so saintly as to admire the running sores of the lepers with whom you compassionately engage. > But of course you knew this which is why you > selectively snipped the sentence before your quote > when I made that clear: > > "Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what > we are serving up? Not your cup of tea." My apologies. I genuinely did not understand the difference you perceived between what Barry said (dumping on Robin and exalting you) and what Bhairitu said (dumping on both of you). I still don't quite get, however, why the sentence I snipped should have conveyed that difference. > > "This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes > > you look like you can't get beyond your own personal > > preferences and understand that other people are > > interested in different things." > > > > > He [Barry] is not maliciously bearing false witness > > > of course > > > > Yes, he is. Why should today be different from any > > other day? > > Then why were you indulging in it if this is such a > big deal for you? I wasn't. As I said, I really did think your phrase "attempt to make it into a pathology" was intended to apply to what Barry said as well as what Bhairitu said. I should have realized, on the basis of long observation, that it would never occur to you to object to somebody saying something nasty and untrue about someone else as long as they say only nice things about you. Especially, of course, if it's Barry doing the saying. Silly me.
