--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > OK, I'll chalk it up to a lack of social skills.:-) > > > > > > > > No, he is mean-spirited and toxic. az is one of Barry's > > > > chief defenders, so of course Curtis has to defend him. > > > > > > WTF? Jim got this right. I genuinely thought Az was joking, > > > still do. > > > > Maybe so, but az's usual toxic mean-spiritedness makes > > it hard to tell. > > Agreed. But the whole point was about "dry" humor so it fit.
Fit what?? What does "dry humor" have to do with toxic mean-spiritedness? > > > > az and Barry and Curtis and Vaj all stick together to > > > > defend each other from criticism and attack each other's > > > > critics; haven't you noticed? (Barry and az and Vaj do > > > > most of the attacking; Curtis mostly plays defense.) > > > > > > You know what would work better if you were trying to make > > > this false case? If you didn't do it in the context of you > > > and Jim whose positive interactions with me are both evidence > > > that I do not act this way here. > > > > Well, it's not a "false case," but please note (how did you > > miss it??) that I specifically exempted you from the attack > > component (check the parenthetical). > > I did catch that. I was objecting to the pack thing. Nice sidestep, but not convincing. > > > I don't care what anyone thinks of anyone else here. > > > > You know what would work better if you were trying to make > > this false case? If you didn't do it in the context of > > your defense of az to Jim. > > Your framing of a defense for Az is erroneous. I believed it > was a misread by Jim and I could be wrong. It isn't a defense > if the person misread the intention of a satire to point that > out. If Az comes out with a follow-up that he really meant > that stuff and I defended him somehow, that would be a defense. Well, that's a very creative distinction, but I'm not buying it. *Of course* it's a defense to suggest that someone misread somebody else's intentions. And of course it contradicts your claim that you don't care what anyone thinks of anyone else here. You cared enough about what Jim said about az to attempt to correct what you believed was his misimpression. Plus which, as I went on to point out, you've done the same thing regarding Barry and Vaj and Ruth: > > You've also defended Barry to me a number of times, and > > we had a whole thread in which you defended Vaj; and on > > one occasion awhile back you took me severely to task for > > what you perceived (incorrectly) to be an attack on Ruth. > > And those are just three examples. No comment from you. > > > We are all choosing the interactions we want with each other. > > > Everyone is sleeping in the bed they made themselves here. > > > > Yup. I'm just describing the bed you've made for yourself, > > which involves defending certain of your buddies from > > criticism, but never defending the folks those buddies > > attack. (Makes it a little awkward when one of the buddies > > you normally defend attacks one of your more recently > > established buddies.) > > No it doesn't. Robin is doing fine defending himself and > my parodies are working just fine in conveying my POV on > it all. How Robin and Barry want to converse here is not > interesting to me. And I don't defend my buddies in the > way you imply. I speak up with my opinion about topics > and try to stay out of the feuding on both sides. But oddly enough, it always seems to work out as I described. You defend your buddies, but you don't defend those whom your buddies have unfairly attacked. > > > I don't join feuds, I don't take tribal sides, and I wouldn't > > > post something I didn't believe just because it supported > > > someone I enjoy here against their feuding partner. > > > > Nobody's asking you to do that. > > You have in the past. Never, *ever* have I asked, nor would I ever ask, that you post anything you didn't believe, to or about anybody, for any reason. Nor have I asked you to "join feuds" or take "tribal sides." I'm talking about individual instances. > You shame me for not taking sides against Barry when he is > being unfair to you IYO. But you "take sides" against me when you think I'm being unfair to him. Likewise Vaj and Ruth, and others I'm sure I could come up with. > You claim it is my inferior ethical standard. Yes, double standards are generally considered "inferior" ethically speaking. .
