--- 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, "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?
I made my case for how I saw it already. > > > > > > 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. Labeling the truth as a sidestep doesn't work outside your own mind. > > > > > 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. No it doesn't. If Az and Jim hate each other, it is none of my business. I was clearing up what I believe is a miscommunication. And if it fit your agenda, you would see this obvious distinction. But I could be wrong. Maybe Az used the chance to get in some shots on Jim and Jim was reacting appropriately to the actual intent. I was just giving my opinion. > > 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. If you are making a case that I often see things the way people I seem to have more intellectual affinity with and therefor are more likely to see it their way, guilty as charged. And I am not imposing some kind of rule about when I will jump in here. But I have been pretty consistent staying out of your deal with Barry and am doing so with the Robin Barry deal. I can easily imagine defending Ruth because I had a lot of intellectual common ground with her. And it isn't defending Vaj to voice my opinion about his teacher's status. You are couching these interactions in the language of your feud perspective. > > > > > 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. Your label "defending" is just your spin. You've got a hammer so everything looks like a nail. But is shouldn't surprise you if I have more in common with people who I have more of an affinity with. Of course I am apt to see it their way. I try to keep out of the arguments I can and voice my opinion when I feel like it. Just as you do. > > > > > 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. Wow I can't imagine why you wouldn't have used those words when you asked me to pile on with your criticism of Barry...Oh I've got it, that is MY perspective on it, from outside your mind. > > > 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 are my favorite person to disagree with here, what can I say? And the chances are that I will end up disagreeing with your perspective of people whose POV I have more in common with. Lets see if you try to turn this normal human tendency into a moral failing... > > > You claim it is my inferior ethical standard. > > Yes, double standards are generally considered "inferior" > ethically speaking. Bingo! Right on schedule, let me set my Luminex watch. (If I went with one of those wild colored Swatch watches, do you think that would be trying too hard to appear hip and young? Hard to get that balance right sometimes ever since the Razor scooter disaster.) > . >
