--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > Actually your comments on them, including in this > > post, demonstrate that you haven't read nearly > > enough. > > ME: You actually wrote that with a straight face? I have > read more than enough, we just disagree on the perspective.
I just pointed out some of the things you were missing. It isn't only perspective. > > > I avoid them because they are kind of mean on both > > > sides. > > > > And here's an example: They're always mean on Barry's > > side. But not on mine. > > > > Moreover, many of his mean posts about me and others > > *are addressed to you*. If I say something negative > > to you about Barry, you usually defend him. If he > > says something negative to you about me, you almost > > always just ignore it. > > ME: Your score card might be right. I try to pick my > battles here like everyone else. It wouldn't surprise me > if I had bias. Thanks for admitting you have double standards. <snip> > > > > Just for one thing, if one were to read my posts that > > > > comment on Barry's, one would find that a significant > > > > number of them--I'd guess at least 50 percent--are not > > > > simply insults; quite a few are not insulting at all. > > > > Rather, they involve reasoned, noninflammatory analysis > > > > of points that Barry has made. > > > > > > ME: And often in demeaning language that is pretty much > > > guarenteed to continue the ill will. > > > > And there's another example demonstrating that you > > haven't read enough to say. Heck, you didn't even > > read what *I* just said. "Reasoned, noninflammatory > > analysis" is the opposite of "demeaning." > > ME: So you pick 50% as insulting. (Says Curtis, carefully ignoring my point about his mistake.) Those are mostly the ones responding to his insults to me. > And as prolific as you are here, and as Barry focused, > that 50% number is mindnumbingly high. Barry routinely lies about the percentage of my posts that are about him. <snip> > > Barry's posts having to do with me are *always* > > demeaning. > > ME: No need to argue with this, it sounds right. I'll take > your word that this is how you feel about all of them. No, you're saying it wrong. They're *objectively* demeaning. > > > > There are other lopsided elements as well. I don't > > > > *make up* stuff about Barry, for instance. > > > > And this. > > ME: He gets your goat by talking trash. Gets a rise every > time. So it's perfectly OK for him to lie about me (and others) if it gets a rise out of us? Boy, I'd like to see how you'd react if he were lying about you day after day. <snip> > > > > But it would be very interesting to see what bed Curtis > > > > would make with Barry were he to land on Barry's shit > > > > list and be subject to the same treatment Barry gives to > > > > the others on that list. Curtis might not be quite so > > > > sanguine about the availability of "other choices." > > > > > > ME: There are examples. Jim and I > > > > This isn't an example that relates to what I just wrote. > > ME: Sure it is. Your interactions with Jim are not an example of what I proposed, which was a hypothetical specifically about interactions between you and Barry. Nice try, no cigar. Not surprising you danced out of the way. <snip> > > > And I am not even advocating that you do change your pattern > > > with Barry.. You both seem to enjoy it > > > > I don't. There's nothing enjoyable about interacting > > with Barry when one is on his "enemies" list. > > ME: Seriously? So it is all pain and you are a pure > victim of abuse on the Internet? You can take your "victim" shit and shove it down your throat. "Not enjoyable" and "painful" are not synonymous. Shove your straw man down your throat while you're at it. Try not to choke. <snip> > > > I don't understand why you feel you need anyone to intervene > > > > I don't "need" anyone to intervene. I simply point out > > that you don't intervene, on my behalf or anybody else's. > > That's your choice. It isn't a choice I respect. > > Me: Point taken. But since I have known you, gaining your > respect was not one of my realistic options. It was, but you blew it. > And don't think I haven't noted your own lack of intervening > when the guns are pointed my way unfairly. Whose guns, Nabby's? Get real.
