--- 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: > > <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. > > Perspective is gained by choosing what to pay attention to > and what to ignore, how to weight different things.
Then let's call it a *faulty* perspective created by poor choices that ensure you miss significant data. <snip> > > > > 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. > > Oh snap! How wicked. I have different standards for each > poster here. Which, in the case of defending Barry but not Judy, you acknowledge is "bias." > For example if I post to Ravi, I know I am going to get a > rash of abuse that I would not tolerate unanswered from you > for example. When I interact with him, I now what I am > dealing with and accept the limits of the interaction. Different situation, not an example. > Your attempt to frame my honest response as if it is the > simple bad double standard is one of the limits that I > accept when I interact with you. I know that many things > I say will be twisted into something unflattering. "Bias" was your term, toots, not mine. > I accept that and move on. But if say Steve tried that, > I would give him a rash of shit back because I hold him > to a higher standard of not pulling that crap with me. You mean, unlike the rash of shit you just gave me back? > > > > > > 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.) > > I am rejecting your attempt to characterize your responses > that way. It is self serving claptrap. That rejection is a function of your having made poor choices about what to ignore, thereby missing significant data. > > > 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. > > OK so give me the exact number I should subtract > from "mindnumbingly high" to get to the right number. Depends on the week, of course. You'd have to do a search for each week for posts of mine containing "Barry" or "turquoiseb," check to see how many included one of those words in what I had written *de novo* in that post, then calculate an average using the adjusted figures. When Barry does a search for a particular week, he omits the second step, so he includes posts containing quotes from other people or past posts of mine that mention him but nothing about him from me *de novo*, thus conveniently inflating the count. I already pointed this out in response to his most recent claim, but that was one of my posts you apparently chose to ignore, so you missed that data. Not to mention that some percentage of the posts that *are* commenting on something he said are of the reasoned analysis variety, not putdowns. Every time I've double-checked one of his claims about how many posts I've made that said something about him, the claim has been way off. But you appear to have missed the posts in which I pointed this out as well. His "average" calculation over 16 years in that recent post was "up to 50 percent." That *would* be mind- numbingly high, but of course it doesn't happen very often, and "up to" is not an average in any case. > > > > 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. > > Here is where we part company. You don't seem to realize > your own biases here. I have seen you take grave offense > over things which I don't view the way you do. Let's have some examples of same from Barry's posts, please. And remember that you've admitted your Barry- favoring "bias" in this regard. > > > > > > 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? > > Let's discuss the concept of OK because this is a key to > understanding how our POVs differ here. On a public board > in a free country, it is OK for anyone to express any > opinion, even one that is unflattering. If you want to > understand the meaning of freedom of speech rights, Talk about twisting what someone says into something unflattering! The concept of "OK" in this context, as you well know, is not about the right of free speech, it's about ethics. And in that context, it has to do with (see above) the lopsidedness (which you have attempted to deny) of how Barry and I deal with each other: He lies about me (and others) routinely, but I don't lie about him. I'd guess that your denial of that lopsidedness component is another function of your having made poor choices about what to read and what to ignore. > explore them with someone whose opinion you disagree > with. That same right allows you to counter that POV > with your own. Not talking about "POV" or opinion, talking about factual falsehoods. > If you are equating personal preference with "OK" Equating "OK" with "ethical." > then I would prefer that all of us would be truthful and > loving at all times here. Neither Barry nor I is "loving" at all times here, but I am always truthful, and Barry frequently is not. > But if you mean "OK" as in, it is horrible that he > expresses something that I believe is untrue *Factually* untrue. > so that I have no choice but to dog him out over every > perceived transgression... *Actual* transgression. > I say go for it girl, Have fun with that and don't try to > portray it as some ethical duty revealing your virtue and > that anyone who does not join your mission as having lower > ethical standards. I don't claim "virtue" on my part, but I sure do claim a deficiency in ethical standards on the part of those who accept lying about another person as "OK." Not accepting deliberate untruths about others as "OK" is a *minimum* ethical standard. That's where ethics *begins*. > > Boy, I'd like to see how you'd react if he were lying > > about you day after day. > > We have a record of how I deal with people who I don't get > along with at first. But that record does not include Barry, of course, so it's irrelevant. You've never experienced Barry lying about you day after day. > You have worked your Barry relationship into a 16 year > lather. But Ravi was going down the same road with me, > posting that I was a Buddhist and all sorts of other > nonsense. So I tried to connect with some part of him > that I could relate to (his mischievousness) we gave each > other a bro hug, and now he continues to unload on me > from time to time and I counter him as best as I can > preserving as much rapport as I can. Ravi is not Barry, and Ravi doesn't travel the same road Barry does, not by any stretch of the imagination. And Ravi invites bro (or bro/sis) hugs; Barry rejects them from anyone who's gotten on his shit list. > With others I just ignore them because I know that a > rapport connection is not possible. There's nobody here who lies about you day after day. > You are framing this as a victim no matter how vehemently > you deny it. I am doing no such thing no matter how vehemently you insist on it. I'm using Barry's treatment of me as an example of what kind of person he is. He treats others the same way, just not to the same extent. As I said earlier, his targets are his "victims" in the abstract sense, but those who haven't been driven away or cowed or wounded by his attacks are not "victims" in the concrete sense. > You don't get your part of the dance. You know you can't > change him at this point so you must enjoy the interaction, > but you even deny this. It is a moral duty to react to > every perceived transgression, to set the record straight. Well, first of all, there's no conceivable way I could react to every (genuine, not just perceived) transgression. I pick only the most egregious to dissect. Others I let go by or just respond with a one-liner. But yes, I do see it as a moral duty to expose liars and frauds and call out sadists in a public venue. You don't. It's fine with you to just let them continue to slander and viciously attack others, as long as they aren't doing it to you. > > > > > > 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. > > ME: He has become a special monster for you because you > have allowed it to grow into that. If Barry started > giving me a rash of shit and I couldn't get back in > rapport or got sick of using his attacks for my comedic > purposes, I would stop responding till he got bored with > the lack of reaction. Well, I don't believe you would, not if you were getting the kind of treatment from him that I get. > That is the option you are not taking by choice because > your interaction serves you in some way that you do not > acknowledge. Again, I think exposing liars and frauds and sadists serves everybody. > > Nice try, no cigar. Not surprising you danced out > > of the way. > > I guess I just took that put down away from you didn't I? You didn't acknowledge your Jim example was bogus, but I did get you to actually respond to what I was asking by pointing out your avoidance dance. > > > > > 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. > > Oh the violins filling the air! You're hallucinating, I'm afraid. > And to make it all more comical you are going to > vehemently,vociferously and violently deny the status > you have just confirmed here. That would be the status you have chosen to impose on me in an attempt to belittle my stand because you can't deal with the real one. > > > 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. > > Ah the violent metaphor. So revealing. You can go only so far dumping shit before you get a genuinely angry response. > Let's recap: > > Judy does not enjoy responding to Barry. > Judy is compelled to respond because Barry says things that > cannot under any circumstances go unchallenged. They must > be corrected each and every time Straw man. No way I could manage that. > again and again and again for 16 years. > Judy And lots of others. > is the target of unfair lies and that require her to respond > even though she does not enjoy this. She has to. She can't > help herself. Straw man. > It is unthinkable to ignore him. It would be unethical for > her not to respond, and other posters here who do not join > her in her corrections are displaying an ethical failing for > not responding to Barry. To correct his lies. To set the > record straight. Or just to express disapproval of his behavior. > On a public message board. For 16 years. Not enjoying. > Ethically compelled. Ignoring not an option. Of course it's an option. Just not the *ethical* option. > Others must join her. Should join her. > Barry is sadistic. That's right, he's a sadist. Look up "sadistic personality disorder" on the Web. At least in his Web forum persona, he's a classic case. > Judy is the.........(Don't want to wake the elephant.) "Victim" in the abstract (along with all the others), but not in the concrete, the way you want the term to be understood for belittling purposes. > > > > > 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. > > You know I was born at night, but it wasn't last night Judy. Do you recall the email exchanges we had back in June 2006? > > > 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. > > That was a bit of a putdown for poor Nabbie. He'd be the first to acknowledge he's using one of those guns that pop out a little flag that says "Bang!" when you pull the trigger. > But I was thinking of others. But it doesn't matter who > because you never walk your talk in this area. Oh, it very much matters who if you're accusing me of not walking my talk. Which others, Curtis?
