--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
ME: I'll just keep putting the snipped line out as long as you keep misrepresenting this conversation. Me clarifying to verify that her intentions are dishonest in this exchange: "Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what we are serving up? Not your cup of tea." He didn't have to accuse me of pathology because my exchange with Robin was not his cup of tea. I don't care if now one buy Robin reads our exchanges but was requesting that he not use the exchanges that he doesn't prefer as evidence of me being neurotic. I get along fine with Bhairitu so I felt like my objection would be received how I meant it. But you knew all this. I guess we don't share the same ethical standards. Or would you like to make a case that you aren't too good at analyzing all this words stuff? > > So if he wasn't able to appreciate your dialogue, > he should have kept his mouth shut, right? ME: I didn't appreciate his accusation. I was responding. > > 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. ME: Robin is defending himself with Barry just fine. Are you now advocating that I now enter Robin's battle with Barry like you wanted me to do with your own? Cuz he isn't a good worder, and can't pull it together for himself perhaps? > > That's what "getting beyond personal preferences" > might look like, as far as you're concerned. > > Right? ME: Hi Sour Plum. Haven't seen you lately. > > 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. ME: Oh the busy dealings of the Sour Plum. Not enough issues of her own to fix. So very busy is her body. ME:Oh here it is, out of context and so forlorn. The clarifying section that you have not responded to. I'm sure you will here... > > > 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. ME: Neither Barry nor I believe I am a saint, it was parody poking fun, using me as a device. He was actually taking a shot at Robin which Robin handled nicely himself without the meddling of any of us. My response was to up the ante on satire in another post which made my position clear to everyone but the professional editor. MMM. > > > > "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. ME: Yes you were and you got caught. And no I do not often "rescue" anyone here which is one of the reasons that the only person I regularly argue with is you. You have your charms here Judy but not when you are on this track. I believe it is due to your pitta imbalance (Western term is "Nucking Futs"). Perhaps Bhairitu has a cure for you involving crocodile semen. If anyone can pull off harvesting that it would be you. Might even turn into a long term thing, you never know. >
