Some of it may be hypocrisy, but I think Barry has called wolf so many times with his gotcha routines that people for the most part just tune him out now. Ravi on the other hand engages people and there's at least something to talk about.
Barry is just a tired old man, spinning the same ol' same ol'. He is starting to sound like that Merlin of Exxon guy that shows up every now and again. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > Could be, though that again raises the point -- Are we reacting > > to Ravi's behavior, regardless, or trying to set this up as "a > > teachable moment" in which we align Ravi's behavior with an > > assumption about his consciousness, or his mental health? > > What's interesting to me is that most of Ravi's posts are > loving, playful, funny, often even wise, but we freak out > when he has a negative outburst and start discussing his > mental health, even asking whether he should have freedom > of speech or be ejected from the forum. > > Yet there are others here whose posts are *routinely* > negative, whose tone typically is "demeaning harshness," > to use Curtis's phrase, frequently coldly, calculatingly > cruel and hateful, and we seem to have learned to take > them in stride, without wondering about the writers' > mental health. > > We had one of those posts this morning, in which the > writer not only went to considerable lengths to harshly > demean those he calls "crazies" (i.e., his critics), but > actually recommended his own twisted form of censorship > by counseling others not to interact with the "crazies" > in order to freeze them out and make them shut up. > > And there wasn't a peep of objection. > > Indeed, Curtis emerges from lurkdom to pompously > pronounce judgment on Ravi while arrogantly declining > to concern himself with the possibility that there may > be worse transgressors of the social compact holding > forth here. He chastises Ravi for what he perceives to > be homophobia, apparently having entirely forgotten > the remarks of the negative poster described above > intended to insult Robin by suggesting he was gay (not > to mention his betrayal of Curtis's confidence by > citing something Curtis had said to him in private > email that, taken out of context, made Curtis appear to > be impugning Robin's sexuality as well). Curtis further > fulminates over Ravi's insults to a woman when he has > never been upset by the "demeaning harshness" with > which the negative poster treats women he doesn't like. > It's fine with Curtis to call a woman a "dumb cunt too > stupid to live" as long as there's no mention of blow > jobs. > > (BTW, Curtis, the word is "aplomb," not "aplaumb," > and it's never used in the plural.) > > Bob and Obbajeeba are right, the hypocrisy around here > is so thick you could cut it with a knife. It makes me > physically ill. Thank goodness I have only one more post > left this week. >
