--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
> Plus which, you seem incapable of comprehending the concept > of "taste of your own medicine," even after I pointed it > out. The notion that you'd expect me to defend you when > you've refused to defend me or anybody else is so upside- > down and inside-out and backward it's stupefying that you > thought you could strut around here and score with it. Dang Judy, you're scoring with that phrasing. I may not agree with it, put it is nicely put. > Live by the sword, die by the sword. You buttered your > bread, now you get to sleep in it. > > Oh, you know, I'm wrong, you *do* occasionally defend > others--when you think *my* criticisms of them have > been unfair. > > Here's the deal, Curtis. Just as soon as you decide to > start standing up for people when Barry trashes them, > I'll consider standing up for you when you get trashed. > If I don't, *then* you can legitimately call me a > hypocrite. Here's your parsing Judy. You'll come back with, "he didn't stand up for me in the way I thought he should". We've seen this behavior before. > > You couldn't get a better example than his behavior. I loved > > when she accused me of being nasty, but not him! > > Au contraire, Pierre. I characterized one of his comebacks > as "nastier invective." And I referred *three times* to > his "offensive accusation," as well as calling it > "obviously untrue." You apparently think the two latter > characterizations are somehow less incriminating than > "nasty." > > And here's the genuinely inadvertent irony: > > > Ravi shouldn't be egged on, it does not serve him well. Real > > friends would try to help him realize that he can just relate > > to people as equals, and it is OK that he is a hapless guy > > with human desires trying to find his way. > > Try replacing "Ravi" with "Barry" in the above. Guess we > can assume you're not Barry's "real friend," huh? > > > > > This is a response to post #300880 if anyone wants to > check the context: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > <snip> > > What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching > > of the boundaries of propriety on a public board? And why should > > I be the target since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this > > discussion? > > VERY odd that Curtis has seen Jim's remarks as an attack > on *him* when every one of them was unambiguously directed > straight at Barry. > > Sorry, Curtis, but pretending you were their target doesn't > work to protect Barry. If you *really* want to protect him > from attack, try to get him to keep from compulsively > attacking others, the way he did Jim a couple days ago, > along with the rest of the folks on his Enemies List. > > > So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior > > in public to the extreme in an attempt to express the rage > > felt at being denied the one thing they most covet, and which > > they feel entitled to: being treated as if they are the > > specialist boy in the whole wide world. "Yes they are, yes > > they are, where's that smile, there it is, there it is." > > > > Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's > > before you. You seem like a kindergartner lacking in self- > > awareness and self-control,(I hear TM is good for that.) > > throwing obnoxious sand into the eyes of readers here. I hope > > you will do a little introspection during your much deserved > > time out. > > > > If you really look deeply into your heart of hearts, you may > > find that I am not the only one who has doubts about your > > superior state of mind. And if you can face that, I'm here to > > say that it isn't so bad seeing yourself as an ordinary person. > > Your self-delusion sets you up for this kind of fall. Why > > don't you orally massage THAT lolli? > > Funny, I've never been inclined to commit myself to any > particular view of either Jim's or Ravi's state of > consciousness, and as far as I can tell neither of them > gives a sh*t. I relate to them as "ordinary persons" who > have their faults and their virtues like anybody else. I > have no reason whatsoever to *resent* what they say about > themselves, nor do I hold them to higher standards of > behavior than those to which I hold others. I just enjoy > what I like about each of them, and that seems to suit > both of them just fine. I don't find them throwing > obnoxious sand into my eyes. > > I might also point out that one of the tactics of the > Troika, here employed by Curtis but pioneered and used > constantly by Barry, is to portray humorous blowback in > response to their insults as representing an enraged > meltdown. The truth is, they *want* an enraged meltdown, > and not getting it enrages *them*. >
