Ohhh, Barry what are you going to do now? I am not sure if I will respect you more if you do respond or if my estimation will go through the roof if you don't.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Whew, I missed this post yesterday morning. Barry, you > > > must have gotten out of bed yesterday having laid there > > > for hours composing this in your head. > > > > No, it was spontaneous, over coffee, just the result > > of watching another week of what has been going on > > for seventeen years. > > > > > Talk about coming out of the gate like a racehorse. > > > This has practically taken my breath away. > > > > > > Now this is the first really mean post I have seen and, > > > yes I am the newbie so I'm sure this "ain't nothin'", > > > but I think it's something. There is obviously lots of > > > history and animosity here for Judy on your part > > > because it just exploded all over my screen. > > > > Ann, it's just that I was hoping (naively) that now > > that Judy's minions (and they *were* minions) > > No, they weren't. > > Minion: > 1 : a servile dependent, follower, or underling > 2 : one highly favored : IDOL > 3 : a subordinate or petty official > > They were folks who independently came to the same > conclusions I did about a number of things. The most > you could say was that we were each others' de facto > allies on those issues. > > The basis for the "minion" charge is simple: If more > than one person sees the same thing, it's harder to > justify the claim that whatever they're seeing isn't > really the case. > > > have > > bit the dust, she might give the "Gotta get Barry/ > > Curtis/Vaj" thing a break, even for a week or two. > > Silly me. > > Indeed. Barry seems to be suggesting that if Vaj and > Curtis were suddenly to disappear from FFL, he would > give his "Gotta get Judy" thing a break. Otherwise > why would he recommend a similar course of action to > me? > > > Any animosity on my part is the result of having > > spent SEVENTEEN YEARS knowing that almost every > > day of those years I could look forward to one or > > more posts from Judy dissing or actively demonizing > > one of these three people. > > False on its face, since Curtis and Vaj weren't > on alt.m.t for some years after I first encountered > Barry there in 1995. > > But also false in a much deeper sense: Barry is trying > to pretend that none of them ever dissed or actively > demonized me. In fact, I could say exactly the same as > what Barry claims about the 17 years he and I have been > on alt.m.t and then FFL, even after he decided a couple > years ago that he wasn't going to respond directly to > any of my posts. > > He started attacking me before I even arrived on FFL, > as I discovered when I read some of the past traffic. > > Yes, if you're a newbie > > here, and used to dealing with sane people, this > > sounds like a crazy claim. But we're talking about > > Judy, and she's bat shit crazy. It really HAS been > > going on (in my case) for seventeen years. In Vaj's > > and Curtis', slightly less, but also for YEARS. > > We're fuckin' tired of it. > > Actually Curtis has told Barry a number of times that > he enjoys my challenges. And of course I've called Vaj > to account much less often than Barry. Vaj has > repeatedly accused me of lying when he knows I haven't > lied. He's never even attempted to document a lie from > me, whereas I've documented *many* of his lies. > > Barry lies routinely; that's one of the major reasons > I go after him. I've documented countless lies of his. > If they're "fuckin' tired of it," they ought to resolve > to tell the truth. > > > > Now far be it for me to "fight other people's fights > > > here", I gather that is just not done, everyone is a > > > grown up and more than capable of looking after > > > themselves. But Barry, can I object to some of the > > > imagery here, uh let's see, which is the most odious, > > > oh yea, let's start with, "She's just a parrot, > > > echoing other people's thoughts, a mere skidmark > > > on the underwear of spirituality." > > > > That's how I see her importance in the history of > > spiritual thought. I kinda liked the image. Too bad > > if you did't like it. > > > > > So now we are on to the scatological references, you > > > can usually count on something like this to come out > > > of the mouth of a 12 year old but having seen your > > > picture I know you have to be older than that possibly > > > even a grandfather based on the fact you are cradling > > > a small and beautiful infant in one of them? Come on > > > Barry. > > > > It was written for effect. Obviously, it worked. It > > is also my honest opinion of her intellectual worth. > > It's not Barry's honest opinion of my intellectual > worth, actually, and I could dig up quotes from Barry > from FFL and alt.m.t to the contrary. Or maybe he was > lying in *those* posts, who knows? > > > > Now this post is probably partly meant for me, being > > > the innocent on the block, but the tone and manner of > > > the posting is enough to warn me off of YOU, not her. > > > > Fine. I was just telling you what to expect. WAIT AND > > SEE. If it doesn't happen, I was wrong. If you're still > > around, get back to me a year from now and tell me then > > that I was wrong. > > Here's my prediction, from last week: > > > > I'll make a bold prediction: It will depend on how long > > > the criticisms of Robin continue, because I'll continue > > > to defend him against what I see as unfair judgments. If > > > the Robin topic fades, the "trend" of my criticizing the > > > Big Three will depend on how many posts they make that I > > > disagree with. If Ann sticks around and participates in > > > non-Robin-related topics with the same perspicacity she's > > > dealt with those that *were* Robin-related, I'll no doubt > > > express appreciation of her posts. Same with Raunchy. > > > Could be I might disagree with either or both of them > > > on some issue or other. I've certainly had a fair number > > > of previous disagreements with Raunchy. > > > > > > Other than that, I'll make comments, pro, con, or neutral, > > > on whatever else is being discussed, depending on how I > > > feel about the topic. > > That's really quite an easy prediction to make, since it's > based on what I've been doing on FFL all along (and before > that on alt.m.t). I have no reason to think that might > change. > > > Try noticing every time Judy finds the > > need to demonize one of the three of us for even the > > next *month* and see if she might just be a tad obsessed > > by the need to do so. > > But note what percentage of my "demonizing" posts are in > response to demonizations, of me or others, by them. > > BTW, "demonize" is Barry's term for "criticize" or > even just "disagree with." That is, when someone he > doesn't like does it. > > I'm not telling you what to believe, > > merely suggesting to you some trends you might just telling > > you might look for. > > > > > I can only chalk it up to years of frustration and anger > > > you have felt as a result of her dialogues with you. > > > > You would be correct in this assumption. > > Barry means, but of course will not acknowledge, that > his frustration and anger are functions of his inability > to hold his own in debates with me. His debating chops > have always been poor; he relies on distortion and flat- > out falsehood to make his case, and he has no sense of > fairness (as his current posts demonstrate). That makes > him easy to take down and discredit, which is just too > hard on his self-image. That's why he won't interact > with me directly any longer and pretends not to read my > posts, so he doesn't have to expose himself to that kind > of embarrassment. > > These days he limits himself to attacking me indirectly, > then claiming it's crazy for me to respond to his > attacks when he doesn't read my posts or interact with > me. Doesn't make any sense, of course, but that's his > story, and he's sticking to it. > > > > You have had more than enough. So why are you still > > > talking to her, talking ABOUT her?? > > > > Because she's still actively trying to suck others into > > her obsession, and often succeeding. The last generation > > of her dedicated minions have now bit the dust, and she's > > obviously ramping up to recruit a new generation of them. > > This is obvious nonsense. I've never tried to "recruit" > anybody, and I'm not about to start now. Don't even know > how I'd go about it. I say what I think, and if someone > agrees with me, that's their choice. > > Note that Barry tries to discourage folks from agreeing > with me by painting those who do as my "minions" whom > I've "recruited." I don't think he's been very > successful with that tactic because it's so insulting > to the intelligence. But if anybody actively tries to > "recruit" other posters, it's Barry. > > <snip> > > Vaj is far from the only person > > here to suggest that she's pretty much textbook Border- > > line Personality Disordered. > > Uh, yes, he's about the only person here to make that > suggestion. Barry, of course, has echoed it. If you > were to actually look at a textbook, or DSM-IV, and > find out what the characteristics of BPD were, however, > you'd see how absurd that suggestion is. > > > Here's an experiment for you. I'll stop talking about her, > > for at least the next week. And I'll try my best not to > > "attack" others here, as she claims I do and as she uses > > as an excuse to keep attacking me. If she continues to > > attack me, and the others on her Enemies List, then a > > case can be made for me being right. If that doesn't > > happen, I was wrong. > > I've often suggested to Barry that he try an experiment > like this. I suspect he's actually done so several times, > but without announcing it. And if that's the case, the > only result he'd have been able to report was that he was > wrong. When he behaves himself, I don't attack him. > > But in all fairness he can't include Vaj and Curtis unless > they also agree not to attack me or others for a week. > > I have left all of the power in > > this situation up to her. And I have left the ability > > to judge it up to people like you. Try to do so. But > > don't be naive enough to try to judge based on three > > weeks' experience. > > > > Get back to me in three months and tell me what you > > think then. Deal? > > Wait, I thought it was only for a week that Barry said > he'd refrain from attacks. Is he now extending that to > three months? > > BTW, if it's only a week, it starts tomorrow, not last > week when he first proposed it. > > And as I noted in an earlier post, he can't make any > identifiable references to me. > > If he wants, he can have until 8:00 a.m. EST tomorrow > (Saturday) to respond to any of the posts I've made > this evening, but he'd be wise to make them > unobjectionable. If he attacks me, I'll smack him > right back, and it won't count against me. > > As of now, I have nothing more on the docket to say > in response to Barry, so if he behaves himself, we > can both start tomorrow with a clean slate. And if he > can play by the rules, we'll see how this little > experiment works out. >
