--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > Now that we've all enjoyed the Judy dance I want to bring the focus back to > > my origninal point here. > > > > Raunchy: > > > > " When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal > > heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her." > > > > > > > Judy even accused Sal of "bullying" in this incident. > > > > > > And what was the basis of their slander? > > > > That Sal had made fun of people advertizing that they were serving cookies > > for an adult party. > > > > It was factually inaccurate and unfair to connect this with the information > > about the fire that came out later, and which Sal acknowledged when she > > found out. > > > > Once this was pointed out to Raunchy, who had participated in the original > > thread and should have known better, she did not act with integrity and > > retract her slanderous statement about Sal. Steve and I went "tisck tisk". > > > > Curtis, you're on the losing end of this and you know it.
I've said my piece, now I'll listen to yours Raunchy. I don't see this as winning and losing, we don't see this the same way. I am OK with that. > > > > > So what do the "Get Sal" twins do when this had been pointed out AGAIN? > > > > They double down then Judy triples down, then quadruples down... > > > > And they attacked me for standing up for Sal who was being unfairly > > maligned here. > > > > With Raunchy nodding like a bobble head doll in the rear window of a car > > going over cobblestones, Judy wove a fantastic tale of my "deceptions". It > > was a wonder to behold the Judiness of it all unfolding. > > > > You are really pissing me off today, Curtis and yes, deception, your > deception, the deception you're doubling down on. L'll content free accusations huh? OK, if that is what you want on the record. Mine are specific and I have listed them. I am not surprised that it pisses you off to be called out like this. > > > They are of course backed by Robin and that other guy who invokes laughter > > on sight by his own account. > > > > And Steve and I are left standing here looking at each other in disbelief. > > > > Yeah. Wile holding each others dicks. Oh, the ham-handed homo-erotic reference...yeah that should help you make your case. > > > It was wrong and unfair to slander Sal this way. > > Bullshit. Sal, *did* heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for > Jennifer for Christ sake. So stop defending the indefensible by attempting > to slander *me*. Oh that cookie monster thing again. I disagree and have made my case. > > Sal: > > "Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that > don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds > to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, > juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town." > > Sal said this *after* she knew Jennifer lost everything in a fire. Yeah, she thought the cookie angle was stupid. > > The only comment I made on that thread in *November* 2011 was a link to a > video to Susan wayback #296983 > > The whole issue didn't come up again until *March* 2102 when I said: > > "Since there's such a big fuss about my having used Sal's > comments about Jennifer Blair as an example of bullying, I > found and read Sal's entire thread 'Email going around FF.' > I see that I commented to "Susan wayback71 on the thread > by posting a link making fun of Sal's objection to milk and > cookies. When I used Sal's thread as an example of bullying, > all I remembered about it was that Sal lobbed one of her > signature stink bombs criticizing a fundraiser for Jennifer, > a lovely person, who lost everything in the Depot fire, as > did many other people I know and care about, Max Sutherland, > Marty Brodeur, and Duncan McMasters just to name a few. For > the sake of accuracy I should have looked up the thread > before posting about it."--raunchydog, 3/6/12 And for the sake of fairness you could have apologized for mischaracterizing her intentions here. You didn't. Your choice and my choice to judge as I have. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/305686 > > Judy: Not only did Sal not take back her slur on Jennifer > for serving milk and cookies at her fundraiser, BTW, > she doubled down on it. > > RD: Got that Curtis: "...all I remembered about it was that Sal lobbed one of > her signature stink bombs criticizing a fundraiser for Jennifer..." I don't care what you remembered. You didn't make it right after you knew. > > Whether or not I knew or remembered in March if Sal said anything > conciliatory about in the #296983 thread where I posted the video link to > Susan is irrelevant. > > Sal's stink bomb *after* she knew Jennifer lost everything in a fire: > > "Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that > don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds > to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, > juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town." > > Spin that sequence of events anyway you want to make Sal look blameless and > me look bad. It's the same thing you did to Emily. Sal the shit becomes Sal > blameless and Emily gets the shaft. You sure have an odd way of picking your > friends and enemies. You are gunnysacking here. These events are unrelated except in your emotions. > > > I appreciate that Steve was also willing to stand up to this unfair, wrong > > thing here. No matter how big the Can O Crazy that it unleashes. > > > > Yeah. Grab onto Steve's leaky life raft and see if that saves you from > drowning. I don't consider my opinion here a matter of life or death. > > > Raunchy should have apologized for slandering Sal. She is capable of that > > but hates Sal too much to be fair. Plus it would pit her against the Judy > > agenda, and mean girls stick together. > > > > Oh go creep your way out of here, Curtis. I'm sick to death of your lies. We both made our case. Calling my different POV on these events lies is just a tactic to shoot the messenger. A poor one. Keep bobbling, I'm sure a pat on the head is soon to follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't believe they resurrected this old routine. > > > > > > > > > > Not so easy to spin if we look at Sal's exact words: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exact words of Sal that Curtis did not want us to look > > > > > > > > > at, for obvious reasons (Sal responding to Susan in the > > > > > > > > > same thread, same day): > > > > > > "Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that > > > don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds > > > to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, > > > juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town." > > > > > > > > > > > M: Yes if you don't include every post in the thread, it > > > > > > > > is a plot. Unfortunately for Judy, this just confirms > > > > > > > > the facts of what was going on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caught lying, Curtis declares victory. We've seen it > > > > > > > before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > What now do I post every post in this thread now or just > > > > > > > > wait for Judy to post them one by one to try to dig herself > > > > > > > > out of this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, now that I've posted the one you carefully omitted, > > > > > > > your burial is complete. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously I don't believe your claim not to have known > > > > > > > about that one. You tangled with raunchy about this in > > > > > > > March, so it's vanishingly unlikely you didn't remember > > > > > > > it. And even if you hadn't, if you had any integrity > > > > > > > you would have done your due diligence and checked out > > > > > > > the rest of Sal's posts in the thread, since the one > > > > > > > you quoted was obviously not what raunchy had been > > > > > > > referring to. > > > > > > > > > > > > Me: Yeah, you magically know what posts I looked and and > > > > > > which one Raunchy was referring to. > > > > > > > > > > I know for sure which one raunchy was referring to. I know > > > > > how dishonest you are. I know you went through the whole > > > > > thing back in March when raunchy made her comments. I'd > > > > > put the probability that you neither remembered Sal's > > > > > ugly remarks nor saw them on your hunt this time at about > > > > > 5%. And that's being generous. > > > > > > > > M: Then you would be wrong. I plugged in the woman's name > > > > and it came up, took two minutes. Why would I need to go > > > > beyond the relevant post. > > > > > > That wasn't the relevant one. The one I posted was the > > > relevant one. At the *very least*--giving you *extreme* > > > benefit of the doubt--you should have checked to make > > > sure there wasn't one more relevant than the one you > > > called up, because (as I already said) it was obvious > > > that one wasn't what raunchy was describing. > > > > > > > But you have given me some inspiration to go back to the > > > > last time we were at this particular rodeo when I posted > > > > the same thing in Feb. You didn't take this angle that > > > > time so you must not have "known" what Raunchy was > > > > referring to:#305298 > > > > > > That, as Curtis knows, was not the issue in February. > > > > > > > ME then: > > > > > > I object to your dishonest presentation of what went down. > > > > > > She made a flip comment about life in Fairfield sometimes > > > > > > resembling a kiddy party at events, when she found out the > > > > > > true context she said:"Well, I hope she raises some." > > > > > > > > > > > > So you not only took it out of context, you completely > > > > > > misrepresented everything about what she said. > > > > > > Note that Curtis is addressing raunchy above, not me, in > > > post #305288. > > > > > > And note that he omits to mention Sal's post with the > > > ugly comments here as well (made after Sal had "found > > > out the true context"). That was the one Raunchy had in > > > mind, and she had described it with great accuracy. Yet > > > Curtis called it a "dishonest presentation" and claimed > > > raunchy had "completely misrepresented" what Sal had > > > said. > > > > > > Sal: > > > Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that > > > don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds > > > to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, > > > juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town. > > > > > > Raunchy: > > > When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in > > > a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a > > > fundraiser for her. > > > > > > > Judy Then: > > > > > I agree this isn't the best example; Raunchy obviously > > > > > forgot that Sal did express a hope that Blair's fundraiser > > > > > would be successful once she was told what it was for. > > > > > > Everything raunchy *did* say was accurate, however. > > > > > > > > But Sal didn't retract her scorn for the cookies-and-milk, > > > > > and even if the event *hadn't* been a fundraiser, that > > > > > scorn would have been an attempt to bully. As with Mark, > > > > > in Sal's eyes a person trying to sell something is in a > > > > > down position. That was the basis for Sal's initial > > > > > bullying comment. > > > > > > Notice I said "INITIAL bullying comment." The one Curtis > > > omitted and I posted was the follow-up. Also note that I > > > said "Sal didn't retract her scorn for the cookies-and- > > > milk." The wish for the fundraiser to be successful didn't > > > stop her from making the gratuitous and heartless remarks > > > with which she derided the fundraiser a few hours later in > > > response to Susan. > > > > > > > ME Now: So you made up this context this time and it > > > > didn't fly did it? > > > > > > I made up nothing, as you know. The above quotes are not > > > the least bit inconsistent with anything raunchy or I > > > have said whenever this has come up. > > > > > > > Back then it was obvious what Raunchy was referring to and > > > > you didn't object. > > > > > > Raunchy was referring then to the same thing she's referred > > > to all along, and I was referring to both Sal's posts. > > > > > > > So you gave it all a shot because you are exactly what you > > > > are accusing me of. > > > > > > Sorry, Curtis, doesn't fly. You botched this badly from > > > the beginning by not quoting the relevant post, and > > > you've only made it worse by continuing to try to maintain > > > an untenable position. > > > > > > Oh, this is funny. Curtis's first post on this issue today, > > > in response to Steve, begins, "I can't believe they > > > resurrected this old routine." > > > > > > It was, of course, Steve who "resurrected" it, not raunchy > > > or me. > > > > > > > > > Little problem, it doesn't help, it only reinforces how > > > > > > much she mischaractorized it. > > > > > > > > > > Sal: > > > > > "Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that > > > > > don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds > > > > > to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, > > > > > juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town." > > > > > > > > > > Raunchy: > > > > > "When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal > > > > > heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her." > > > > > > > > > > Looks about right to me. > > > > > > > > > > (BTW, it's "mischaracterized." Not sure why you keep > > > > > putting in an "o." You wouldn't write "charactor.") > > > > > > > > Me: Thanks I have trouble with that and spell check doesn't help. > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, and she did weigh in on the thread at the time. I > > > > > > wonder why you didn't post that... > > > > > > > > > > She posted a link to a funny video in response to > > > > > Susan's comment, not to Sal's ugly remarks in reply > > > > > to Susan, the ones you omitted to mention when you > > > > > were defending Sal and attacking raunchy and me. I > > > > > didn't post it because it wasn't relevant. > > > > > > > > M: It wasn't relevant to your contrived narrative. It > > > > spoke volumes about the after the fact faux outrage > > > > around here. > > > > > > No, in fact, it didn't speak about anything. You tried > > > to make it seem as if it had, but I sorted that out for > > > you by noting which post raunchy was actually > > > responding to. > > > > > > And the only faux outrage has been yours at raunchy for > > > accurately describing Sal's ugly comments about Jennifer > > > and her fundraiser, and at me for disposing of your > > > dishonest attempts to smear raunchy. > > > > > > Sal: > > > Well, yeah. Or any of a variety of other things that > > > don't sound like she's expecting a bunch of 8-year olds > > > to show up. First time I can recall such a pathetic, > > > juvenile inducement to come somewhere. Only in this town. > > > > > > Raunchy: > > > When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in > > > a fire Sal heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a > > > fundraiser for her. > > > > > > Curtis: > > > I object to your dishonest presentation of what went down. > > > She made a flip comment about life in Fairfield sometimes > > > resembling a kiddy party at events, when she found out the > > > true context she said:"Well, I hope she raises some." > > > > > > So you not only took it out of context, you completely > > > misrepresented everything about what she said. > > > > > >
