---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote : Jim was addressing directly the fact that those three words were present in Barry's consciousness in a form that resulted in him slinging them as he did. As a mother and a parent, myself, I can't even IMAGINE doing such a thing. C: So you are not a fan of Family Guy or other comedy that uses outrageous terms and images that are offensive to make a point. OK, your choice. EM: No, I'm actually not a fan of Family Guy. For other comedy, it depends on what terms and images are being put forth - I wouldn't be amused at the one BW put forth. C: But to insinuate that anyone who uses them actually has a desire to do a heinous act on children is bullshit. EM: Again, you are reaching too far here - there wasn't talk of "desire" to do, from what I recall. C: Johnathan Swift made a whole essay out of eating babies to make his point. Does this mean that he actually might eat a baby? Is it a sign that he could even think of such a thing mean something sinister about his character? EM: I haven't read this, but an obvious difference here is that "eating babies" just doesn't happen and is therefore, clearly an hyperbole. Believe you me, if he had used the three words that BW used, which represent a violation of the worst kind that, unfortunately, is a *real* thing, I doubt he would have been published. C: It shouldn't surprise anyone that you and Barry have different writing styles and choices by your output here. You do not go close to a line that could offend like that image. OK good for you. Barry does. So do I sometimes. EM: No, you haven't gone to that line, except in defending it. C: It is creative writing and uses exaggeration for effect. EM: Seriously, Curtis? Creative writing? Creative writing is more that which Edg does - insulting dramatically using a vocabulary that doesn't invoke intense violence and violation. If BW had been writing creatively for FFL, he would have come up with something better than that, I am sure. He was raging, as he tends to do here, when he can't hold it inside any longer. (It's a clear pattern of his, but I digress). C: Sometimes we hit and sometimes we miss. But if people start attacking us for any image used as if it reveals a literal truth, it effectively negates the creative value of posting here safely. EM: You are generalizing and whitewashing here. The three words *do* reveal a literal truth (of what happens to innocent children). E: That's the other thing Jim was doing - calling BW on the fact that as a pseudo-parent, he ought to pull to a complete and immediate STOP within himself and take a look. Jim wrote in typical FFL-style speak-ease to make his points - CONTEXT, CURTIS, Context. C: Jim was explicitly stating that Barry could be guilty of illegal acts in his real life because of his image choice. It is a bogus connection especially since the explicit meaning of its use was as an example of something undeniably outrageous. It was used as the most extreme example of something bad that could be overlooked to make his real point. EM: Huh? I don't believe that given the length of time that both BW and Jim have posted here, that he was actually accusing such a thing - rather, in my view, what Jim was doing was, using scenario creatively to call BW on his word-choice in a manner that reflected his complete and total opposition to participating in a venue that involved such word choices, or allowing such a phrase to cross the forum, unchecked. Again, the energy of that post from Barry was angry and hostile and it wasn't some blase "example of something bad......." He was writing like a "perv"and that's what Jim was reacting to. The context of Jim's posts are to cast suspicion on his real life even though his point explicitly voiced his own objection to this behavior as an example of the worst thing he could think of. C: I suspect if you were ever the target of what Jim is doing you might feel differently about this. EM: If I had written what BW wrote, I would hope that I would be a major target and I would pray that I had the wherewithal within to apologize, at the very least, simply for purposefully creating a visual that was so *undeniably* painful and criminal in nature. Whether I felt justified in my action or my writing or not, I would have apologized. I've apologized sincerely for much less on this forum. But, I'm one of the only ones, I know, that has done this. That's me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Do you really not see the distinction between Barry using that phrase to make his point in a dramatic way or someone posting as you have, expressing your opinion about his word choice compared to taking it out of context to accuse him of real illegal acts with real people in his life? I will give you credit for more intelligence than to think that what Jim is doing has anything to do with protecting children. You are welcome to express your complete outrage at his word choices. Go for it, that is what the place is for. But what Jim is doing makes it unsafe to post here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote : Geezus....BW is the one who wrote those three words....heinous and illegal....the fact that those three words were even able to be generated in his consciousness is disturbing and disturbed ALL, is my guess, on some level, except those that are unable to *feel.* And, now for some reason, it's the person who most vociferously opposed those three words and the person who wrote them in writing that is being attacked? Get a grip, get real. BW can issue an apology at any time; it isn't too late, yet, for him to take a little accountability for himself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Two issues. Our opinions about what people want to post about here, and a clear line of safety concerning certain content meant to hurt people's reputation offline. Calling someone an assclown is an entirely different insult than accusing someone of illegal activity. And it is even more critical for a topic like child welfare where people can lose their rational minds and go after someone ala Salem witch trial. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote : I think that people who continued slinging insults at Jim, even after he'd left, demonstrate just as much addiction to conflict online. BOTH sides need to get the fuck over each other. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : Jim's post is a serious breach of the FFL guidelines and provides a chilling precedent for online slander meant to cause harm to someone in their real life. I hope anyone who agrees will first delete the slanderous message in the post before commenting. This is way over the line. I almost commented when Jim used a heading with an inflammatory statement just as Nabbie did in his little FU to FFL when he left. I believe it was maliciously intended to get the newsgroup in trouble with Yahoo. But this post is clearly meant to hurt Barry in his real life with a phrase taken out of context. The original context of Barry's hyperbole was to show something so universally considered heinous, that no one would miss his point that people in a cult mindset can overlook what is WRONG. In context it refers to cultural norms and reinforces them concerning child welfare. The intended use was obvious. For Jim to take it out of its context as if it revealed something else is a chilling use of misinterpretation to hurt someone's reputation online. Having been he victim of this myself here I understand how helpless you can feel when this is going on. I needed Rick's help and I got it, and I greatly appreciate that support for my free speech in safety here. I also want to comment on this misuse of a serious topic for a personal vendetta online. It is the lowest form of a get someone at any cost mentality to use child welfare as a pawn in a gotchya game online. By trivializing it by using someone's statement out of context, we add to the static that obscures real harm. People become numb to the accusation when it is misused this way. And in that maliciously generated cacophony, we miss real harm done to real kids by real bad people. I am against Jim's misappropriation of this topic on these grounds also. To pretend his malicious misuse of what Barry wrote is in support of child welfare is the sickest kind of cynicism. Hiding behind this topic to do harm to someone else here is disgusting. Finally, both Buck and Jim have demonstrated that all their faux objections to contentious exchanges here are just that. They are both addicted to conflict online and must leave their other forum to cause trouble here. While I find Bucks constant baiting and trolling obnoxious, it does not violate the reasonable terms of use here. Jim's post did. It makes this an unsafe place to post our opinions if people are allowed to make such real life damaging accusations based on nothing but their own bile and misrepresentation. I hope this forum will be safe place to post in 2015. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
