---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Declaring one is going to ignore the authority figure, of course, adds up to far more than simply talking back to the authority figure. And it has nothing to do with the Yahoo Guidelines per se; it has to do with the authority figures themselves. If they want to maintain their authority, they need to sanction those who openly defy it.
But you're well aware of this. Me: In a Southern town in the 1950's or in Saddam's Iraq maybe. Your statement is absurd on some levels and offensive on others. In fact rather than point out its many flaws I will simply repeat what you said and ask the reader to let images come into their mind where this would be appropriate: Judy: "If they want to maintain their authority, they need to sanction those who openly defy it." Me: In what time and place would such a repugnant idea be promoted? Although Maharishi subscribed to this authoritarian ideology, as an American who grew up in the 60's I do not. I am opposed to this view of authority figures and offer my own. They work for US, not the other way around. If you are a shitty leader you get opposition from people who actually do know better, and if you are a good one you get opposition from people who just think they do. The moderator's job here is not to crush dissent in FFL members when they point out that he is not serving the forum's needs properly. I do believe that you may have outed some of Buck/Doug's impression of what his role is here. But since he is not telling us why Barry was cut off specifically we can only speculate. Judy: Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your "dead pool" implication. Me: The old Judy playbook technique of stating the opposite of what I said about my intentions in my own writing, as if this makes it so. I comes from the belief that she knows better than I do myself what my meaning was in what I wrote myself about myself. It is a byproduct of grandiosity. Judy: Unfortunately you've screwed up again. I came "out of lurkerdom" on May 31, a week before Rick decided to appoint a moderator, a week before any of us knew he was even considering it. Me: You have been peeking in and out of lurkdom a few times lately with your most recent posting streak the most prolific. Each time you come out of lurkdom is a different time because you are the one making a point to tell us that you may not return to post again. Judy: Doug is not now and never has been either my friend or my enemy. But what's fascinating about your absurd remark is that you can't seem to envision defending someone who isn't a friend who is being treated unfairly and dishonestly just because it's the right thing to do. There has to be an ulterior, self-interested motive as far as you're concerned. Me: Right Judy. I am a poopy pants and you are a virtuous person among the dishonest unwashed. I would have hoped that your sabbatical would have helped you get over yourself a bit but I am afraid it has not. Your misinterpretation of my meaning and your projection on it is at the basis of your weird charge. Rather than untangle the mess you made of what I said I will just end here with Louis Armstrong: "You blows what you is." That explains it all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Curtis deliberately misrepresents what I said in an effort to switch the context his way. Again, standard. My conclusion about why Turq got bounced was that he declared he was going to ignore anything Doug posted. Kind of like a football player announcing publicly that he was going to ignore anything the umpire said. How much longer do you think he'd stay in the game--or on the team, for that matter--after that? Just a *wee* bit different from "talking back" to the umpire. And Turq wasn't even addressing Doug when he said what he did. Me: It all adds up to talking back to the authority figure and this is not an actionable offense in the Yahoo guidelines. You are making Judy distinctions between things that do not matter. Judy: The implication of your "dead pool" remark was, of course, that I was sucking up to Doug to ensure I wouldn't get bounced, rather than just doing the right thing by defending him from the unfair and dishonest treatment he's been getting. Me: You are making up your "implication" so you can enjoy your favorite emotional outrage buzz Judy. That was neither intended nor implied in what I wrote. I hadn't even conspired that as an angle when I wrote that. I was stating the obvious and as usual you got bent about it. Your choice. I don't believe that you act in that calculated a way here, so from my POV I would not accuse you of this directly or in implication. But seeing how reactive you got makes me think that perhaps a bit of the ol' enemy of my enemy is my friend at work here that brought you out of lurkdom, which has been replayed so many times in your years of posing here I hope you make a comical attempt to deny it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : (snip) But your support for him has eliminated you from the FFL dead pool so in the end your choice my be the wise one here if you still care to post. I resent the implication. Standard Curtis. As it happens, I don't intend to stay around much longer. Me: Nothing was implied Judy, it was all stated clearly. Even by your own analysis that opposing Doug/Buck may lead to being banned. It was your conclusion about why he bounced Barry for talking back to him. Being offended by the most obvious comment was your MO here so this is standard Judy. Judy: The only reason I've stayed as long as I have is to try to keep you guys more honest than you would be otherwise. Me: Always nice to end with a note of condescension and self aggrandizement so we know it is really you.
