---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : (snippo) J: Obviously he'd taken exception to something Doug had said, and everybody knows Barry was hassling Doug about his David Lynch mistake. And both times I supplied the URL of Barry's post for folks who wanted to know the context. Me: Today I decided to talk about how absurd your focus on part of his reaction was. Context switching, full speed ahead! I thought you had decided to talk about how dishonest I was to quote that single paragraph from Barry's post. And all your fussing and fuming doesn't cover up your lack of ability to defend his indefensible attack on Barry's comment. I am not confused that you are dodging the main issue here. That's right, I'm not defending it. I'm not *addressing* it, other than having said three or four times that it was a mistake. Others have made fine posts explaining *why* it was a mistake; I don't feel the need to add anything. Buck never claimed this was the reason he banned Barry, he has not told us why. Your guess is all made-up nonsense to cover for a moderator acting in secret to ban one of your enemies. It only looks worse in context. I stand by what I've said about it. You know as well as I do that it's a very likely guess. J: The only part that was *relevant* to my response to JamesAlan was that last paragraph. JamesAlan had claimed (as you know; it's quoted below) of Steve's post that Steve was saying "I choose to believe and do whatever suits my desired ends." Fine for Barry (and everybody else) to scream at Doug about the David Lynch post. Doug was wrong, and apparently he knows it, because he never deleted the post. But there's a HUGE difference between "talking back" to the moderator and declaring you are going to ignore him no matter what he says. I know you're having to scramble for ammunition against me, Curtis, but you're gonna have to do better than this. Me: You are on the wrong side of this and I know it Judy. But I need no ammo for you because I don't care about your partisan hypocrisy about this. It amuses me. Oh, fiddle-faddle. You're in no position to talk about partisan hypocrisy, first of all. Second, I'm a partisan of truth, accuracy, and fairness, and you'd have to stand on your head to find me guilty of hypocrisy. What I do care about is having the site hijacked by a person who would attempt such a ridiculous accusation, transparently gunning for an individual poster, then ban him, then lie about whose decision it was, and then stonewall any questions about what the specific reason was that he got banned. When did he lie about whose decision it was? Somehow I missed that. Doug should not be stonewalling, just for the record. I know for a fact that he is violating the explicit directions from the list owner. You have posted endlessly about your virtuous love of truth and honesty. When it's been challenged, yes, but rarely otherwise, as you know. When it is tested with someone you don't like, you fold. It was all for show. The get-Barry crew has shown their true ethical colors, and they stink. Horse puckey. Prattle, as Richard would say. I haven't "folded." You and I disagree. I don't even have a damn dog in the fight, because I ain't gonna be here. That's why I haven't done much more than point out a few of the more blatant instances of corruption from certain quarters. As I said earlier, I didn't quit posting last June because of anything to do with FFL. But the increasing putrefaction of the swamp FFL had become--and still is--made it easy to stop. And I'm about to leave you to wallow in it again. Alex was doing fine, there was no problem to solve that needed Buck. He invented this role as a ruse and immediately did what anyone can see who doesn't have "Barry is bad" blinders on. What makes your position doubly idiotic is that you could easily have been subject to this kind of mistreatment if the moderation fell into different partisan hands. And here is the kicker, I would have fought it just as hard for you as I am doing now, just as I spoke against banning the R trinity until two of them crossed clear ethical lines and I had to support it. I find this whole experience instructive concerning some people's ethics when self interest is in the way of doing the right thing. It disgusts me.
