---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : You're a little confused. See my third paragraph below. All three of 'em are doing it. (I'm not talking about *sexual* harassment, BTW, just continued annoying dumb attacks, typically gratuitous.) Me: There are no "attacks" and no one was being harassed. Those are inappropriately dramatic terms for me communicating with you here about a topic we disagreed with each other on. Is your memory going too? You called me dishonest (and then denied you had done so, apparently not realizing I'd quote you doing so). That was an empty, false accusation, and you knew it. Ergo, harassment. Me2: Yes it is true that I forgot I had made my suspicions explicit. With your latest stunt this view has been vindicated. (We will get to that post later, it must be savored on the palette like a very old port.) And it finally led you to at least say some of the right things about this mess which was my goal. I'd already said those things, Curtis. That you don't read (or don't remember) my posts doesn't make me dishonest. And the whole thing was accomplished with mostly cordial exchanges. None of that was cordial. You don't get to have a cordial exchange when you start off by falsely accusing somebody of being dishonest. Not without a retraction and apology. Me2: How about a reaffirmation that the charge was valid? You took one quote out of context and hyper-focused on it, demonstrating one of your biggest and most consistent cognitive errors. Then you threw in a little fallacious slippery slope argument to prove that it as in intentional deception. Cordial is relative to the poster. For you, that was cordial. Except for your inappropriate drama queenery, but that is part of the package and I accept that. And what characterizes your many posts to and about Doug? Drama kingery? Or is it only appropriate when you do it? Me2: Judy isn't often intentionally funny so let's give her a little credit her. My charges are specific and have not been labeled as more than they are. Judy in a previous post: As I've said, I object to Doug's attempt to moderate the David Lynch post. I object to his not revealing why he bounced Barry. Me: Thanks for making that clear, you have redeemed yourself a bit. I had already made that clear in other posts, as I told you. Judy: I can't object to his bouncing Barry without knowing why he did it. Me: Agreed, a reasonable reaction. Judy:If he did it because Barry openly defied him, I support it. I'm not into anarchy. Me: This is where we disagree. You are invoking the fallacy of he slippery slope and it does not fly. Barry objected to a person in charge who is capable of doing exactly what he did. And how could you believe he was going to actually ignore someone after he has told you that one thousand times while continuing to read and respond to some of your posts. Why you somehow believe he was serious here suddenly is a byproduct of your Barry bias. Oh, I see, that's the excuse now, Barry was JUST KIDDING. Ha ha ha. Jeez, how can you look at yourself in the mirror? I wasn't authorized to bounce him, or I'd have done it long since. So he couldn't have been "just kidding" when he said he'd never read or respond to my posts. Rather, he was LYING. Me2: Well if you take it as a lie then Buck's actions are unjustified just the same. I didn't say he was just kidding, he was blowing off steam at a moderator gone rogue and he realized he was getting unfairly set up for exactly what happened. The section below is my new favorite exchange with Judy of ALL TIME. Its perfection must be swirled in my mouth, first noticing the oaky notes in the back of my olfactory chamber,then each part of my tongue will be attended to in sequence from the back to the front and finally taken as a whole noticing the back notes and the after taste. Then it will be expectorated into the spittoon which is its rightful place. I owe you the reference on Buck's deception: Buck being channeled though Doug: Yes, Turqb and Serious are gone from FFL by moderation. I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner. We had quite sufficient back and forth about this before taking our additional time to go in to pull the moderation levers in the controls Where does Doug say bouncing Barry was a joint decision by him and Rick? Isn't that what you accused him of lying about? I don't see it. "This" refers to "I am only the CEO. My master is the list owner." Entirely proper, and what Rick said as well ("If Doug abuses his authority and/or fails to moderate fairly and objectively, I will revoke his moderator status"). "Pull the moderation levers in the controls" refers to Rick changing the member settings for the group to allow Doug to moderate (delete posts, bounce people, approve posts before they go up, etc.). ???? Where's the lie, Curtis? Yer gettin' old, Curtis. Your technique is becoming calcified. ME: And for context: Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 Fairfield Life https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation everywhere. Fairfield, Iowa is home to Maharishi ... View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/417326 Preview by Yahoo