--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
wrote:
<snip>
> > > > > And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T
> > > > > KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in
> > > > > such a thing as "TRUTH."
> > > >
> > > > Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all
> > > > the time.
> > > >
> > > > Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if
> > > > they were words I had used, "setting them
> > > > straight." You made that up entirely out of
> > > > your own head.
> > >
> > > Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other
> > > people's writing for a living, you might figure
> > > out that a very common usage of quotation marks,
> > > in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as
> > > a way of highlighting words and phrases.
> >
> > Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a
> > common or even an accepted substitute for italics.
> >
> > What you and many others use is asterisks, as you
> > just did above.
>
> No, I use asterisks as a substitute for bolding.
No, you don't. As a published writer, you're well
aware that bold is almost never used in text; it's
used almost exclusively for headings. Italics are
what are used to emphasize a word or phrase in text,
and that's how you and most others use asterisks.
> > > Only the truly paranoid would see them as an
> > > attempt to quote *them* every time they're used. :-)
> >
> > Nope. You've been using quote marks around your
> > own words in an attempt to imply they're someone
> > else's as long as I've known you. It's just one
> > of your many dishonest tricks.
>
> Now let me get this straight. :-)
>
> Let's present my version of things here, and
> then yours, and allow people on this forum to
> decide for themselves what's goin' down, Ok?
>
> My version is that I used quote marks similarly
> to the way the Mark Myers holds up two fingers
> of each hand and makes quote marks in the air
> as he's playing Dr. Evil, saying something he
> obviously wants to emphasize in a silly way.
Those are called "scare quotes" ("quotation marks
used to express especially skepticism or derision
concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase,"
per my dictionary). That's quite different from
emphasis, for which italics are used.
But you wouldn't be using scare quotes for your own
words, obviously. What you do is use quotes in such
a way as to suggest you're quoting somebody else's
words when they're actually *your* words.
So
> I would have made quote marks in the air and put
> them around "setting them straight" to point out
> how *ludicrous* that idea was, the idea that you
> actually *could* "set people straight."
Except, of course, that those are your own words,
not mine.
> *Your* version is that I put quotes around the
> phrase "setting them straight" as part of an
> evil, horrible plot to convince people here on
> FFL that you had actually used that phrase.
No, it's just your standard casual dishonesty,
an attempt to load your argument when you're
aware it's weak.
Did
> I get that right? I'm just checkin' to make sure,
> because last I checked the use of that phrase
> wasn't considered either illegal or, for that
> matter, terribly embarrassing.
Which is why you'd put scare quotes around it,
right, because it's a perfectly ordinary phrase?
Oopsie!
My point was that you regularly put words in the
mouths of your "enemies." It's part of your whole
fantasy trip, your compulsion to make stuff up
instead of sticking to what goes on in the real
world.
<snip>
> > > Have you ever noticed that, when I say something
> > > that gets your goat and flusters you, you always
> > > drop into "editor mode" and try to criticize my
> > > writing?
> >
> > In fact, as you know, I criticize your writing very
> > rarely. And it's your fantasy that you get my goat
> > and fluster me. Only someone for whom I have respect
> > could do that.
>
> Uh-huh. That's why you said
(Notice Barry's careful evasion of the correction
of his misstatement about my criticisms of his
writing.)
that I intentionally
> tried to slander and defame you by claiming that
> I tried to convince people here that you said
> the horrible phrase "setting them straight."
As noted, I was giving an example of your tendency
to casual dishonesty. I didn't think it rose to
the level of "slander," but apparently you did.
I know it makes you feel better to think that I
call attention to your phoniness, hypocrisy, and
dishonesty because you've somehow gotten my goat,
rather than because I think you're a phony,
dishonest hypocrite who needs to be publicly
scorned and laughed at. But the latter is the case.
As noted, I have to have some respect for a person
before they can get my goat.
> *That* claim is certainly indicative of someone
> who's not the *least* bit not-goat-gotten. :-)
Oops, double negative there. Getting a little
flustered, are you?
> Judy, I wait with 'bated breath for your reply.
No apostrophe needed there, Bar'.
> I just can't *wait* for you to stick to your
> story and claim that me putting "setting them
> straight" inside quotes was part of my evil,
> twisted, lying plot to slander you and discredit
> you here on FFL.
See, Barry, those are *your* words, not mine, your
own fantasy, your own claim. At least you didn't
put *them* in quotes. Maybe you're learning
something.
If a smart person wanted to
> convince people here that their goat hadn't
> been gotten, they'd find a saner story. But
> you won't will you?
>
> The way I see it, you either stick to your claim
> and look crazy as a loon,
No, Barry, the whole bit about evil and twisted and
slander was *your* claim, not mine, remember?
My claim was about your casual dishonesty to load
your argument when you're stuck for a solid point.
But you can't even admit to *that*. Instead you
lie about using asterisks for bold rather than
italics and try to convince folks you use scare
quotes *for your own words*.
It's you who looks crazy as a loon, you see.
or you admit that you
> kinda overreacted in a paranoid fashion, and
> write it off to something I said that got your
> goat. There's no shame in the latter, Judy,
> and from my point of view it lessens your
> credibility here a lot less than being a
> paranoid schizophrenic.
I have no reason to be the least bit concerned
about my credibility. Too bad you can't say the
same.
