[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: snip [Curtis wrote:] Yeah. So the deal is that it wasn't interesting enough when I saw it the first time and I'm sure I didn't read every post because it was pretty easy to identify the type of thread, and my second reading didn't make the mess look any better, so that is what happened. I can't even follow your dishonesty bullshit enough to address it. Allow me to explain. The first lie was the enough of a message part. There was no such message, whether you were lurking for four months or not. If nobody knows you're watching, you can't send a message by not commenting on what you see, obviously. I could have come out of lurk mode, I didn't. I didn't say it was a clear message. Well, yes, Curtis, you did: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care... You're a writer. You know the as if construction here means you think it *was* enough of a message. And as I noted and you ignored, *nobody knew you were lurking*. Four months, not a word. There was *no* message at all. And it was you who reminded me when I was not posting, I don't even remember myself. But if you big point was it wasn't much of a message then you got me. It was an offhand comment and you notice an inconsistency which you are trying to use as proof of deception. You'll have to pardon me if I take seriously offhand comments designed to help justify the bogus accusation that I deliberately misrepresented you. Especially when the offhand comments are so obviously bogus as well. It is a typical Judy dickish move. But even if I had been posting and I had read every one of the posts, I would not have posted about it because it was a clusterfuck of snarling accusations Virtually all of them from Barry, speaking of dickishness. snip The second lie was in your response to Steve, pretending that enough of a message wasn't a lie. Here you indulge in the Judyisim of trying to paint something like this as a lie. Pretending a lie wasn't a lie is itself a lie, of course. snip But now we may have another issue. If you did remember the episode, as you indicate above, how come you asked Dan if it had really happened? Either you saw it the first time and knew the answer to your question, or you did not see it after all, contrary to your lurking claim. Another Judy BS technique, trying to parse something like this beyond all reason to make is sound inconsistent. But this time I will spell it out. I must have seen the thread because I lurked when I wasn't posting. I must have read enough to categorize it as uninteresting which is what happened the second time too. But for you to assume that I cared enough about it to have remembered it and its connection with what Dan said...no. My response was innocent and strong that it sounded like a real violation. I don't know why you expect me to believe you at this point, frankly. I think you're now in self-protective mode and will say just about anything. I've seen this behavior too many times before from you. And you filled me in on the history, which I felt did not support the accusation. Which you tried to spin as me protecting Barry in a blatant misrepresentation of my point. Wrong. I represented your point to Dan to your explicit satisfaction. And you most certainly did try to protect Barry: It was a confusing situation as it unfolded Judy. You are taking the worst possible spin on Barry as usual and missing the jokes in his email to whoever it was who was writing to him. Being offended by this is such a lame choice IMO So when the smoke cleared he realized it really was a person, a female person and he apologized. It took a while to sort out but he came out decently in the end. I am not a fan of faux outrage myself so I guess he had his reasons for not believing Dan needed and apology. I submit that it was hardly false outrage for Dan to be unhappy that Barry had accused him of (1) deliberately sending an insulting private email; (2) lying about having done so; (3) not being who he said he was; and (4) being a woman masquerading as a man. You don't think Barry deserves criticism for any of this, but that Dan does for pretending (in your mind) to think it was crappy behavior. None of the rest of your attempted defense of Barry holds water either. I took it apart in an earlier post, but you've refused to address it. Not to mention the hypocrisy-squared of your complaining that I've taken the worst possible spin on Barry, when what Barry did was to take the worst possible spin on Dan-- and then *you* took the worst possible spin on Dan *and* on me. snip This is a big difference between you and me Judy. I learn from posts and incorporate feedback. Sometimes I find that in being distracted with some
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
Damn Yahoo ate my response. I guess the universe wanted me to take another crack at it despite the witty repartee and even sticking the landing at the end. Let's put on the slicker and L.L. Bean Maine swamp boots. -snipjstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?) What Curtis had said that I was responding to: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other [yada yada]... Curtis, when you're standing on your head trying to cobble together a plausible case out of nothing for someone else lying, it really doesn't look too good when you lie yourself, and then when caught, lie again. (Yes, I get the joke. No, it doesn't excuse the dishonesty.) Yeah. So the deal is that it wasn't interesting enough when I saw it the first time and I'm sure I didn't read every post because it was pretty easy to identify the type of thread, and my second reading didn't make the mess look any better, so that is what happened. I can't even follow your dishonesty bullshit enough to address it. Allow me to explain. The first lie was the enough of a message part. There was no such message, whether you were lurking for four months or not. If nobody knows you're watching, you can't send a message by not commenting on what you see, obviously. I could have come out of lurk mode, I didn't. I didn't say it was a clear message. And it was you who reminded me when I was not posting, I don't even remember myself. But if you big point was it wasn't much of a message then you got me. It was an offhand comment and you notice an inconsistency which you are trying to use as proof of deception. It is a typical Judy dickish move. But even if I had been posting and I had read every one of the posts, I would not have posted about it because it was a clusterfuck of snarling accusations and I am sorry I read as much as I did the second time around. And when I wrote that I hadn't made the connection that it was during the time I wasn't posting. That is the kind of detail you obsess on. I couldn't tell you what periods I have been on and off posting there have been a few. The second lie was in your response to Steve, pretending that enough of a message wasn't a lie. Here you indulge in the Judyisim of trying to paint something like this as a lie. I won't need to clarify why this is bullshit, it is obvious to any reader over the age of 10, no 8, no as soon as a child can read like in a baby Einstein program they could tell this is complete nonsense. My reporting on what I was doing when I was not posting is pretty much gunna have to be the last word Not the issue. But now we may have another issue. If you did remember the episode, as you indicate above, how come you asked Dan if it had really happened? Either you saw it the first time and knew the answer to your question, or you did not see it after all, contrary to your lurking claim. Another Judy BS technique, trying to parse something like this beyond all reason to make is sound inconsistent. But this time I will spell it out. I must have seen the thread because I lurked when I wasn't posting. I must have read enough to categorize it as uninteresting which is what happened the second time too. But for you to assume that I cared enough about it to have remembered it and its connection with what Dan said...no. My response was innocent and strong that it sounded like a real violation. And you filled me in on the history, which I felt did not support the accusation. Which you tried to spin as me protecting Barry in a blatant misrepresentation of my point. But you were being Judy and you wanted to create a chance to use your favorite word, by doing what that word means. and your opinion is not being solicited by me. Of course not. I nailed you on your lie, and made my case. You failed utterly to make any such case, and you know it. Not one of your claims held up. We (as usual) will have to agree to disagree. I am satisfied that if any reader took the time and was willing to take a long hot shower afterwards they could sort this out for themselves and I am comfortable with the conclusions they would draw. We both made our cases and (big surprise) have our hands held in the air at
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
Excuse this duplicate - Yahoo appears to be eating posts again. I am laughing so hard at you when posting about you Barry, that as a Buddhist you should consider that A GOOD THANG! No anger here, just another asshole like yourself. Enjoy it while it lasts! Oneness! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Did anyone notice that the bash-Barry fest last night was all ABOUT afflictive emotions? One drama queen, still smarting from a largely imagined offense months ago, misrepresents what happened, *in order to get some kind of 'payback' to the person who he still has a grudge against*. The next person, bearing even more of a grudge, piles on and tries to expand this fit of dwelling in the past and drama queen hysterics, and tries her best to get as many other people involved in it as possible. She goes on and on for several posts trying to do this, almost as if it were some kind of (dare I say it?) obsession for her. Meanwhile I was asleep, not a party to any of this at all. Since waking up and noticing it, I've tried merely to point out what should have been obvious from the start. This was all about afflictive emotions. Two people with a *grudge they cannot get over* leapt upon the first excuse presented to them to act out about it again. Addicted to the Spite OS, they just couldn't wait to indulge in it again. You may see this whole thing differently, but that's how I see it. It's about indulging in the afflictive emotions, and the residual obsessions that form in those who *do* indulge in them when they do it for many years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Did anyone notice that the bash-Barry fest last night was all ABOUT afflictive emotions? One drama queen, still smarting from a largely imagined offense months ago, misrepresents what happened, *in order to get some kind of 'payback' to the person who he still has a grudge against*. Has anyone noticed that Barry is LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH? Dan DID NOT MENTION BARRY'S NAME. He used the phrase a member of FFL. The only reason Barry was identified as the guilty party was that Curtis was outraged and demanded to know who it was, and I went back and looked it up. (And of course when Curtis found out it was Barry, he backed off fast.) Three more lies in that single sentence: (1) Dan did not misrepresent what happened. (2) The offense was by no means largely imagined; it was fully and openly intentional. Barry *boasted* about it and posted the email he sent Dan's wife. (3) If Dan holds a grudge against Barry, it's because Barry has repeatedly attacked and insulted him. I submit that one of the most telling signs of a person indulging in afflictive emotions is lying. And the lying doesn't stop with the above: The next person, bearing even more of a grudge, piles on and tries to expand this fit of dwelling in the past and drama queen hysterics, and tries her best to get as many other people involved in it as possible. Only two others got themselves involved, Curtis and Bob Price, neither of them at my instigation. Nor did I make any attempt to get anyone else involved. snip This was all about afflictive emotions. Two people with a *grudge they cannot get over* leapt upon the first excuse presented to them to act out about it again. Addicted to the Spite OS, they just couldn't wait to indulge in it again. Both Dan and I are constantly subjected to spiteful attacks by Barry. One doesn't get over a grudge when the offenses are ongoing. And again, Dan did not mention Barry's name. If Curtis hadn't decided that the perpetrator should be exposed, Dan's brief reference to an anonymous member of FFL would have been the end of it. You may see this whole thing differently, but that's how I see it. It's about indulging in the afflictive emotions, and the residual obsessions that form in those who *do* indulge in them when they do it for many years. The truly amazing part of all this is that despite all his preaching about afflictive emotions, Barry is incapable of recognizing that he indulges in them himself *all the time*, as he does in this post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Did anyone notice that the bash-Barry fest last night was all ABOUT afflictive emotions? One drama queen, still smarting from a largely imagined offense months ago, misrepresents what happened, *in order to get some kind of 'payback' to the person who he still has a grudge against*. Has anyone noticed that Barry is LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH? Dan DID NOT MENTION BARRY'S NAME. He used the phrase a member of FFL. The only reason Barry was identified as the guilty party was that Curtis was outraged and demanded to know who it was, and I went back and looked it up. (And of course when Curtis found out it was Barry, he backed off fast.) As you know Judy, this is an inaccurate portrayal of what went down. Since you yourself made a post to Dan making my objection clear, we both know that you are not being truthful here. There is a name for that is that you are doing, but it slips my mind... When I made my post to Dan I was outraged by his claim. (Not the faux one) I purposely made my statement unequivocal. Whoever had purposely gotten a poster's wife's email in order to send her offensive emails deserved to be cast out to the outer darkness for all of eternity. The line that our spouses and family should be off limits hit home, I was on board for the cause immediately. I meant it and I didn't care if it turned out to me sleep posting on some bad combination of ambian and bourbon, lurching about my home and banging out offensive emails to other people's wifes whose email I had somehow gotten in my somnambulistic trance. So you sent me the links and I read them. And those posts did not support the claim that someone had somehow gotten a poster's wife's email address in order to harass her. What I found was the typical FFL scrum with fur and accusations flying, but no smoking gun for the claim that someone had gotten a poster's wife's email in order to harrass her. I repeated my specific objection numerous times so that there could be no lack of clarity in what I objected to and what it was that made me call bullshit on the claim. Trying to draw attention away from my ligitimate objection you attempted to get me interested in your regurgitated meal of FFL rancorous non- communication as it dried into the carpet and even small dogs took a sniff and split. (And they love regurgitated crap) As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other finding each other despite all odds on a SPIRITUAL internet forum devoted to sharing insights into the meaning of life, and who said what to whom when that person said the other thing to some other person and it just wasn't right. Like if Hollywood scripted spirituality in the dialogue for a Nickolodian sitcom set in Junior High. Oh that Mr. Foxworth is so boring in class that I fell asleep and drooled all over my rudraksha beads. Oh no, not the ones that Kevin gave you on Guru Purnima! What are you going to do on your walk to the dome if he notices... And scene. So for you to try to spin my position as some kind of unfair Barry bias, as if I was operating in bad faith concerning the claim and the lack of support in the referenced posts is a blatant um...it's on the tip of my tongue, its a small word, one that is rarely invoked here on FFL, an obscure little word probably derived from the Latin...it will come to me soon enough...damn almost had it but it slipped away again. I'll just have to settle for this in liu of the right word for the job: Judy is knowingly misrepresenting my objections and is creating a false impression ment to mislead the readers into drawing an erroneous conclusion concerning my POV and my stated postition and this was not an innocent error, but is a malicious attempt to obfuscate the truth and perpetrate a falsehood, something not true, lacking in veracity and honestyshit I am so close again, there is that word dangeling in the air right in front of me so close I can almost touch itgone. Complete blank. I guess I'll try my Thesaurus app to see what small word would sum up this verbose paragraph, making my point in three letters or less if possible. I'll have to get back to you. Three more lies in that single sentence: (1) Dan did not misrepresent what happened. (2) The offense was by no means largely imagined; it was fully and openly intentional. Barry *boasted* about it and posted the email he sent Dan's wife. (3) If Dan holds a grudge against Barry, it's because Barry has repeatedly attacked and insulted him. I submit that one of the most telling signs of a person indulging in afflictive emotions is lying. And the lying doesn't stop with the above:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:21 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I'll just have to settle for this in liu of the right word for the job: Judy is knowingly misrepresenting my objections and is creating a false impression ment to mislead the readers into drawing an erroneous conclusion concerning my POV and my stated postition and this was not an innocent error, but is a malicious attempt to obfuscate the truth and perpetrate a falsehood, something not true, lacking in veracity and honestyshit I am so close again, there is that word dangeling in the air right in front of me so close I can almost touch itgone. Complete blank. I guess I'll try my Thesaurus app to see what small word would sum up this verbose paragraph, making my point in three letters or less if possible. Sounds to me like Judy is LYING again. HINT: if her fingers are typing, she's probably lying. Although she used to pepper her posts occasionally with nice check this neat link out kind of posts to try to offset her indiscretions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The only reason Barry was identified as the guilty party was that Curtis was outraged and demanded to know who it was, and I went back and looked it up. (And of course when Curtis found out it was Barry, he backed off fast.) snip I'll just have to settle for this in liu of the right word for the job: Judy is knowingly misrepresenting my objections I made no representation of your objections in the post you're responding to. And you've already acknowledged that my representation of your objections in an earlier post was correct. So who is knowingly engaging in misrepresentation here? and is creating a false impression ment to mislead the readers into drawing an erroneous conclusion concerning my POV and my stated postition and this was not an innocent error, but is a malicious attempt to obfuscate the truth and perpetrate a falsehood I stand by what I said. You found out it was Barry, and you backed off fast. Your initial outrage was based on a misinterpretation of what Dan had said, reading into it stuff that wasn't there and then taking it in the worst possible light, accusing him of misrepresentation because what had actually happened turned out not to confirm your misinterpretation. His description was accurate, just an oversimplification of a complicated situation created by Barry (who had taken Dan's accidental email in the worst possible light and then attempted viciously to humiliate him for an innocent mistake). But even granting, for the sake of argument, that you had good reason to back off your initial outrage when you found out the situation was not what you had at first imagined on the basis of Dan's remark, you were unwilling to criticize Barry with regard to what had actually gone down once you had read the original posts. I submit that if it hadn't been Barry who had pulled that inexcusable stunt with Dan, you wouldn't have been so quick to brush it off. That's what I meant by backed off fast. And speaking of misrepresentation: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. That's why you demanded to know who the perp was. You'd never seen the original episode and had no idea what Dan was talking about.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
Vaj: Sounds to me like Judy is LYING again... Maybe you should provide a link to the lies, if any, that you think Judy posted so we can sort this all out. I know someone is lying, but I don't think it's Judy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jul 12, 2011, at 11:21 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: I'll just have to settle for this in liu of the right word for the job: Judy is knowingly misrepresenting my objections and is creating a false impression ment to mislead the readers into drawing an erroneous conclusion concerning my POV and my stated postition and this was not an innocent error, but is a malicious attempt to obfuscate the truth and perpetrate a falsehood, something not true, lacking in veracity and honestyshit I am so close again, there is that word dangeling in the air right in front of me so close I can almost touch itgone. Complete blank. I guess I'll try my Thesaurus app to see what small word would sum up this verbose paragraph, making my point in three letters or less if possible. Sounds to me like Judy is LYING again. Since Judy doesn't lie, it's not possible for her to be lying *again*. Vaj knows I don't lie. But what's he gonna do? He has no way to discredit my exposure of his lies, so he just makes this wild accusation over and over, hoping somebody will believe him. He's never caught me in a lie. Neither has anybody else here. Barry's tried *very* hard a number of times but has failed miserably. Curtis just took a shot at it and came badly a-cropper. Vaj can't even come up with a specific accusation. It isn't a matter of being virtuous; lying is just stupid. As Vaj and Barry are only too well aware, most lies come back to bite you in the butt. It's a lot easier and a lot less stressful to tell the truth. HINT: if her fingers are typing, she's probably lying. Although she used to pepper her posts occasionally with nice check this neat link out kind of posts to try to offset her indiscretions. That's pretty funny. Vaj missed the self-portrait taken by a monkey I posted a couple of days ago, and as his luck would have it, I just posted another day-brightener (Victorians DID smile!) before reading his post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other finding each other despite all odds on a SPIRITUAL internet forum devoted to sharing insights into the meaning of life, and who said what to whom when that person said the other thing to some other person and it just wasn't right. Like if Hollywood scripted spirituality in the dialogue for a Nickolodian sitcom set in Junior High. Oh that Mr. Foxworth is so boring in class that I fell asleep and drooled all over my rudraksha beads. Oh no, not the ones that Kevin gave you on Guru Purnima! What are you going to do on your walk to the dome if he notices... And scene. I say we end the discussion on this note. Can we ever quit on the high note?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other finding each other despite all odds on a SPIRITUAL internet forum devoted to sharing insights into the meaning of life, and who said what to whom when that person said the other thing to some other person and it just wasn't right. Like if Hollywood scripted spirituality in the dialogue for a Nickolodian sitcom set in Junior High. Oh that Mr. Foxworth is so boring in class that I fell asleep and drooled all over my rudraksha beads. Oh no, not the ones that Kevin gave you on Guru Purnima! What are you going to do on your walk to the dome if he notices... And scene. I say we end the discussion on this note. Can we ever quit on the high note? Much appreciated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. Your mother must be very proud of you Curtis. Did she teach you that, or was it your dad? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?) What Curtis had said that I was responding to: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other [yada yada]... Curtis, when you're standing on your head trying to cobble together a plausible case out of nothing for someone else lying, it really doesn't look too good when you lie yourself, and then when caught, lie again. (Yes, I get the joke. No, it doesn't excuse the dishonesty.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. Your mother must be very proud of you Curtis. Thanks for asking Jim. She really was before she suffered a massive heart attack and died in the hospital hours later. Kind of a dicy few hours that was as you can imagine. So she isn't proud of me right this minute because she is dead. But when she was alive she often expressed this kind of loving supportive emotion. Did she teach you that, or was it your dad? No Jim we did not discuss the kind of sex role play that some consenting adults engage in because she was my mother. That would be an inappropriate discussion to have between a mother and her son. But all the years I shared with her we did often discuss a lot of other stuff like how beautiful the crocuses are when they come out as the first flowers that break through the snow in the Spring and announce that life is on the move and we will soon be enjoying the bounty of Summer. She was a big fan of Thoreau, not just the obvious Walden Pond, but did you know he also wrote books for each of the seasons? He did, and they talked about all the signs unique to each season like the crocuses blooming through the snow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?) What Curtis had said that I was responding to: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other [yada yada]... Curtis, when you're standing on your head trying to cobble together a plausible case out of nothing for someone else lying, it really doesn't look too good when you lie yourself, and then when caught, lie again. (Yes, I get the joke. No, it doesn't excuse the dishonesty.) Yeah. So the deal is that it wasn't interesting enough when I saw it the first time and I'm sure I didn't read every post because it was pretty easy to identify the type of thread, and my second reading didn't make the mess look any better, so that is what happened. I can't even follow your dishonesty bullshit enough to address it. My reporting on what I was doing when I was not posting is pretty much gunna have to be the last word and your opinion is not being solicited by me. I nailed you on your lie, and made my case. You misrepresented my position. We both know what you were up to. I called you on it and you doubled down. FFL mix tape. Nothing changes. However, since you have pursued this to the point of me having to triple think myself, I would like to say that I am not privy to Dan's intentions in posting that sentence the way he did. He may be more of an innocent than my summation bullshit conveys. So since I have had some nice posts with the guy I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that my reaction was more than he bargained for and was not his intention. I am still happy to have spoken up when I read it because it conveyed something I do not support. My assessment of what I read in the posts remains. I am most sorry that it was brought to my attention at all on a day with otherwise very compellingly deep communications with other posters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
Damn dude, so its only funny when you or Barry make the belittling jokes? I'll try to keep that in mind. Pardon moi? In the meantime, you oughta thank your dad for the feather duster and cat-o-nine tails tricks *he* taught you. Sounds like a real creative fellow! Oh wait, I have to add the smiley face at the end like Barry does, so you know I'm just joking. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. Your mother must be very proud of you Curtis. Thanks for asking Jim. She really was before she suffered a massive heart attack and died in the hospital hours later. Kind of a dicy few hours that was as you can imagine. So she isn't proud of me right this minute because she is dead. But when she was alive she often expressed this kind of loving supportive emotion. Did she teach you that, or was it your dad? No Jim we did not discuss the kind of sex role play that some consenting adults engage in because she was my mother. That would be an inappropriate discussion to have between a mother and her son. But all the years I shared with her we did often discuss a lot of other stuff like how beautiful the crocuses are when they come out as the first flowers that break through the snow in the Spring and announce that life is on the move and we will soon be enjoying the bounty of Summer. She was a big fan of Thoreau, not just the obvious Walden Pond, but did you know he also wrote books for each of the seasons? He did, and they talked about all the signs unique to each season like the crocuses blooming through the snow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
PS I'll be waiting to see how Barry can pretzel himself into addressing this while continuing to pretend he doesn't read my stuff. That's some buddy you got there Curtis. I'll bet *he's* proud of you, and still alive too...*above* the waist anyway... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Damn dude, so its only funny when you or Barry make the belittling jokes? I'll try to keep that in mind. Pardon moi? In the meantime, you oughta thank your dad for the feather duster and cat-o-nine tails tricks *he* taught you. Sounds like a real creative fellow! Oh wait, I have to add the smiley face at the end like Barry does, so you know I'm just joking. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. Your mother must be very proud of you Curtis. Thanks for asking Jim. She really was before she suffered a massive heart attack and died in the hospital hours later. Kind of a dicy few hours that was as you can imagine. So she isn't proud of me right this minute because she is dead. But when she was alive she often expressed this kind of loving supportive emotion. Did she teach you that, or was it your dad? No Jim we did not discuss the kind of sex role play that some consenting adults engage in because she was my mother. That would be an inappropriate discussion to have between a mother and her son. But all the years I shared with her we did often discuss a lot of other stuff like how beautiful the crocuses are when they come out as the first flowers that break through the snow in the Spring and announce that life is on the move and we will soon be enjoying the bounty of Summer. She was a big fan of Thoreau, not just the obvious Walden Pond, but did you know he also wrote books for each of the seasons? He did, and they talked about all the signs unique to each season like the crocuses blooming through the snow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Afflictive Emotions, part 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You weren't here the first time around. You were absent from the group from before Thanksgiving till the end of March. The Barry-debacle took place in January. And here I thought he was lurking all that time. [:(] Of course I was. I can't imagine why a Judy Barry Dan battle didn't bring me out of lurk mode! I was letting absence make my heart grow fonder like when you use a feather duster on a chick when she is begging you for the cat-O-nine tails. (Did I say that last part out loud?) What Curtis had said that I was responding to: As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other [yada yada]... Curtis, when you're standing on your head trying to cobble together a plausible case out of nothing for someone else lying, it really doesn't look too good when you lie yourself, and then when caught, lie again. (Yes, I get the joke. No, it doesn't excuse the dishonesty.) Yeah. So the deal is that it wasn't interesting enough when I saw it the first time and I'm sure I didn't read every post because it was pretty easy to identify the type of thread, and my second reading didn't make the mess look any better, so that is what happened. I can't even follow your dishonesty bullshit enough to address it. Allow me to explain. The first lie was the enough of a message part. There was no such message, whether you were lurking for four months or not. If nobody knows you're watching, you can't send a message by not commenting on what you see, obviously. The second lie was in your response to Steve, pretending that enough of a message wasn't a lie. My reporting on what I was doing when I was not posting is pretty much gunna have to be the last word Not the issue. But now we may have another issue. If you did remember the episode, as you indicate above, how come you asked Dan if it had really happened? Either you saw it the first time and knew the answer to your question, or you did not see it after all, contrary to your lurking claim. and your opinion is not being solicited by me. Of course not. I nailed you on your lie, and made my case. You failed utterly to make any such case, and you know it. Not one of your claims held up. However, since you have pursued this to the point of me having to triple think myself, snort Try thinking straight the first time. Saves energy and embarrassment. I would like to say that I am not privy to Dan's intentions in posting that sentence the way he did. He may be more of an innocent than my summation bullshit conveys. So since I have had some nice posts with the guy I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that my reaction was more than he bargained for and was not his intention. Good, that's well done, at least. Of course it further demolishes your pretensions to having made a case for my misrepresenting your objection: Since you yourself made a post to Dan making my objection clear... And then a few paragraphs later: Judy is knowingly misrepresenting my objections... The only representation I made of your objection was the one you validated. You know that, I know that, I know you know that, you know I know you know it. I am still happy to have spoken up when I read it because it conveyed something I do not support. Which, according to what you say above, you knew hadn't happened anyway. You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper, Curtis. My assessment of what I read in the posts remains. I am most sorry that it was brought to my attention at all on a day with otherwise very compellingly deep communications with other posters. Too bad MZ hasn't been around to see you mess up, see what's under the Mr. Wonderful veneer when things don't quite go your way. That's 50 and out for me. If decide you have more to say, I'll address it when I come back. But if I were you, I'd stop digging.
