Curtis, I think Robin has a valid point. Vajra boy accused Robin of "hiding" behind false mail and went to the extent of asking if it's "legal" on yahoo. Vajra boy *knows* that it's not an issue at all and yet makes a moronic statement. Judy called him on it.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/297274 Uncle Tantra *knows* the dome is private property and yet makes a long post asking people to barge in aka Clint Eastwood. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/295260 It's obivious that Uncle Tantra is a pseudo-critic who has some strange compulsion to criticise everything and sundry under the sun. Now Curtis, if you are objective, logical and as Switzerland as you really are, please reprimand both of them. If you don't, Robin will call you an asslicker. Judy will call you an hypocrite. Robin is the exact polar opposite Sal. He needs 600 billion words to convey a single point. Let everybody on this forum kneel down and thank God for creating an angelic being like Robin. Hail Mary! Hail St. Francis of Assisi, Hail St. Peter the Apostle....... From: maskedzebra <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 1:10 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula > Robin: This, for me, is the evidence for some underlying > contradiction in Curtis. But I suppose Curtis can even get > away with this: But don't you see? he is making a moral > commitment here and *he is wrong*. This is a terrible > bias. I contend that this bias must and does show up in > almost everything he says at least in the realm of judging > people who are either in disagreement with him, or even in > agreement with him. Curtis would never attempt to persuade > most every reader on FFL that Judy is what he thinks she > is a bitter and hateful bitch. > > > > > Curtis3: Aren't you just putting words in my mouth here? > > This is not something I would use to sum up how Judy is. > > I have said many very nice things about her through the > > years, but her insistence that I scold Barry is not on > > the positive side from either you or her. > > > > Robin4: Yes, perhaps I am putting words in your mouth > here. And I realize I have skewed your view of Judy. But > I will say something contrary to what you believe and > state here: *You definitely SHOULD reprimand and admonish > poor Barry for his behaviour on FFL*. The fact that you > fanatically assert not just your repugnance to do this, > but your own sense of somehow this being a taboo act, this > is strange and indefensible. Yes, Curtis, and I believe > your scrupulous failure to scold your friend gets at the > very heart of your mysterious problem. Yes it certainly > does, Curtis. I know of no one I have ever met who would > make this kind of assertion: Thou shalt not ask me to ask > Barry to behave decently and honourably at FFL. It is a > dark and secret eccentricity of yours, Curtis, and it > unquestionably points up a perverse blindness and > irresponsibility in you. And I will never back down on > this. To call someone your friend and then make the > definition of that friendship to mean you will never call > them on anything, well, this is just plain silliness and > dumb freemasonry. And more than this: *It is not > friendship at all*. I would never consider you a friend if > I thought you thought: "Oh, my friend Robin: well he is my > friend: ergo, I will not and must not say anything against > him. And I will spurn the importunate entreaties of others > that I speak to Robin to make him behave like a grown-up." > Very wrong, Curtis, and shocking beyond telling. You are > up your "white ass" as Ravi would say [he said that about > me]. An incredible doctrine of friendship and loyalty that > would be the subject of the most unreserved condemnation > in any Shakepearean play. It doesn't even make sense, > Curtis. You are out of your tree. Have I got my point > across yet? You are ridiculous here, Curtis, and I know > that I can, from every angle, just blow you out of the > water if you make of this some kind of debating point. > Don't. It is unmeaning. Except in some secret and > inexplicable way known only to yourself. But as a > universal concept of friendship, justice, truth? There it > is as far as I am concerned an actual evil—or could be > conceived as such. > > > Consider writing a short story with this as your moral and > then try to explain the justification of this theme to > your grade 12 students. Unless you can universalize this > precept arising from the JudyBarry wars, you should shut > up about it. That you want things to conform to this > precept is obvious; but don't be a jerk and try to defend > it as if it is some moral principle that others should > learn and apply in their own lives. Stop it, Curtis. > > > Like my tone tonight? I am just relishing this experience > of really going at you, Curtis. I'll settle down in a > while; don't worry. > > > Robin4: What about your opinion that my opinions about > other people's online relationship have an important > value? "Why are you meddling in their affairs and trying > to take me to task for my personal choices concerning > them?" This is an opinion, Curtis, and it is judgmental > and aggressive and intrusive in the extreme. You are > fighting against my so-called opinions they are not > opinions; they are *perceptions*; if I felt they never > rose beyond the status of an opinion I would never assert > them, because, as Plato said, opinions signify incomplete > knowledge, the absence of knowledge, a substitute for > knowledge in any case, you are fighting against my > 'opinions' with some fierce and virulent opinions of your > own. No, Curtis, again you are obfuscating the entire > issue: I am but a meddler in affairs that do not concern > me; and I am merely asserting my uncalled-for opinions. If > they were just opinions, you would shrug them off and tell > me to mind my own business. But because they are more than > opinions, they go to the heart of the matter. And you > become exercised and begin to reconstruct reality so as to > put me in a position of someone who is acting in a vulgar > and obnoxious manner. "Barry and I are closer because we > share a core of reliable friendliness". Interesting, that: > because none of this friendliness gets expressed on FFL. > We don't get to feel the Barry who measures up to this > description. Are you sure your statement here describes > the true state of affairs with Barry? It certain doesn't > constrain him to act as if he has some beautiful > friendship with someone who posts at FFL. He is obsequious > and sycophantic in regard to yourself: he is more like an > obedient little boy. > > > Now of course none of what I have said there is true, > Curtis; I am just trying to get your goat and inflame the > cold heart of Barry Wright. I needed to become reckless > with the truth there. I will return to my chaste argument > once again. Goddamn it, Curtis; you are incorrigible. A > pity, that.
