The first analyzes Barry's attempts to exploit his brother's suicide to "get" DrD, Ann, me, and, of course, Robin (sorry, folks, but if he's going to do this, he doesn't get to claim compassionate immunity).
The second points out the ludicrousness of his claim to have been sent the book excerpt links by a "friend" who didn't want to post them himself lest Robin's supporters attack him. 348934 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: (snip) > Meanwhile, Judy Stein (who *prides herself* on never > forgetting something that has been mentioned before on > FFL, As Barry knows, I've never made such a claim. I have a good memory, but of course I don't remember everything said here. (That's just for the record; I do know about Barry's brother's suicide. But it's amazing how often Barry starts out with a lie to "set the scene" when he's attacking me.) > and thus who *knew* that I was talking about my > brother who later committed suicide) piled on and > said, putting imaginary words into my mouth, much > like her imaginary boyfriend Robin used to do with > Curtis: Again I ask: Why lie, Barry, when you know I'm going to expose the lie? Of course, I didn't put "imaginary words in your mouth." I put imaginary words in *Robin's* mouth to counter the imaginary words you put in your own mouth, suggesting that they exemplified what Robin *should* have said when the hitting issue came up. Here are the imaginary words I put in *Robin's* mouth: > "It seemed like the right thing to do at the time, > but in retrospect it was very wrong. In fact, I > needed that punch a lot more than my brother did. > I was the one who was out of control." > > And remember, Judy *cannot* invoke the "I didn't know > I was saying he hit his dead brother because *he* was > the one out of control" That is not what I was saying. Another lie. because she has positioned > herself so many times as someone who *never forgets > anything said here on FFL*. And one more lie (see above). > So she clearly knew what she was doing. But it wasn't what Barry falsely claims I was doing. (You gotta worry when Barry gets so thoroughly confused that he can't write coherently. I did assume, Barry, that your brother was still alive when you hit him.) Nothing I said was really about Barry's brother. It was about Barry's use of his brother to dump on Robin. At this point Barry is exploiting his brother's tragedy as a tool to put down his critics. By misrepresenting what has gone on here, he is virtually inviting us to respond, figuring that if we correct his accounts, he can claim *we're* using his brother's suicide to "get" *him*. In fact, it's just the reverse: He's using his brother's suicide to get *us*. Here's the conversation Barry describes deliberately inaccurately above: > LOL. But I'll react to it the way Robin should have: > > "Yes, I struck my brother. It wasn't a punch, it was > a short, focused 'shuto' strike to the solar plexus > that left him sitting on the floor gasping for air > for several minutes, but I struck him. > > "I felt it was appropriate at the time, because he > had just beaten up our 70-year-old father and was > trying to do the same with a 70-year-old neighbor, > screaming that "You people don't even EXIST." I > felt that it was appropriate to remind him that > we did, and that he was out of control. > > "In retrospect, I could have accomplished the same > 'reality check' with a straight jacket, as the > facility we had to check him into did, but I didn't > have one handy. Mea culpa." Robin essentially said all this and more about his own "hitting behavior" in his Open Letter. I included in my imaginary quote what Robin would have said that Barry will not: "It seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but in retrospect it was very wrong. In fact, I needed that punch a lot more than my brother did. I was the one who was out of control." IOW, Robin would have taken responsibility for what he had done and acknowledged that it was wrong. Barry never will. > All of this is why, when Share actually said something > nice about my brother, I said, "I don't want to talk > about him here, because Judy and Richard and Jim will > just find some way to use anything said the way they > already have...as just another tactic in their 'get > Barry' vendettas." I'll respond as I did before: Nobody here has used Barry's brother's suicide to "get" Barry. > NONE of the three of them can dispute this. They all > *had* used my dead brother just to "get Barry." But not Barry's brother's suicide, as he had falsely suggested. We criticized Barry for boasting about having hit his brother when his brother was having a psychotic break (Barry called it "reality therapy")-- which, according to Barry, was quite some time before he committed suicide. Barry says his brother appeared to have recovered and was doing well, but then, sadly, relapsed. These were *two different events*, well separated in time. It's entirely possible to talk about one without talking about the other. Barry's attempt to conflate the two and then blame *us*, exploiting his brother's suicide to "get" us, is so vile and dishonest it's nauseating. > And at least two of them (Jim, after he knew what had > become of him, and Judy, all along) did so knowingly. > Richard doesn't post *anything* knowingly, so I cut > him a little slack. > > Please note that in my sentence above I did not include > Ann. She has since made statements that force me to > revise that sentence, and include her, too. > > None of this will affect them in any way; I write it > for the bystanders and the lurkers, to help them evaluate > what will undoubtedly turn into a veritable shitstorm > of "get Barry" posts from all four of them over the > next week. Barry, if you were to be honest and not attack people gratuitously, there would be nothing to "get" you about. But you deliberately *provoke* shitstorms with your atrocious behavior and then complain about getting caught in them. > Unlike the four of them, I am not trying to tell you > what to think. Amazing that Barry can write this with a straight face. > I'm merely presenting some history about > all of this, A self-servingly distorted version of that history that is intended to influence what others think. What *we* try to do, in stark contrast, is to report as accurately as possible and make sure everyone understands what the facts are--including acknowledging and incorporating any valid corrections--then let them make up their minds. > and allowing you to come to your *own* > conclusions. WATCH over the next four days, and see > whether these four respect you enough to do the same. 348882 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > wow! what a reaction. is this an extreme example of > > shooting the messenger? don't even need a show of > > hands for that. > > Now you understand why the person who sent the > link to me in email didn't want to post it them- > selves. No, sorry, now those of us who are sane understand why you made up that story. Only if this imaginary person had a record like yours on FFL--"first shit all over someone, as you have Robin, and then trot out some third party excerpt, trying to show your objectivity"--could they legitimately fear being targeted for posting those links for the reasons DrD stated. Bonus: 348938 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > ...and busy trying to "get" the people you don't like... Ooooopsie, you meant to write "we," here and in the subject heading. > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/02/kim-jung-gi_n_3535442.html
