Let's see whether batshit crazy Judy can admit that the *only* thing wrong with Xeno's statement is the message number. :-)
In other words, she's jumping through all these hoops just to avoid admitting that she is stalking a person who she swore she would never discuss anything with again until he retracted the *true* things he said about her. What a devious, lying cunt. And crazy to boot. And to make it worse, she thinks no one notices... ________________________________ From: "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:52 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or "direct unvarnished lie") instead of trying to blame it on me. He wrote: << 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' >> The actual post in question: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 > >"A particular discussion of which I am part" = one of Xeno's repeated attempts >to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of "lying" when I said what >he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). > > >His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has >publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually >helpless even to unpress his own buttons. > > >He pretends to need a reference for my "I could have sworn..." post when in >fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. > > >And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the >right one: > > >https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 > > >This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: > > >' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: > > >Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until >you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' > > >So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished >lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. > > > >Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false >accusations about my purported "pattern of deviousness" and "lack of >integrity"--which he himself admitted he could not document. > > >The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is >the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle >than the blatant example above. > > >In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me >as saying: > > >I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion >about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) >way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are >doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if >you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather >than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who >proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity >continually. > > >I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your >accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I >didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you >make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). >But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively >foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of >"philosophy or science or music" or any other neutral topic. > > >You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post >#358357, 22 September 2013 you said: > > >Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until >you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. > > >Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot >enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the >edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third >person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving >yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which >you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond >credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. > > >I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on >what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I >said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions >he asks, let me know. > >>>
