--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Even though this "personality has waged a ten year 'war'" on you,
Those were not my words. Please don't put your paraphrases of something I said in quotes. > you choose to support and defend and assume that his other intents > in life are not equally tainted by this dynamic. He has reason to lie about me. He has no reason to lie about *not* making it into bed with a pretty young girl. If he were going to lie, it would be the other way around, especially since she isn't around to contradict him. <snip> > If he can so "coldly stalk" you hoping for the least chink Those weren't my words either. <snip> > After he utters "hit that," Here's what he actually wrote: "And yeah, she is 'way cute, and I would be the luckiest guy on earth if I were fortunate enough to be hittin' that. But that really wasn't on my mind." Stop claiming he said "Hit that" as some kind of an imperative. Either quote what he said in context, or quit quoting him at all. <snip> > He's burned you not once, but hundreds of times, yet you'd trust > his words here to be a correct description of his modus operandi > in bars? We don't even know if his tales about the bar have anything to do with reality. Your fantasy about his being a predator depends on your taking his account of two beautiful young things hanging on his every word in a bar as the gospel truth. Why do you assume he got *that* far with them if you don't trust anything he says? Why do you assume they existed in the first place? <snip> > And I reserve the right to be as wildly corrosive in my descriptions > of anyone here as I want to be -- call them projection if you like, > but I'm trying to encapsulate emotions, and the emotions just need > big words and phrases. And the rest of us reserve the right to call you out when you go ridiculously overboard. If you can't "encapsulate emotions" without making shit up, that reflects poorly on your writing skills, as well as on your ethics. <snip> > PS -- The "Judy boy toy" thing was due to your words that suggested > that you would take a lover 20 years your junior. I don't recall saying that. I think you made that up too. On the other hand, I'm 65 years old, so a man 20 years younger would be 45--hardly a "boy toy." I don't see you as > a predator on a regular basis though -- just willing to be one > if you "got lucky." You're full of it, Edg.
