--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfr...@...> wrote: > > OK, that makes it official for me. Judy has achieved what I had thought was > unachievable....she actually IS crazier than Tex! Wow....who-da-thunk it! >
I used to really think she was a genuine crusader for the truth and mistakenly backed her self-superior game - as others have done who've since seen that folly. Yoiks!... that was a painful and humiliating lesson for me as I began to see how she continuously tore people down just for her entertainment. She uses her editorial verbal skills as a sadistic exercise of self-aggrandisement. I vaguely recall her having said it was like an exhilarating tennis match for her. But I learned from it and had the benefit of having closely observed her methods, and have come to recognize how she operates as a pathological self-superior and self appointed arbiter of how everyone else should think and behave by HER standards. Like I said, I've never seen anything like it. > Question: ever been married Judy? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > OK so you are saying that saying it was interesting that > > > > > it was ONLY TM people who gave is not a statement at all > > > > > about non TM people not giving. > > > > > > > > *You* said "ONLY." I said "all." > > > > > > This is not a reasonable distinction. > > > > Obviously it is in this context, because your > > reading--reflected in your term "ONLY"--caused you > > to think it was a slight on non-TMers. > > > > "ONLY" is, as you said, the "flip side," the side > > you focused on, the negative side, the assumption > > of a slight, so you could pick a fight. > > > > "All"--the word I used--focused on the positive side, > > the fact that TMers were eager to help, contrary to > > Barry's vicious slur, which bothers you not at all. > > You're focused only on slights on non-TMers from > > TMers. Hypocrite. > > > > <snip> > > > > Obviously you didn't ask why TMers gave because what you > > > > had in mind was that they felt sorry for the poor Haitians. > > > > > > If that was not a part of it they are not human. It was > > > not a bad guess. I assumed they give a shit. Remember my > > > view of TMers is that they are just ordinary people. > > > > Not the point. Disingenuous. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > That was *my* point. It didn't make any sense to say > > > > > > "I'm glad you got to donate" as if I might *not* have > > > > > > gotten to donate. If you miswrote, fine, just say so. > > > > > > > > > > It makes perfect sense and I didn't miswrite anything. > > > > > It was a turn of phrase > > > > > > > > Which didn't make sense. > > > > > > We are not getting anywhere here. It sure makes sense > > > to me that TM people might care about Haitians. > > > > Not the point. Disingenuous. > > > > <snip> > > > > > Because its flip side of your "interesting" point was > > > > > that non TMers had not contributed to this specific fund. > > > > > > > > That was *your* flip side, not one I was pointing to. > > > > > > OK but I felt like making sure my own point got made. > > > > One more time: *I* made that point before you did. > > That should have clued you in right away that you > > had misinterpreted my point. But then you'd have had > > to give up on the fight you chose to pick, so you > > managed not to notice. > > > > > I'm pretty sure that is how it works here. I didn't > > > accuse you of anything I asked you a question. > > > > I didn't say you accused me of anything. And your > > question was obviously rhetorical; you had an > > answer in mind, you weren't looking for one from > > me. > > > > Interestingly enough, you *still* haven't been > > willing to state what that answer was. > > > > > Then you demonstrated why non TM people might not want > > > to get involved in your agenda with Barry. And I don't > > > give a shit who started it because there is no real start. > > > > Yeah, there is. You just don't want to acknowledge it. > > > > <snip> > > > > > OK. So now we both made the points interesting to us. > > > > > > > > Except that yours had nothing to do with mine. > > > > > > Yeah that's because I don't live in your head, I am > > > outside here in another body with another perspective. > > > > You mistakenly assumed it had something to do with mine > > because you were looking for a fight. > > > > <snip> > > > > We all had "other channels to give," of course. But > > > > since you raised the issue of non-TMers not donating to > > > > the FFL fund, the question arises as to why they didn't > > > > join in, why there wasn't group solidarity in helping > > > > Haiti. As I pointed out, none of those who donated > > > > waved the TM flag; we were waving the *FFL* flag. You'd > > > > think that would be one issue we could come together on, > > > > wouldn't you? Let's make FFL's contribution as big as > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > Even if all the non-TMers had already given through > > > > other channels, you'd think they could make at least a > > > > token contribution to the FFL effort to jack up the total. > > > > (Of course, if anyone really couldn't afford it, no > > > > problem. But many here certainly could.) > > > > > > Your judgments are your own. I don't share them. > > > Jacking up totals may not have been on people's minds, > > > it wasn't on mine. > > > > Obviously they decided they didn't want to. > > > > As I said: > > > > > > I think it was because they didn't want to participate > > > > in a TMer-initiated effort. > > > > > > > > > I'm gunna skip the usual name calling section with all > > > > > the Barry is bad too parts. > > > > > > > > Of course you are. Hypocrite. > > > > > > Well I guess if that is where your TM practice has evolved > > > you to I'll have to leave it at that. > > > > You believe noticing hypocrisy is unevolved? How > > con-VEEEE-nient. > > >
