Zarzar,
haha, yes, the time zones and precisely why I posted the challenge.
: ) Have to simulate activity on a board that may dwindle to 15 posts a day,
total between all the members and what better way to push a button or two to
avoid that. ; )
Although, in your case since 10 minutes a day is a bit too short of time, the
posts dwindling could make it easier for you to participate in reading all of
the posts!
The metaphysical system it is!
The words of emotion, you may have to look up, well that may explain some of
the misunderstanding on the FFL board. Someone with a foreign background reads
the meaning with different feelings. This may explain any misunderstanding you
or Judy had with some goings back and forth.
I have translated for a translator in the past, and it helped a lot in bringing
a better understanding to the words spoken, to the feelings behind the words of
emotion.
A case in point is Ravi has a very strong intellect and a heart of an Indian, a
different culture. If one could maybe hear what he wrote with his voice, no one
would have wished to out him. If he had done an email search on google or any
other search engine, anyone can find a name behind a username, if one uses an
email other than for FFL and that is not his fault to point out what someone
may wish to change, because he was showing that security flaw in people's
perception of their privacy. Shooting the messenger is what happened to him.
Maybe some words are considered foul, but why not make a rule against using
some words? Right now, all we have is what is up to the administrator and if
any members get their balls in a knot, then any rule could out anyone of us. It
makes me afraid to post. All he was doing was pointing that out. He did not
know a person's name using the secret anonymous username and called them out on
it to harm them, he found it just like anyone can do on a search.
Now if Ravi had purposely decided to ask people off of the board, what is his
name, then I could see a breach in trust on FFL.
It would have been best if the rules of the board, said no real names used,
associated with anonymous handles, but I read people calling people all the
time by their real name as the anonymous handle becomes wayside, regularly.
This is something many have forgotten in the past 10 years on the Internet. He
was definitely pushing buttons to make a point. Does one see Bob Price here or
the Zebra man? I do not think they were afraid of Ravi. Some of the best
writers, gone. I am not afraid of Ravi and I don't even know him. I would trust
him with my kids, regardless of all the uproar trying to make him appear
mentally ill on a message board.
If the excitement is removed from FFL, I guess it will still be a good place to
plug in to find past friends and chat with them about their experiences with
dealing with life and what comes afterward.
Welcome back!
--- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In [email protected], obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, Emily, Judy, Raunchy,
> > It appears all the dudes have gone away this evening. hahaha
> > Look, no post from dudes. See? Check the time and lets count.
> > We rule! We own them! God loves us!
> > Yay for Venus transiting Aquarius! Yay!
> > We won!
> > Let's meet for tea sometime soon, okay?
> > Oh, yeah, Susan too.
>
>
> Funny Obba! But maybe in all this, you should consider, that we didn't leave
> because we are cowards (oh the aggressiveness of it!), but because some of us
> simply live in different time zones. IOW, when Judy is just about to warm up,
> it's already past midnight here!
>
> Also Obba, I found your words last week very encouraging, but 10 min per day
> don't work for me, unfortunately I am a slow typer, and foreigner at that, so
> some of the more juicy words (usually signifying emotion, or moralistic
> POV's) I have to look up.
>
> And regarding some of the people here, it's not enough to just post in a
> straight forward way, you have to study a whole metaphysical system to even
> be able to converse with them! (and that's not a put down!)
>
> > --- In [email protected], obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Great rules! Maybe if these go across the board, everything will be
> > > alright!
> > > I once had the pissing submarines! You put them in the toilet and sink
> > > them.
> > > Potty target. Good link.
> > > Could work.
> > > For some reason, I think we need some adult diapers here too. Ultra
> > > protection.
> > > Us women stay out of it ; ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Obbajeeba, you're quite right. Indiscriminate pissing on FFLife needs
> > > > to be more accurate. Let's give the dudes something to aim for. How
> > > > about a pissing contest?
> > > >
> > > > Pissing contest rules:
> > > > 1. Dudes only.
> > > > 2. Submit qualifying scores: time, distance, marksmanship.
> > > > 3. Unacceptable targets: women and children.
> > > > 4. Acceptable targets: trees, fire hydrants and each other.
> > > >
> > > > Training equipment:
> > > > http://pottytarget.com/products/
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > She is awesome even if she does not like Ron Paul. ; )
> > > > > That does not stop me from seeing her value and reason and respect.
> > > > > : )
> > > > > Raunchy too. : )
> > > > > Not like some dudes on this forum who piss the spot with complete
> > > > > teeth grinding bark, protection for their red fire hydrant in
> > > > > multiple layers of consciousness available if only to break through
> > > > > their awareness as something more that tangible, all muddled together
> > > > > 75 foot lead wall with dancing football cheerleaders in cowboy
> > > > > lingerie.
> > > > > Nabby not included. He has some morals about morals.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Impeccable timeline, Judy. How *do* you do it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > In fact, you should know, that Ravi takes clues from you
> > > > > > > > > > whom to abuse, and whom to spare. As long as you had
> > > > > > > > > > backed me up, he never mentioned me in an abusive way.
> > > > > > > > > > The moment you started to become critical at me, and
> > > > > > > > > > switched to your 'get-Barry' mode,(which actually
> > > > > > > > > > started first in our off-board exchange after two posts),
> > > > > > > > > > he started abusing me
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, this is the Troika's party line whenever someone
> > > > > > > > > other than me begins to criticize any of them; we've
> > > > > > > > > seen it many, many times. I believe Barry originated
> > > > > > > > > it some time ago. How nice to see you've picked up on
> > > > > > > > > as well. I'm sure you'll get a lot of use out of it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Implicit in it is the premise that nobody would *ever*
> > > > > > > > > come independently to any negative conclusions about
> > > > > > > > > any of the Troika and their allies; it wouldn't ever
> > > > > > > > > even occur to anybody that there was anything to be
> > > > > > > > > criticized about them if I hadn't spoken up.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In this case, Ravi could *never* have read your
> > > > > > > > > exchange with Barry speculating about Robin's mental
> > > > > > > > > health and thought ill of you for it unless he'd
> > > > > > > > > gotten it from me.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, right. It's a simple observation, Judy can't help it.
> > > > > > > > My accusations to masked zebra where much before, Ravi only
> > > > > > > > started when you gave the signal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ravi had been here only intermittently and didn't
> > > > > > > necessarily plow through all the posts when he *was*
> > > > > > > here, so he may well not have seen whatever you're
> > > > > > > referring to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In any case, if he had really just been taking cues
> > > > > > > from others, he might well have taken his anti-zarzari
> > > > > > > cue from *Emily's* post.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, but Emily took her cue from me, right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ooops, no, wait. My first response to your exchange
> > > > > > > with Barry was very mild, hardly denunciatory. It
> > > > > > > wasn't until Robin took after you big-time that I used
> > > > > > > the term "slimy" to refer to your post to Barry. And
> > > > > > > by that time Emily had already given the two of you a
> > > > > > > very thorough tongue-lashing, completely of her own
> > > > > > > accord.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And Ravi didn't start going after you until you'd
> > > > > > > come back after your little vacation. That was *after*
> > > > > > > you'd already made several posts attacking me, but
> > > > > > > before I'd had a chance to respond.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I'm afraid your theory just doesn't fit the timeline.
> > > > > > > Too bad.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No clues
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The term you want here is "cues," not "clues."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to take from Barry here. This is a a again your insidious
> > > > > > > > insinuation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a reasonable assumption, given how many times Barry's
> > > > > > > used it (you responded "Bingo" to one such post); and
> > > > > > > Curtis has also used it quite recently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
