--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > As I�ve commented numerous times before, Personality
> > > > > > disordered people are the bane of email lists. All the
> > > > > > societal filters that would prevent such a person from
> > > > > > wreaking havoc in person are gone, so consequently they
> > > > > > can wreak havoc on the lives of others unabated. On
> > > > > > moderated lists, it�s less of an issue. On lightly
> > > > > > moderated lists, it can destroy the tenor and tone of
> > > > > > the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vaj, has it never occurred to you that your own obsession
> > > > > with TM and MMY could be described this way?
> > > > >
> > > > Come to think of it, MY own obsession with TM and MMY could
> > > > be described this way...
> > >
> > > To my mind, the obsession with diagnosing people he doesn't
> > > like (along with iranitea and Barry) with personality
> > > disorders is far more destructive of the tenor and tone of
> > > the list than anything these people do.
> > >
> > It's insidious of you to assume
>
> ("Insidious" isn't quite the word you want here.)
Disingenuous! For example, it is disingenuous of you to cut the sentence at
this place, if you read only the second half, you get the opposite meaning.
>
> > I do not like Robin because I have formed this opinion. It
> > has more to do with judging what he says. The fact that
> > this came out here on the list,
>
> You mean, the fact that you and Barry decided to
> attack him by claiming he's psychotic.
>
> > and the way it came out
>
> You mean, by your searching the Web for something
> to use against him, finding something he wrote 30
> years ago, and then quoting it without context as
> if it were evidence of the state of his mental
> health today.
>
> > has more to do with the habitual obsessions of
> > certain people here. (Hint, hint)
>
> Yes, no hints needed, I already pointed out that
> you did this in an attempt to revenge yourself on
> me for having called you out for pulling the same
> faux-diagnosing stunt back in December (both times
> when you figured he wasn't around to defend
> himself).
>
> As I've noted, this all says much more about *your*
> state of mental health (not to mention your
> integrity) than about his or mine.
>
> BTW, you aren't supposed to be reading, or at
> least responding, to anything I say, remember?
>
