--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Barry, how low can you go? Leave Ravi's family out of > > > > > your personal grudge against him. Whether you're lying > > > > > about him or not, it's none of your damn business and > > > > > certainly none of ours. His private life has no bearing > > > > > on his participation on this forum. Shame on you. > > > > > > > > Speaking of "asleep at the wheel," Ravi himself > > > > volunteered this information, in the context of > > > > telling people how cool he was to have flirted > > > > with his ex-wife's divorce attorney. > > > > > > Raunchy, you might have missed this from months ago, but it > > > is true. > > > > Not "from months ago," Susan. Barry's referring to > > posts Ravi made in the past couple of days. > > > > > Ravi himself disclosed this and more. Many of us have been > > > very careful to stay away and out of all of this, careful > > > not to egg anyone on. > > > > Your admirable self-righteousness comes across as > > clear as a bell, Susan. > > Oh Judy, I spoke the truth here, not self righteousness.
It's self-righteous whether you actually believe what you're saying or not. > I happen to think Ravi is probably pretty mazing person. > But as you know, it was you in particular i was thinking > of as not being a good friend to Ravi. I think you must > know that. Maybe that is why this bothered you so? If I had known that, I would have found it hilarious. You could hardly be any farther off-target. Very highly selective memory you've got there. Stick to metaphysical speculation, Susan. Your skills do not lie in the area of analyzing real live human beings. > > > > I have no "grudge" against Ravi. I have stated > > > > my position with regard to him many times, and > > > > have *followed through on it*. That is, I will > > > > not interact with him or any of the other people > > > > on this forum whom I suspect to be mentally ill, > > > > because I have neither the training nor the > > > > inclination to do so. > > > > > > I totally agree, Barry. I wrote a post similar to this > > > months ago. My feelings were and are that it is unkind to > > > "use" people who are not well in chat rooms > > > > (Just for the record, FFL is not a "chat room," it's a > > public forum.) > > Thanks for that very significant correction. I am sure it > misled everyone!! Yes, very significant. That's why I put it in parentheses and noted that it was "just for the record." Susan, are you really bent on taking over the role of Stupid Sal? > > > to encourage them in any way. My reason was that this stuff > > > stays around, and employers, attorneys, they all can see it. > > > It can embarrass family, mortify the person themself when they > > > well, and ruin lives, or at least compromise them. Not good > > > to be in any way a part of that. > > > > Says Susan, quite deliberately making herself "a part > > of that." > > > > Like Barry, she believes she is able to determine who > > is and who is not well, and she wants it known that she > > has judged Ravi to be definitely not well. > > Wrong again, Judy. Ravi himself said he had some troubles, > and I believed him. Nothing wrong in that, is there? *Had* some troubles, Susan. Oddly enough, you didn't go to the trouble in the post I was responding to to make it clear you believed he had now overcome those troubles, if that was in fact what you believe, as you seem to imply here. Certainly Barry doesn't think he has, but you failed to challenge him on that point. "I totally agree," you wrote in response to the paragraph from his post I quoted above, which obviously referred to Ravi in the present. Sorry, Susan, but your attempt to make yourself appear less hypocritical is very far from convincing. > > So much for her reluctance to participate in ruining > > (or at least compromising) lives. So much for her > > concern about attorneys and family and employers. She > > wants them all to know of her conviction that Ravi is > > "not well." > > > > > > You obviously feel otherwise, and that praising > > > > an unstable person when he acts out is a favor. > > > > > > Encouraging this type of behavior is not only not a favor, > > > it is using them and a form of ridicule. Just my opinion, > > > I know. > > > > Again, like Barry, Susan assumes her "opinion" is > > held by everyone on FFL. Those of us who like Ravi, > > according to Susan, all agree that he is "not well" > > and are just pretending to be friendly when in fact, > > in Susan's mind, we are really only "using" and > > "ridiculing" him. > > > > What terrible people we must be compared to Saintly > > Susan and Blameless Barry, who are doing their level > > best to infuriate this person they claim is "not well" > > and "unstable," hoping to encourage even more extreme > > forms of the behavior they profess to deplore so they > > can intensify their public hand-wringing. > > > > Obviously they're seething over what Ravi has said > > about them and are intent on striking back. It fails > > to occur to them how their anger at him belies their > > pious declarations concerning his purportedly delicate > > state of his mental health. Why, they're just as > > pissed off at him as if he were as sane as they are! > > > > I guess compassion would dictate that one pity people > > who are so painfully devoid of self-knowledge. But > > I'm afraid I can't muster up those finer feelings. > > Their hypocrisy just makes me want to throw up. > > > Go ahead.
