--- 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, "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 meant what I wrote because it is true for me and for others, and if you > found it self righteous, so be it. > Since you brought up being self righteous -based on what I have > seen, you do a great deal of Correcting of people you do not > approve of - whether it is a choice of a word, knowledge of a > long forgotten post, parsing an irrelevant point while missing > the gist of what someone says, fussing over details, or just > stating they are wrong because they don't agree with you and > your take on things. You seem to do this mostly to those people > who don't agree with you or who appear to "like" people that > you don't. Since this is not a courtroom, a paid editing job, > or a legal brief, it comes across to those you have corrected > as - well, maybe self righteous.
Susan, you haven't a *clue* what is meant by "self-righteous." And your litany above is way off-target as well. I'm not going to bother Correcting you because you don't seem capable of absorbing anything. You haven't even addressed what I said in my original post. <snip> > > > 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. > > Um, actually my skills lie very much in that area. I > could have said the same to you, but I don't feel my > opinions are facts. "But as you know, [wrong] it was you in particular i was thinking of as not being a good friend to Ravi. [wrong] I think you must know that. [wrong] Maybe that is why this bothered you so? [wrong]" Q.E.D. Have a look at this exchange (read from the bottom up): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/297725 You were posting to FFL that week, BTW, so either you didn't bother to read it, or you've conveniently forgotten it. > > > > > > 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? > > Why not leave your Just for the Record comments out since it > served no purpose to anyone but your own need to correct? Looks like it really bothered you to be corrected. Do you even know what a "chat room" is? > And what does Sal have to do with this conversation? I did > not read the interactions you had with her. Why are you > trying to muddy the conversation and add an insult? Because you made an exceptionally stupid comment, something Sal was famous for doing here, and not just to me. Leaving in the meat of my post that you haven't been able to address: > > > > > > > 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. > > >
