I sent to lurkernomore. At least I think I did! Oy, not very high tech here. Anyway, it did not bounce back to me so I'm assuming it went through. Hope you get mess straightened out easily and quickly.
________________________________ From: seventhray1 <lurkernomore20002...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to seventhray -- writing for the Church of $cientology --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > not on topic but > > thank you for Kali compliment, made my month (-: > > more offline > which mutual friend said you don't often check > > bye for now Well I've been checking it more often since I've been getting some offline correspondances. But somehow the e-mail which was usually associated with my ID got messed up, and I haven't had the chance to straighen it out. That e-mail was steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net but the lurkernomore one should work as well. > ________________________________ > From: seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:06 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Raunchy -- writing for the Church of > $cientology > > >  > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" curtisdeltablues@ > wrote: > > > > Now that we've all enjoyed the Judy dance I want to bring the focus back to > > my origninal point here. > > > > Raunchy: > > > > " When artist, Jennifer Blair lost everything in a fire Sal > > heartlessly, gratuitously, derided a fundraiser for her." > > > > Judy even accused Sal of "bullying" in this incident. > > > > > > And what was the basis of their slander? > > > > That Sal had made fun of people advertizing that they were serving cookies > > for an adult party. > > > > It was factually inaccurate and unfair to connect this with the information > > about the fire that came out later,and which Sal acknowledged when she > > found out. > > > > Once this was pointed out to Raunchy, who had participated in the original > > thread and should have known better, she did not act with integrity and > > retract her slanderous statement about Sal. Steve and I went "tisck tisk". > > > > > > So what do the "Get Sal" twins do when this had been pointed out AGAIN? > > > > They double down then Judy triples down, then quadruples down... > > > > And they attacked me for standing up for Sal who was being unfairly > > maligned here. > > > > With Raunchy nodding like a bobble head doll in the rear window of a car > > going over cobblestones, Judy wove a fantastic tale of my "deceptions". It > > was a wonder to behold the Judiness of it all unfolding. > > The whole thing is so clear and plain.  Like an amalok in the palm of the > hand. > > > They are of course backed by Robin and that other guy who invokes laughter > > on sight by his own account. > > > > And Steve and I are left standing here looking at each other in disbelief. > > > > It was wrong and unfair to slander Sal this way. I appreciate that Steve > > was also willing to stand up to this unfair, wrong thing here. No matter > > how big the Can O Crazy that it unleashes. > > And also, here you lay the issue out in just a few sentences.  But Judy > requires reams of data and interpretation to make her points. > > > > Raunchy should have apologized for slandering Sal. She is capable of that > > but hates Sal too much to be fair. Plus it would pit her against the Judy > > agenda, and mean girls stick together. > > I just found it, uh, ironic, to hear Raunchy talk about the importance of > unflinching honesty on a public forum.  I like Raunchy, but most of us here > have a little baggage we've left behind on occasion.  And it can come back > and bite us. > > And then the "apology" that Judy rolled out again.  Okay, I guess it wasn't > supposed to be an apology, but a "retraction" of some sort. > > I enjoyed reading that. > > I mean the the six or seven sentences could have been reduced to.  "Hey, I > messed up Sal.  Sorry about that. > > And then you can move on to the usual disagreements, but at least you've > provide a little closure on that issue. >
