--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > Hi Share. With all due respect (and I think I DO respect everyone to > varying degrees), maybe now would be a good time to give all of this a > break and perhaps return to topics of value to more than a few of us > here at FFL. > > Jeez Gull, > > You make it seem like Share has been the main driver for all this! > Where I see restraint (on Share's part), maybe you are seeing a desire > to keep it going. > > Just remember what precipitated this latest twist-Raunchy accusing Share > of having a love interest in Robin, and stalking him. > > Now come on. Would you not feel that this deserves a reply of some > kind? > > I think everyone is in line with your sentitments. I just think you > addressed your post to the wrong person(s) > > So yes, let's get back to the hockey lock out and things that really > matter.
You're right Steve. However, I only make suggestions to those that I think are *capable* of change. Yes, my post could have been directed to another person (or people) but then I fear it would have fallen on "deaf ears" (or in the case of an internet forum "blind eyes"). And yes, some accusations DO deserve *a* (as in one) reply of some kind but it looks like alot of "discussions" here at FFL within the last year or so have turned into some kind of "verbal" confrontation, and those involved can't seem to find it in themselves to simply turn away. Those who insist that you're losing face by doing this are just plain wrong; you are saving face, big time! As one's heart develops, I think it's important to protect it from the malice of others. > It's obvious to me that you are now on the defensive (and perhaps this > is where the "group" intended to put you all along) but I hope I'm wrong > about this. Can you imagine what those with big egos are feeling as they > *watch* the unfoldment of FFL becoming dominated by posts about THEM? If > you can call "feeding" such egos as "enabling behavior", then I guess we > are all guilty. Maybe this is what you meant in an earlier post? All the > best and I *know* that you CAN do this. > > >
