--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Ok, I brought this on myself so it's my duty to enter the blackhole. > > However, if I don't return in a few days, would someone please notify my > > next of kin? > > > > Let's back up a little. As all who care to look can see below, Steve > > originally commented on RD's speculations by his comment to Share: > > "Share, I don't know what it is that elicits this type of mean and > > demeaning reply to you. It seems so outrageous and full of baitng and > > innuendo. If we decide we want to start conjecturing about things, I think > > it is just as likely that these women are just plain jealous of you for > > some reason. And I must say that your observation that the supporters of > > Robin seem to treat him like he is a hapless young boy seems very apt. I > > think, as Raunchy mentions, that they would like nothing better than to > > have you take a leave of absence from the site. And if we want to continue > > the theme of wild conjecturing as Raunchy seems want to do, I guess it > > might be because then they could have more of Robin's attention." > > > > To which Judy replied to Steve: > > "Oh, Steve, how pathetic. You're almost as far out of touch with reality as > > Share is. We now have a genuine example of co-dependency and enabling > > behavior." > > > > To which Steve replied to Judy: > > "That's fine Judy. I am glad you have so much confidence in Raunchy's > > speculations." > > > > My notes: When I first read this, I too thought to myself, "How does Judy's > > remark back to Steve have anything to do with RD's speculations?" But then > > I thought about it and (I could be wrong here and hope Steve will correct > > me if I am) Judy had just accused Steve of being "...as far out of touch > > with reality as Share is" yet obviously didn't think that RD was "out of > > touch with reality" one little bit by her speculations. (Wait for it...wait > > for it...) Therefore Steve assumed correctly that Judy must have "so much > > confidence in Raunchy's speculations" or she would have also called RD even > > farther out of touch with reality than Share could ever be. (How'd I do > > Steve?) > > Have to give you credit for ingenuity, laughinggull. I have > no doubt Steve will be eager to sign on to this > interpretation. > > But we still have a problem to deal with: Were raunchy's > speculations anywhere *near* as off-the-wall as Steve's? > I included raunchy's remarks in my initial response to > Steve. It would never have occurred to me that they were > even in the same *category* as what Steve came up with. > > Sure, reasonable people might disagree about how likely > raunchy's speculations were to be accurate. But anybody > who thinks Steve's speculations had any chance of being > true is as far out of touch with reality as Share (as I > said of Steve). Either that, or they haven't been > reading our posts (i.e., Ann's, Emily's, raunchy's, and > mine, as well as Share's). > > I mean, we want Share to go because we'd get more of > Robin's attention? Hello?? > > There is arguably plenty of evidence in Share's posts > for raunchy's speculation. There is zero evidence in our > posts for Steve's speculation. He might as well have > suggested that we are all actually Robin using different > names. That's at least as plausible. > > > Therefore, members of the jury, RD's initial speculations > > had every *right*, and I would daresay *demanded*, to be > > included with no snipping whatsoever in the full response > > to Steve by Judy: "I don't think I said anything here about > > what raunchy wrote, Steve." > > No, sorry, can't go along with this at all. You are > R-E-A-C-H-I-N-G, laughinggull. If Steve thought raunchy's > remarks were relevant, it's just another indication of > how far from reality he is. > > (What's a "cat whistle," by the way?)
I'm not sure you really want to know but here it is: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cat%20whistle > > > > > I hope I have completely laid to rest the following admonition to me by > > Judy: "No, raunchy's remarks have nothing to do with what I said to him > > that he was commenting on. I don't know why he thought raunchy's remarks > > were relevant" as I have clearly shown why RD's remarks WERE relevant. And > > with that, your honor, the prosecution rests. > > (Thunderous applause, standing ovation, cat whistles, etc. etc. as the > > screen fades to black.) > > > > My apologies to all of you as, seriously, I don't know why I did this but I > > HAVE safely returned. > > (More thunderous applause, standing ovations, cat whistles, etc. etc. as > > each of you close your laptops.) > > > > Now can we talk about narcissism??? > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Um, Judy, you accidentally left out RD's "speculations" in your > > > > correction to Steve. > > > > > > Um, no, laughinggull, I snipped them intentionally (that's > > > why I inserted a "<snip>," donch'a know). They had nothing > > > to do with what I said to Steve. I was commenting on *his* > > > speculations, not raunchy's. > > > > > > > I've reinserted them below just as they appeared > > > > in what you were responding to so that all can get the > > > > full context of where Steve was going with his comment > > > > to you. > > > > > > No, raunchy's remarks have nothing to do with what I > > > said to him that he was commenting on. I don't know > > > why he thought raunchy's remarks were relevant. > > > > > > And if it wasn't > > > > *accidental*, then I seem to remember your vehement > > > > criticisms of others for leaving the context out. Forgive > > > > me. > > > > > > You remember what I've said incorrectly. I have been > > > critical of those who leave out *relevant* context. I > > > encourage folks to delete *irrelevant* context. > > > > > > I should have followed my own advice when I made my > > > initial comment to Steve and snipped what raunchy wrote > > > then. > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" > > > > lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That's fine Judy. I am glad you have so much confidence in > > > > > > Raunchy's speculations. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think I said anything here about what raunchy wrote, > > > > > Steve. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, Steve, how pathetic. You're almost as far out of touch > > > > > > > with reality as Share is. We now have a genuine example > > > > > > > of co-dependency and enabling behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Well Share, considering the convoluted discussions, often > > > > confusing, > > > > > > downright misleading, and negative, intentionally hurtful things > > > > you've > > > > > > had to say about Robin online for all to see, (I'm certain Judy > > > > could > > > > > > provide links supporting my assertions) maybe Robin's decision to > > > > talk > > > > > > to you online was correct. It seems to me he may have intuited a > > > > > > tendency of stalking behavior on your part and wanted to nip in the > > > > bud > > > > > > perhaps a fledgling love interest, which he had no intention of > > > > > > encouraging. Your continued interest in him under the guise of > > > > "helping" > > > > > > him, help only his detractors think he needs, and continuing to > > > > press > > > > > > your case of psychological rape, an utterly bogus fantasy, is IMO > > > > simply > > > > > > deluded stalking as evidenced by your "actions." Maybe it's time for > > > > a > > > > > > vacation from FFLife to heal your attachment to Robin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" > > > > > > lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Share, I don't know what it is that elicits this type of > > > > > > > > mean and demeaning reply to you. It seems so outrageous > > > > > > > > and full of baitng and innuendo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we decide we want to start conjecturing about things, > > > > > > > > I think it is just as likely that these women are just > > > > > > > > plain jealous of you for some reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I must say that your observation that the supporters > > > > > > > > of Robin seem to treat him like he is a hapless young boy > > > > > > > > seems very apt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, as Raunchy mentions, that they would like nothing > > > > > > > > better than to have you take a leave of absence from the > > > > > > > > site. And if we want to continue the theme of wild > > > > > > > > conjecturing as Raunchy seems want to do, I guess it might > > > > > > > > be because then they could have more of Robin's > > > > > > > > attention. > > > > > >
