--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> wrote: > > Dear laughinggull, > > Your posts show you have started off on a wrong footing in this discussion > with a priori conclusions viz.."I'm simply the defender of fair play: one > of you against the entire group of "stupid" people...I simply cannot allow > anymore." You are unwilling to look at the entire facts here since that > would go against your philosophy - being defender of fair play. > > Its just your fantasy that Judy, raunchy or I have not indulged in fair > play, in fact each one of us have been exceedingly fair to Stupid Share and > Stupid Steve. Steve of course is the tolerable - he doesn't come across as > dishonest and vindictive like Share.
And yet, once again: I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case. > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, laughinggull108 > no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote: > > > ** > > > > > > RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed > > throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've > > done and why I did it: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 > > > > If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions > > below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's > > mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the > > others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that > > I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. > > And it appears that this might be beginning to happen, and not from my > > posts alone. As my grandfather used to say: "It looks like the chickens are > > coming home to roost." Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really > > not so bad. > > > > You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the "stupid" > > people *as a group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or > > any of the others and the "stupid" people are just plain overwhelmed and > > start making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. I'm simply > > the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of "stupid" > > people...I simply cannot allow anymore. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" raunchydog@ wrote: > > > > > > LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since > > you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent > > adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to > > read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help > > understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. > > > Based on Share's post below: > > > Is wts Share's fantasy? > > > Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? > > > Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her > > without explicitly saying how or what they were? > > > Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her > > assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively > > rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's > > misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email > > communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events > > that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, > > accused him of psychological rape? > > > If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted > > Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives > > would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your > > need to defend her? > > > Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy > > cites because she cannot defend what she has written? > > > In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to > > first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? > > > Do you think these are fair questions? > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's Judy at her wts best.Ã Doing the psychological rape thing > > of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.Ã Then presenting > > her ideas as The Truth.Ã Then lacking in compassion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. > > > > > > > > Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore > > > > > > > > Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. > > > > > > > > Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share > > and Judy? > > > > > > > > (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as > > Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling > > *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) > > > > > > > > Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably > > because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and > > Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of > > her post? > > > > > > > > Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her > > questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share > > and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that > > be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? > > > > > > > > Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and > > Judy an example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and > > others have referred. > > > > > > > > > Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your > > fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy > > but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on > > your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your > > case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts > > and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. > > > > > > > > Start here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then follow > > the "post trail" beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And > > you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share to > > do your homework for you. > > > > > > > > > Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her > > forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the > > archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you feel > > defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have > > written. > > > > > > > > Does "context" count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long > > ago, you tried to revive the "milk and cookie" debacle by posting the *one* > > comment taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst > > possible light. > > > > > > > > > Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your > > "triggers" and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but > > as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you > > cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based > > on fantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I realize that I've just "butted in" on a post from RD to > > Share but I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate from > > simplicity to complexity then gets completely out of hand when all sides > > start jumping in. Could that be the intent of the "butter-inners" all > > along? Couldn't be, because then that would make them very bad people, and > > we just don't have any bad people on FFL. > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
