--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > >> You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and > >> have continued to do so up to the present. > > > No, no, Share, generalizations are not acceptable. They're > > one of your many ways of avoiding accountability for what > > you say. > > <snip>
Xeno, sorry, but you are SO far from understanding what the issues are with Share. Facile observations about general vs. specific thinking styles don't begin to cut it. Just for starters, there are (at last count) seven different people on FFL who have the same criticisms of her. > There are those who see forests and those who see trees. Share seems to be a > generalist, a caretaker of forests. You are far more specific, taking care of > individual trees. I do not think you two will ever connect. There is > something to say for each of these views, but such a divergence between them > will never line up as an argument. Your thinking styles are simply not > compatible. She cannot understand you, and you cannot understand her, though > I suspect you feel you have Share pegged, and she feels she has you pegged. > This is an opinion, not a fact. If it were a fact, it would be hopeless to > continue, unless bickering is the gold standard for social congress.
