I replied to Judy because some of the guys were constantly taking punches for me and I hoped to end that. I reply to Emily because sometimes that can be fun. Same with Ravi. I don't reply to Ann or Raunchy any more. I reply to Robin when I see what I think is a glitch in his written expressions.
If I replied to all of the women's posts, I'd post out by Saturday night (-: ________________________________ From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:08 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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> > > 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. That's a compassionate way of seeing things, but I see them a little differently. For one thing, I think that Share and Judy (and the rest of the pile-on persecutors of her) are remarkably ALIKE, in that they all 1) have large egos that constantly require stroking, 2) have a near-constant need to attract attention, and 3) have a near-desperate compulsion to "get in the last word" or "win" arguments that don't matter to anyone else in the world *but* their large egos. The fact that Share CARES what any of these bitches think of her makes her a perfect victim for their assaults, and from her side SHE keeps restarting the arguments and thus *making* herself the victim every time it dies down, because that gets her attention. I think it's all a little tacky, and too much like a bitchy high school girl clique ( and I include both Robin and Ravi as "girls" :-) to watch any of it. It's all too predictable at this point, and too Drama Queens On Parade to bother with. Share could stop it at any point by just *letting* the cliquebitches have the last word and moving on to more sane topics. Then when they tried to restart it again, just ignore them again. But she doesn't, because IMO 1) she's hungry to be the focus of attention and have everything be "all about her," and 2) SHE'S JUST LIKE THE WOMEN PILING ONTO HER. All I can say is that by now my "Next" finger is almost worn out from zipping past anything that ANY of them say, and I suspect other people's are, too. I just wish the whole lot of them would grow up.
