Barry, you don't think anybody really believes this garbage you just spewed, do you?
You tried to wiggle out of the charge that you have these ridiculous double standards, you got caught, and now you're feeling one-down and stupid. The bravado here just doesn't make it. "And then nothing happens," you say. Yes, something did happen. You had to make two more posts pretending you didn't care that your hypocrisy had been exposed once again. You do it to yourself, Barry. You've been doing it ever since I first encountered you. Oh, and it didn't take "hours." If you know how to use the Search feature, it takes maybe ten minutes, well worth it to see yet another display of Barry squirming. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > Let's, however, note that Barry had no objection to Lord > > > > > Knows or Bill and Brahmi "barging" in and going after > > > > > Robin. In fact, Barry, you loved it. > > > > > > > > Please document this claim. > > > > > > Ann has done exactly this. Will Barry admit it? Don't > > > be ridiculous. > > > > I just love assigning homework to obsessives. > > It keeps them busy for hours, and then they feel > > so triumphant afterwards, as if the original > > idea was theirs. Thanks for jumping through > > hoops, girls. :-) > > Just for fun, and as an excuse to order a second > cup of really *excellent* coffee here at a cafe > I hadn't tried before, I'm going to explain the > nature of the game to these gals, knowing in > advance that they won't hear a word of the > explanation, and that they'll fall for it again > the next time I run it. > > Knowing that their mindset (Judy's originally, > and Ann's because she's trying to emulate Judy) > is to either 1) prove one of their perceived > "opponents" WRONG, 2) prove themselves RIGHT, > or 3) get the "opponent" to actually APOLOGIZE, > what you do is assign them a task. Hopefully > the task will involve digging into the past, > hopefully for quite some time (so that they > feel they've done their due diligence), at which > point they trot out their "research," hoping for > the outcome they were looking for -- a "win." > > And then nothing happens. > > The only people they impress are those who think > the same way they do, in terms of "opponents" > and "wins." They never notice that they've been > assigned yet another "make work project," and > leapt upon it like salivating dogs. :-) > > The thing is, I had *no earthly idea* whether > I'd interacted with Lord Knows the way Ann said > I had, and for a very simple reason -- nothing > about Robin sticks in my memory, because nothing > about him is interesting enough enough *to* stick > in my memory. But I figured Ann wouldn't be able > to resist, so I assigned her a task that she would > believe that -- if she completed it -- she'd "win." > So she wasted a bunch of time trying to "win," > while I watched a couple of good TV series with my > housemates. I leave it up to you to decide who > "won" in this scenario, or whether "winning" is > even possible. > > Both of the TV shows were "finds" I discovered on > a UK list of "best TV of 2012." These shows have > not (to my knowledge) been aired in the US, although > they might someday, so I'll tell you about them just > in case they are. > > The first was an episode of a series called "Accused." > As I understand it (having seen no other episodes > but the one I watched), it's...uh...non-episodic, in > that there are no continuing characters or plotlines. > Each week's episode is standalone. The one that got > flagged as among the "best of the year" got that > honor because it starred Sean Bean (from LotR and > Game Of Thrones) *as a transvestite*. The reviewer > called his performance -- dressed in complete drag, > and looking remarkably like...uh...a man dressed in > drag, whom no one on earth would ever mistake for > a woman -- a "career best." She was right. > > The second was a mini-series (two 90-minute episodes) > called "Restless." What drew me to it was the cast, > including actors of the quality of Hayley Atwell, > Rufus Sewell, Michelle Dockery, Michael Gambon, and > (the clincher for me) Charlotte Rampling. It turned > out to be a well-written, tightly-crafted spy drama > set both in modern time and in flashbacks to the WWII > era. Charlotte Rampling plays the spy in modern times, > having to explain to her daughter (Dockery) that back > during the war she worked as a spy, and that people > from that era were now trying to find and kill her. > This leads to flashbacks of that era, with the young > spy being played by Hayley Atwell. This sorta thing > can be really lame and pedestrian in the wrong hands, > but "Restless" kinda clicked for me on all levels. > > There. That's how I spent my day yesterday. Doesn't > that sound more productive than diving into the past > digging through old posts made to a tiny Internet > forum that almost no one reads trying to "get" someone > and "win" something that can never be "won?" :-) > > Priorities. For the cyberstalker/obsessive mentality, > *nothing* is more important than going for the "win." > For others, watching TV is much more fun. Different > strokes for different folks. :-) >
