For the record, this kind of crap is *exactly* what I 
meant earlier by Junior High School mean girls fight-
ing imaginary clique battles. *Both* Share and Ann have
had ample opportunity to just let this crap drop, to
cease and desist with this embarrassingly passive-
aggressive dick-waving. But noooooooo. *Both* of them
feel that their puny selves are so important that they
have to prolong it. 

As those of us who actually moved on from Junior High
School used to say back then, if brains were dynamite,
neither of these women would have enough to blow 
their noses. And IMO that also goes for anyone who 
piles on to this pathetic argument-baiting in an 
attempt to perpetuate it. 

--- In, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
> I'll use the ex post as an example because it was the first one.  I think 
> you sent it right before your trip.  Leaving it to the archivists of FFL I 
> think you wrote:Â  I wonder how he feels about being called ex.
> First of all there's an assumption that he knows he's being called ex.  
> Which he didn't til I told him about this incident.
> Second of all there's an assumption that if he had known, he would have had a 
> feeling about it.
> Finally there's an assumption that he would have had a negative feeling about 
> it.  Which is indirectly a negative assumption about me.    
> All these assumptions of yours are revealed more clearly by what you say 
> below:Â  I asked if he minded being called an "ex" because to me that is so 
> impersonal and does not indicate in any way feelings of fondness or 
> closeness to that person. 
> Exactly!  This is the negative assumption you made about me.  You did not 
> make the correct and positive assumption.  Which is I call him ex to avoid 
> using his name to protect his privacy.  I call him ex to avoid tediously 
> writing ex intimate partner or ex significant other or ex pre fiance.  
> But I did check with him because I am a really good person and though I know 
> he would never in a bazillion years lurk on FFL, I didn't want to be doing 
> something that might hurt him even on the quantum mechanical level (-:
> And I think he had as usual a good insight when he said that it sounded like 
> I pushed one of your buttons.  You say you've never been an ex.  But maybe 
> you have an issue about someone being impersonal about you.  Or not feeling 
> fondness or closeness with you.  Natural enough.  Just good to be clear 
> that it's your issue.
> I don't mind when people disagree with me, etc.  But when someone responds 
> in a way that seems already prejudiced against me, then I'm not interested in 
> engaging with that person.  How is that beneficial to anyone?  And 
> certainly you sounded prejudiced against me in the ex instance and in what 
> came after:Â  your responses about planets and individual responsibility; 
> women and competition; Xeno and his diagnosis.  I do get your point about 
> Norman churches.  But even that seemed gratuitously confrontational on your 
> part. 
> I get that we all make assumptions about what's posted here.  Seems the best 
> we can do is make good guesses about someone's mindset based on their word 
> choice, phraseology, etc.  And track record.  These 6 incidents listed 
> below are your ONLY responses to my posts this year.  So your track record 
> from last year seems to be continuing. Â Â  
> Again, this is NOT about my allegedly not liking people to disagree with me, 
> challenge me, etc.  This is about my not wanting to engage with people who 
> sound prejudiced against and or as if they're carrying a grudge against me.  
> Especially when they express this in a gratuitously confrontational and or 
> nasty way.
> I believe you are beneficent towards others.  I've seen that here.  
> ________________________________
>  From: Ann <awoelflebater@...>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:10 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex--this is spam! to Ann Judy Ravi
> Â  
> I am going to reply to this just because you got so many things skewed and 
> you misinterpreted so much of what I wrote and what I meant. It is for the 
> record not, evidently, for you per se as you clearly do not want to interact 
> and you seem to miss what I am about approximately 90% of the time. You were 
> correct, you don't 'get' me. Probably through no fault of your own.
> --- In, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Ann, these examples of mine below have nothing to do with our disagreeing 
> > with each other.
> I don't think I said they were.
> >  They were all instances where I was exchanging with SOME OTHER FFL 
> >POSTER and you responded, leading with a negative attitude towards me.
> In your opinion. I am not actually negative in my feelings towards you, at 
> least my interior experience is not one of negativity. It could be described 
> more as trying to order what appears to me a disordered way of expressing 
> oneself or thinking. Again, not your problem, merely my perception of you. 
> >  For example, your assuming I'd call my ex ex if it bothered him.
> What??! How did you come up with THAT conclusion? Now THAT is a projection on 
> me. I asked if he minded being called an "ex" because to me that is so 
> impersonal and does not indicate in any way feelings of fondness or closeness 
> to that person. I never indicated that you must be calling him your "ex" 
> because you knew he disliked it. 
> >  You also seem desperate to be negative about me when you leap on 
> >something casual I say, like you did with what I said about Norman churches 
> >in FF.
> Not "desperate" and not "leap(ing)". I don't get up in the morning salivating 
> for your blood Share. You are not my reason for posting here and I don't look 
> for ways to jump on you. "Norman" churches for me don't exist in North 
> America just like Tudor houses don't. There are mock tudors and Norman style 
> churches as far as I am concerned but maybe because I grew up in Europe it is 
> a bias I have. There they have the real thing, built in the Norman times; so 
> for me those are the real deal. Judy was correct in clarifying the 
> architectural style as existing in North America but for me Norman is like 
> Jacobean or Regency styles. If they aren't made in that era from materials 
> that originated from that time for me they are faux or mock or neo. 
> Technically I am probably wrong but there you have it.
> >  Even Judy responded to you about that.  Twice.  That's when I 
> >realized how desperate you are to see me in a negative way and that is why I 
> >have avoided you.  I'm not interested in dealing with your prejudices 
> >about me.  
> Again, hardly "desperate". It is not always about you Share, you just happen 
> to be the recipient of some of my posts and thoughts that result from reading 
> what you write. You seem to think that if someone expresses doubt or 
> disagrees about what you think or write that it is negative. It is not. It is 
> a chance to question your own beliefs and to see how it feels to consider 
> other viewpoints. So far, I only see you feeling put upon when others don't 
> congratulate you on or agree with your world view.
> > 
> > Even today, you made fun of Mr. Leed for missing the humor of my post to 
> > Buck this morning.
> Actually, I read it that mr leed was ragging on me for making jokes about 
> sidhas. I didn't read it as him addressing your post at all. He was actually 
> seriously annoyed that I was making jokes about sidhas not being able to get 
> around in the snow.
> >  But you missed it too, didn't you?
> Sure did, still do.
> >  When you said:  wouldn't a true sidha be able to walk to the Dome, 
> >etc.  Again, this is just you seeing me and writing about me in a 
> >negative way.  
> My God woman, these were not serious statements. This is where you possess a 
> complete lack of an ability to laugh at yourself, at the world, at how I was 
> joking about (and here I'll spell it out) how ironic that those who practice 
> the siddhis can supposedly change the world, bring about great coherence and 
> world peace but can't walk a mile in the snow or shovel out their car. 
> > 
> > By the way, I noticed you didn't criticize Steve for taking up for you 
> > recently in Jan.
> I don't even remember what you are referring to.
> >  No making fun of him for being a knight on a white horse coming to the 
> >aid of a damsel in distress.
> Was I a damsel in distress? You could cite the post to jog (get it?) my 
> memory because I am at a complete loss here.
> >  Which is what you used to do when he came to my defense.  
> >Remember?  So it's ok when he comes to your defense but not when he comes 
> >to mine?  Why is that?
> Again WHAT?! This is what I mean by disordered thinking. I just don't 
> understand how your mind works, how you jump all around to all sorts of 
> conclusions. I sort of watch you leaping about, quite excited and agitated 
> and all I can do is follow you back and forth like watching some demented 
> tennis match. 
> > 
> > I've accepted that we're not
> >  compatible and I'm happy to not interact with you.  And you don't seem 
> > to enjoy what I have to say, even when it's to other posters.  So I 
> > wonder why you have kept trying to start an interaction with me this year.
> You could chalk it up to something Emily said today to you. It goes something 
> like this:
> " Remember however, I reserve the right to comment on anything that moves me."
> >  Especially since it seems you've already come to a negative conclusion 
> >about me and or what's in my post.  Which is your right of course.  
> >But generally I won't be participating in such.  There are more enjoyable 
> >and or enriching exchanges to be had on FFL.
> Well, it just so happens these kinds of places are a free for all, up to a 
> point. That makes it interesting but also gives everyone the right to their 
> opinion and the way things are set up one can respond to anyone by simply 
> hitting 'reply'. I won't expect any of those from you but just remember, you 
> are not seeing me clearly. I am much more beneficent than you could ever 
> imagine.
> __________________________
> >  From: Ann 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: (Ouch...) Alex--this is spam! to Ann
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > My ex does not mind my calling him ex.  He laughed when I asked 
> > > him and said that it sounded like I had pushed one of your buttons.
> > 
> > Well, since I am no one's 'ex' I don't have a button there to push.
> > > 
> > > Of course I know women can be competitive.  I played sports in 
> > > grade school and high school.  And I'm here on FFL (-:
> > 
> > Oh, because your comment stated otherwise. Take a look at it again. Not 
> > trying to say that you're wrong just that it looked like you were saying 
> > you were glad you were a woman because it meant you didn't have to worry 
> > about competing or being competitive.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Judy thoroughly answered your confront, er comment about Norman churches 
> > > in FF, thank you.
> > 
> > I like the word "thoroughly" you used here to express what you felt was a 
> > positive for you and a negative for me.
> > > 
> > > John perfectly answered your confront, er comment about the resigning 
> > > Pope, responsibility and planets, thank you.
> > 
> > And "perfectly" here is an interesting observation. I will have to look at 
> > that post again because I don't remember it. Have YOU ever answered me 
> > thoroughly or perfectly do you think?
> > > 
> > > Concerning my NVC comment about contributing to someone's emotion vs 
> > > causing it, I'll refer you to their website since I know how much you 
> > > enjoy visiting such.
> > 
> > You don't need to, you already told me the juiciest part. 
> > 
> >   But beware, if you post it here, turq might call you 
> > spammish.  Is it my imagination or is EVERYBODY confusing us for 
> > each other?!  First turq, then Obbadohbba.  Who's 
> > next?!  Nabby?!
> > 
> > Yes, interesting. Probably because we are so much alike.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Concerning my comment to Xeno about malignant diagnosis:  I bet 
> > > you don't understand the Vulcan mind meld either!  
> > 
> > If it might indicate there is some sort of brain tumour in evidence in 
> > someone then no, I am not familiar with it and it might scare me half to 
> > death anyway. On the other hand, if it relates to some 60's TV show then I 
> > could maybe do some research on the Vulcan mind meld and report back.
> > > 
> > > PS  I LOVE the little spam reference in Subject line.  
> > > Nature organizes best (-:
> > 
> > Is nature in charge of FFL post titles? Would this qualify as support of 
> > nature?
> >

Reply via email to