What's fascinating is Barry's absolute obliviousness to the fact that every one of his eight posts so far today has been a demonstration of his own compulsion to wave his dick.
And he doesn't even need for anybody to wave their dick at him to inspire him to wave his own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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: 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: 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: 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.   > > > > 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: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:10 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Alex--this is spam! to Ann Judy Ravi > > > > > >  > > 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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. > > > > >àThey 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. > > > > >àFor 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. > > > > >àYou 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. > > > > >àEven Judy responded to you about that.àTwice.àThat's when I > > >realized how desperate you are to see me in a negative way and that is why > > >I have avoided you.àI'm not interested in dealing with your prejudices > > >about me.à> > > > 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. > > > > >àBut you missed it too, didn't you? > > > > Sure did, still do. > > > > >àWhen you said:àwouldn't a true sidha be able to walk to the Dome, > > >etc.àAgain, this is just you seeing me and writing about me in a > > >negative way.à> > > > 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. > > > > >àNo 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. > > > > >àWhich is what you used to do when he came to my defense.à> > >Remember?àSo it's ok when he comes to your defense but not when he > > >comes to mine?àWhy 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.àAnd you don't > > > seem to enjoy what I have to say, even when it's to other posters.àSo > > > 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." > > > > >àEspecially since it seems you've already come to a negative > > >conclusion about me and or what's in my post.àWhich is your right of > > >course.àBut generally I won't be participating in such.àThere 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: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: (Ouch...) Alex--this is spam! to Ann > > > > > > > > > à> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My ex does not mind my calling him ex.ÃâàHe 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.ÃâàI played sports in > > > > grade school and high school.ÃâàAnd 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. > > > > > > ÃâàBut beware, if you post it here, turq might call you > > > spammish.ÃâàIs it my imagination or is EVERYBODY confusing us for > > > each other?!ÃâàFirst turq, then Obbadohbba.ÃâàWho's > > > next?!ÃâàNabby?! > > > > > > Yes, interesting. Probably because we are so much alike. > > > > > > > > > > > > Concerning my comment to Xeno about malignant diagnosis:ÃâàI bet > > > > you don't understand the Vulcan mind meld either!ÃâàÃâà> > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > PSÃâàI LOVE the little spam reference in Subject line.Ãâà> > > > Nature organizes best (-: > > > > > > Is nature in charge of FFL post titles? Would this qualify as support of > > > nature? > > > > > >
