[FairfieldLife] Re: Alex--this is spam! to Ann

[Ann]

Thanks for your reply.

--- 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.
> 
> >  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: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: (Ouch...) Alex--this is spam! to Ann
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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?
> >
>