Thank you Judy, for your usual kind words.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Thank you, Ann, appreciate the kudos. > > Steve has a problem. He knows I don't think very highly > of him--I've made that pretty clear--and he feels he > needs to get back at me, but he doesn't have the chops > to come up with legitimate criticisms that actually > apply to me. So he just makes stuff up, like Barry, > only Steve isn't nearly as creative. Any old insult is > fine; it doesn't have to be accurate as long as he feels > he's gotten his rocks off. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I guess you do have to look a little at the life of two of my biggest > > > critics. > > > > > > Ravi's life, which is pretty well documented, and Judy's life, or lack > > > of a life. Or at least a life no one knows anything about even after 20 > > > years of posting. Or, I suppose this is her life. That's about the > > > only conclusion that can be drawn. > > > > > > Which is mostly just a counterpoint to everything Barry writes, and > > > Curtis and anyone else who takes a stance she finds objectionable. > > > > > > Which of course is fine, except so much of it falls short of anything > > > that makes much sense. > > > > > > I'd make a $500.00 bet that if a trained psychologist examined her > > > interactions, just within the last few days, that they would arrive at a > > > similiar conclusion, or they would at least find someone who is > > > incapable of discussing things honestly, and who also resorts to evasive > > > tactics, and straw man arguments all in a effort to feel that she has > > > won an argument. > > > > > > Any takers? > > > > No 'taker' here but I will give something. > > > > I actually take umbrage at your assertion about Judy's honesty. I personally don't think she has a dishonest molecule in her body. In fact, I would go so far as to says she can't help but tell the truth, as she sees it and at the risk of seriously pissing everyone off. I do not believe Judy is about distracting her reader from what is the closest to the truth of a thing, as she sees it from her level. > > > > She is inexhaustible in her research and in the pursuit of 'getting it right'; she obviously has a mind that ranks right up there, as far as lucid, raw intelligence goes, as high as anybody who has ever posted here. (I know who is rolling their eyes right now, so don't think I don't.) > > > > Her style, her fighting instinct, her doggedness does not endear her to everyone. Fair enough. You don't have to like someone to appreciate their innate insistence on accuracy, on this kind of purity of defining things. She is, to me, very like a human barometer or other finely-tuned instrument that can't go against this nature of hers to give one an accurate reading. She can admit when she is wrong. She isn't easy at times, in fact she can be bloody ruthless. But I love that, in its proper time, in its proper context. The thing is, I don't believe Judy writes/asserts anything she does not truly believe - even at the risk of being wrong. If that is not honesty, then I don't know what is. > > > > > > The fruits of a 30 plus years of dipping into pure concioussness, sat > > > chit ananda. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > curtisdeltablues@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > So unable to say anything cogent about the content of > > > > > > > my post, (as Judy did, even though I disagree with her > > > > > > > opinion about it) and having been called out for your > > > > > > > trolling personal attack behavior, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you attempt one of the weirdest of the FFL moves, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to blame me for what other people write, as if it > > > > > > > is my job to scold people for interactions that don't > > > > > > > involve me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Says Curtis, right after having administered a scolding > > > > > > for interactions that didn't involve him. To Steve: > > > > > > > > > > > > "The fact that this partial agreement and appreciation > > > > > > for what I write is followed by a rash of taunting is > > > > > > one of the weirder aspects of the joint." > > > > > > > > > > It involved me because it was jumping on Steve for > > > > > complimenting ME. He was punishing Steve for saying > > > > > something nice to me. > > > > > > > > Actually I started it, not because he said something > > > > nice to you, but because he's so stupidly *predictable*. > > > > You and I were having an argument, so he sided with you > > > > against me, as he virtually always does (he'll side with > > > > almost anybody against me). In his very next post he > > > > said I wasn't making much sense, and I responded the > > > > same way. (He isn't *smart* enough to get what I was > > > > saying.) > > > > > > > > Ravi thought that was a cool way to deal with Steve's > > > > empty-headed predictability, so he picked up on it, > > > > and we had fun batting Steve around with it. > > > > > > > > > And that does affect how people feel about responding > > > > > positively to my posts. They know that the shit storm > > > > > will descend from the usual suspects. > > > > > > > > Oh, right, what a fierce shit storm that was. BTW, it > > > > didn't bother Steve. I don't know why it would bother > > > > anybody else. Except you, of course. You had to defend > > > > Steve from being teased by Big Bad Judy and Big Bad > > > > Ravi because he had sided with you, and you don't want > > > > to risk losing his approval. >
