OMG Ann wrote all that and you don't show any inclination to absorb what she had to say - you couldn't detect any sincerity, conviction in her post? You dismiss Ann's entire message because you think Ann wants Judy's support in attacking others? Oh boy - you are fucking hopeless man.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM, seventhray27 <steve.sun...@yahoo.com>wrote: > ** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > > 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. > snip > > Ann, > > More credit to you, if you can follow her arguments. I find that they > often become convoluted beyond any sensible conclusion. And I suspect > that you, like most of us, don't bother to read past the first couple of > rebuttals she makes, especially after the third of fourth iteration. > > I would say, that if anyone wants to find a flaw in another person's > reasoning, they can do so. There is always some technical point that can > be disputed. But, by that point the spirit of the argument, or discussion > is lost, and the object becomes simply finding a way to win. Or maybe you > decide to frame your argument in parameters that you alone determine as > valid and win on that basis. > > Oh, and the sin of snipping. That can always be grounds for immediate > dismissal of any points. Because snipping in Judy's book is to hide > something, and not for conciseness. (unless she does it) > > And yes, she does have time, have time, have time for nearly unlimited > research, (which we must remember is "research" when she does it, but > "internet stalking" when done by someone else) > > So, all of this, for me, disputes any notion of "honesty" on Judy's part. > > But I certainly understand the attraction of having someone like Judy on > your team. She can disparage with best of them. But, I suspect that she > would remain a "better" friend, or ally at a distance. > > And is it fair to bring up, that there must come a time, when we think > about what legacy we might leave behind. I think that comes into play at > some point. > > > > > > 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. > > >
