On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:29 AM, Share Long <sharelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve, I like your point in the second paragraph below: Of course you do !!! > that it's always possible to find a flaw in what the other person has > written. I definitely see myself doing that, hopefully less as time goes by. > And I very much appreciate your point that the spirit of discussion is lost. > Somehow it reminds me of the times when there is a great discussion on FFL, > what that's like. Makes it worth hanging in here. > > > From: seventhray27 <steve.sun...@yahoo.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:22 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM kid expelled for pot but the foreign kids > get no punishment. > > > > --- 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. > > > >
