Thanks Share.  I guess people develop certain habits, that become
difficult to break.  But I don't know how else you move forward. (-:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...>
wrote:
>
> Steve, I like your point in the second paragraph below:Â  that it's
always possible to find a flaw in what the other person has written.Â
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.sundur@...
> 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.
>
>
> Â
>
> --- 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.Â
> 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.
> Â
> Â
> > 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.
>

Reply via email to