--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > Robin, no one ever bests you. You appear so inviting a
> > > > person to discourse with, but it never works out that
> > > > way. I guess it's the template that you use for these
> > > > discussions. It never seems to vary much and inevitably
> > > > whoever you are discoursing with is found to be lacking
> > > > in many ways. Usually they are guilty of being unwilling
> > > > to face whatever "reality" is trying to tell them.
> > >
> > > Ask Emily whether that's true, Steve. Or Ann. Or raunchy.
> > > Or me, for that matter. We have all "discoursed" with
> > > Robin without having been found lacking or unwilling to
> > > face reality. Feste (before he turned against Robin) and
> > > PaliGap and Bob Price have all had very cordial discourses
> > > with Robin. Others as well.
> > >
> > Okay, I am sure that is true. I guess within a certain range
> > it works out. But out of a certain range a different Robin
> > emerges.
>
> Nope, same Robin, just talking to people who seem to him
> to have a feeble grasp on reality, or the intention to
> subvert it.
>
> > And yes, I am referring to his discussions with Curtis,
> > or Share, or me on a few occassions me. And I am sure
> > there are others.
> >
> > I believe your position will be that he is pointing out
> > deficiencies in their FBO, but I am not on board with
> > that evaluation.
>
> I have no idea what "FBO" is.
>
> > And for all I know you and others may be correct in that
> > evaluation. I just don't see it that way. And then, of
> > course there is reality.
> >
> > The reality of his life, and your life, and anyone's life.
> > How is that going? How is one perceived by others? Let's
> > take that into consideration as well.
>
> Let's not and say we did. I was addressing a factual
> misstatement of yours. I'm not interested in getting
> into a discussion with you beyond correcting that.
>
Is that what they call framing a discussion within narrow parmaters so
that you can prove some point you wish to prove? I think it is. You
won't mind if I bow out of that usual turn of the discussion? Thank
you.
