Judy what I notice here is that you do not mention one example of my alleged essence of corruption. And btw you've taken the path of hyperbole before when delivering your supposed truth about me. It falls just as flat as it always has.
BTW, yesterday at the post office I ran into someone, not a Dome goer, I respect who's been lurking on FFL from the beginning. They were very helpful in terms of understanding the unhealthy relationship between you and Robin. I was telling them how I was enjoying your philosophical discussions with paligap and Xeno. Then Robin appears and you turn back into a pit bull. Their explanation was that Robin agreed with you about turq and that that is the basis of your friendship. Personally I think there's some previous life stuff going on but that's just speculation on my part. Anyway, I do wish you complete healing, etc. ________________________________ From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:42 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE This post is a response to LG, but first a quick comment to Share: Share, your post to me just now is the very essence of corruption, all the way through, one steaming, stinking foul shot after another. It makes me want to take a bath just to read it. You are one very, very sick cookie. How you can write something so disgracefully dishonest right after having come from the supposedly purifying atmosphere of the domes is beyond me. If I decide to respond to it, I'll do so on Friday or Saturday. So you can just look forward to that, you hear? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Aw shucks, dumbass, I was rooting for ya not only that you > > > *would* do it but *could* do it...very similar to the "dog > > > ate my homework". Well, Steve, it'll remain in the holy > > > archives that you *did* try, just as others here have > > > asked those "in the know" to interpret the writings of you > > > know who. > > > > Uh-oh, LG, you're going the route of the other prevaricators > > around here. One of their tricks is not to use names, which > > they think makes it safe for them to seriously distort an > > incident in which these pseudo-anonymous folks have been > > involved, making it sound shifty. > > My purposeful removal of names, as in this case, was so as > not to bring more attention to those that probably crave it. Oh, please, how limp an excuse is that? > > We know who "you know who" is, of course. But "others here" > > refers to Xeno and "those 'in the know'" refers to me. > > "Others here" now includes Steve, No, it doesn't. "Others" refers to people *other than Steve*. Try to keep in mind what you actually wrote. Otherwise it appears you're hastily rewriting after the fact. > and also includes me as I've asked Robin on at least one > occasion to explain in language that I can understand Nope, doesn't include you either. And I'd have to see the post in which you purportedly made this request, and what the response was. I don't trust you to report accurately. In any case, this wouldn't fall under your initial no-names premise, which was that people "in the know" were asked to interpret but *could not do so*. > without all the other stuff that merely confuses the point > he is making. That confuses *you* as to the point he is making. > "In the know" now includes dumbass, See above re Steve. > and might also include Ann, RD, and Emily who on several > occasions have indicated that they understand what he has > written. Somebody asked them to explain Robin and they could not? Or did you once again miswrite? Let's see, so that's Judy, Ann, RD, Emily, and DrD who are all smarter than LG (and Robin, of course, but he's smarter than all of us, IMO). (snip) > It's not deliberate by any means but rather arises from a > sense of frustration in not being about to understand what > someone is writing. That's honest and straightforward, for a change. But why is it you seem to think it's appropriate to take out that frustration on other people? Are you resentful that they understand what you do not? > BTW, Robin's not the only one whose > writing I don't get. I'm open to understanding but none of > you are helping other than to say get off your ass, put > some work into it, or provide links to the posts so we can > go back and read them again. Don't you see how circular > this is? This is way too vague and muddled for me to address directly. It sure doesn't seem that "circular" is the word you want. I'll say this, though: It appears to me that quite a few folks on FFL are subject to a sort of "learned helplessness" when it comes to understanding the posts of people they don't like and/or with whom they don't agree. I personally resent having to waste my time explaining something they're perfectly capable of understanding. Not only is their purported confusion unnecessary, it's sometimes actually feigned, a tactic intended to disrupt a discussion. There aren't all that many genuinely stupid people on FFL. > And your explanations are by no means succinct nor easy > to understand. Did you ask for clarification and explain what confused you? Would you like to quote any posts of mine you didn't understand or that were too long for you? You're still not actually *arguing*, you're just sort of flailing around hoping you'll hit something. So far, no luck. > Perhaps one of my motives *is* to prove you wrong but for > the life of me, I don't know why. I guess I have some work > ahead. What is it you want to prove me wrong about?? Even that isn't clear. > > The really interesting thing is that Robin isn't all that > > hard to understand for those willing to put a little effort > > into it. > > But is the effort worth the reward? It is for me and a number of others here.
