Beautiful picture Stevie - what an uncanny, striking resemblance to Judy - damn !!!
On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:09 PM, "seventhray27" <steve.sun...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Gonna tell you right now Ravi. This is my kinda woman! > > And I'll tell you what brotha, you couldn't handle her, no way, no how. So > just step aside and let those who are able take care of business. > > Stay at a safe distance, and I'll fill you in on any details. I don't want > you to get hurt. > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:06 PM, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@... wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > > > > > > Ha - you don't see any difference in Share's post and some curious > > > > questions by MJ? > > > > > > > > Anyway love to hear on what you think Kali is :-). > > > > > > > > I know you are not the smartest so here's a clue to help you - Kali's > > > > not a vile, vindictive bitch. > > > > > > > > > Excellent Ravi. Excellent. See, you're not as dimwitted as some people > > > make you out to be. And I'm going to point this out when people accuse > > > you so. Yes I am. > > > > You are cracking me up Steve - I have never met people like that, not even > > remotely, regardless of whether they love or hate me. But of course some > > idiots like you may want to really convince themselves, I say all power to > > you - whatever helps you cope :-) > > > > You never answer my question - so again - oh Steve baby enlighten us on > > Kali - clue, she's not a vile, vindictive bitch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 12:20 PM, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Share, you got your Kali out, and I like it immensely. But even your > > > > > Kali is always tempered with a big dose of realism and compassion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice the other day when Ravi was conversing with Michael > > > > > and (to a lesser extent), me in a, what you might call, "normal" > > > > > fashion. Just some back and forth. No lording over, no "I AM THIS, > > > > > THAT, AND THE OTHER, thing going on. I thought it was pretty cool. > > > > > But I figured it wouldn't last long, and sure enough, it didn't. > > > > > > > > > > I'm gonna go back and read his comment that elicited this response on > > > > > your part. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi, the first week you were in San Diego, you sounded happy. But > > > > > > the longer you stay there, the more miserable you sound. And sadly > > > > > > you've just about totally lost your sense of humor. I hope your > > > > > > project there ends soon and you can return home and be happy > > > > > > again. > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW I agree that Robin does not have to dumb down his brilliance > > > > > > for anyone and I think that many of us feel the beauty of his words > > > > > > sometimes. I'm talking about the other times when one needs a > > > > > > buzzsaw to cut through the jungle of words and phrases to get to > > > > > > the conceptual oasis. And don't even get me started on the Irony! > > > > > > For that one needs as reading assistant, the two headed Hydra, one > > > > > > head parsing for the straight forward meaning and one for the > > > > > > Descartian doubt technique meaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ > > > > > > To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:28 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was > > > > > > HITLER'S VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > OMG - hilarious stuff dear Share - what a clueless, dishonest > > > > > > person you are. Judy has exposed your lies several times - yet you > > > > > > are unwilling, unable to see it. > > > > > > > > > > > > No - Robin doesn't have to dumb down his brilliance for you, Barry, > > > > > > LG and Steve, all you need is a dictionary, a heart to feel the > > > > > > beauty of his words. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will get to your garbage when I have some time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > >laughinggull I want to say that sometimes I find Robin's writing > > > > > > >simple and clear. But very often I find it unclear and voluminous > > > > > > >which for me adds up to unreadable. IMO Judy demonstrates a > > > > > > >certain kind of co dependent arrogance every time she berates > > > > > > >people for not getting off their butts, putting in the effort, > > > > > > >etc. to understand Robin's writing. Other posters here manages > > > > > > >many times to be both clear AND profound. Why can't Robin? Ok, > > > > > > >ok, people have a right to have their unique voice. And I > > > > > > >actually enjoy all the different writing styles. But if a person > > > > > > >wants to be understood, wouldn't they make an attempt to write > > > > > > >more clearly for their audience? Especially given that at other > > > > > > >times they are able to do so?   > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >________________________________ > > > > > > > From: laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:25 AM > > > > > > >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S > > > > > > >VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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, and also includes me as I've > > > > > > >asked Robin on at least one occasion to explain in language that I > > > > > > >can understand without all the other stuff that merely confuses > > > > > > >the point he is making. "In the know" now includes dumbass, and > > > > > > >might also include Ann, RD, and Emily who on several occasions > > > > > > >have indicated that they understand what he has written. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Here's what really happened: Xeno demanded that I interpret > > > > > > >> some post of Robin's *in order to prove* that I understood > > > > > > >> him, and I refused to do any interpreting on that basis. I > > > > > > >> considered it insulting, given that I had already spent a > > > > > > >> huge amount of time explaining Robin to people (including > > > > > > >> Xeno) who couldn't take the time to read his posts, or at > > > > > > >> least to put any effort into absorbing what he had said. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The evidence seems to be leaning towards nobody really > > > > > > >> > knows what he's talking about. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> No, there's no such evidence. I think what you mean is > > > > > > >> that *you* have trouble understanding him. We know he > > > > > > >> confuses Steve and Xeno and Barry and Share as well, but > > > > > > >> the five of you aren't everybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are correct...I have great trouble understanding him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Too bad as I was really > > > > > > >> > hoping that we had a saint in our midst. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Well, that was pretty silly, wasn't it? You know, since > > > > > > >> Robin himself would be the first person to discourage the > > > > > > >> notion. Nor did DrD suggest such a thing. Robin is > > > > > > >> REEEEEELY REEEEELY smart, but he ain't no saint. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >That was the final snarky jab there. While maybe not a saint, I'm > > > > > > >always hoping I can learn something from everyone who comments > > > > > > >here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Also, it appears neither you nor Steve read what DrD > > > > > > >> wrote with attention. He was suggesting that folks try > > > > > > >> validating his analysis of Robin's writing for themselves, > > > > > > >> not offering to do it for them. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Hmm, now I'm beginning to see what's behind this. You and > > > > > > >> Steve don't want to risk the attempt, because if you tried > > > > > > >> and couldn't see what DrD describes, you'd be hesitant to > > > > > > >> report your failure lest it appear that it was due to your > > > > > > >> lack of comprehension, rather than DrD's analysis being > > > > > > >> faulty. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> So your cowardice in this regard leads you to imply that > > > > > > >> DrD and I have been posturing and that Robin has said > > > > > > >> nothing of any significance. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I would expect that kind of craven maneuver from Steve. > > > > > > >> I'm surprised to see you engaging in it, LG. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. 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? And your explanations are by no means > > > > > > >succinct nor easy to understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a > > > > > New Topic Messages in this topic (320) > > > > > RECENT ACTIVITY: New Members 1 > > > > > Visit Your Group > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > > > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > Or go to: > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > > > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • > > > > > Send us Feedback > > > > > > > > > > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New > > > Topic Messages in this topic (329) > > > RECENT ACTIVITY: > > >
