Nice post Ann.  I guess it shows you can have sharp disagreements with
someone, and still not resort to nasty personal attacks.

--- In, "Ann" wrote:
> --- In, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> >
> >
> > * originally wrote earlier today, but had connectivity issues
> >
> > Hi Ann,
> Hi Steve, thanks for your response. That is still something I really
like about your etiquette here.
> >
> > Thank you for your concern about my work habits.
> I wasn't concerned, it just seemed like you had a lot of spare time to
keep posting. I know in my business if I am dealing with lots of stock
or customers there is no time for FFL and that is a good thing on two
> > In fact it was a
> > fairly busy day, as are most days, and that is why I usually refrain
> > from delving into FFL. But as an adult, and a business owner, I do
> > myself some flexibility. In fact I have an early app't today, and so
> > rushing right now. And mercifully, this whole topic may have a
chance to
> > disappear for a little while, unless someone brings it up again in a
> > little while. (that's good for a laugh)
> Nothing seems to ever quite disappear here; there always seems to be
errant molecules floating around after the initial topics are presented
and discussed. Kind of like dust motes that keep spinning around but
sometimes you can only see them when there's the right kind or direction
of light.
> >
> > But dear Ann, since we are being direct here, I'll make some of my
> > observations.
> This is what this place is all about.
> >
> >
> >
> > I recall early on how warmly you initially welcomed your friend Lord
> > Knows, only to turn on him in a nasty way when he didn't adhere to
> > approved agenda on how we must now view RWC.
> Show me this "turning in a nasty way" please. I have not turned on
Lord Knows either on this forum or privately. I still consider him a
very personal and close friend and he may have felt I turned on him when
I agreed with Emily's post about him but let me assure you: whatever I
agreed with her in that post for is NOTHING compared to what Lord Knows
and Brahmi and all my other closest friends and I did to each other
during our time together. We all lived through it, worked it out, moved
on and grew ever closer as a result. LK and I have had our good and bad
times, our accusations and our doubts about each other beyond what you
could ever imagine so this "turning in a nasty way" not only did not
occur as you are trying to portray and if you believe it did then you
misread what was going on. There was a whole lot of private interaction
between LK and I while this whole brouhaha was unfolding. You only know
a teeny fraction of it.
> And believe me, not only do I not possess any "agenda" regarding Robin
I have no problem accepting the fact that LK or anyone else believes he
is exactly the same as he was at the height of WTS. I have no interest
in proving anything to anyone about any aspect of Robin.
> Remember, I am not the one who dislikes LK for how he feels about
Robin - LK seems to be disturbed and possibly no longer my friend as a
result of the fact that I accept Robin for something and someone
different than LK does. Get it straight Steve, you have reversed the
situation and got it wrong. Just for the record I am explaining how
things are, for me, not how you perceived them.
> >Even to the point of outing
> > his first name. That was pretty low IMO.
> Another example of getting it wrong and therefore jumping to a
negative conclusion. When you know someone as long as I have known LK it
is easy to forget he is not LK but actually (insert his real name here).
So, without even realizing it, I guess I used his name at some point,
inadvertently. I only know I did it because LK pointed it out to me when
we were speaking together. I was shocked and horrified. Luckily he
laughed about it and was very good about the whole thing but I was
> >
> > And I must say, that I can't help but feel that Barry has scored a
> > direct hit when he states that you (and others) listen only to RWC's
> > words and ignore the intent and actions behind those works. RWC says
> > "I'm Reformed", and AWB says, PTL, when the rest of the world says,
> > so fast girlie"
> I don't know what PTL means.
> Well, "the rest of the world" is a lot of people for me to disagree
with so perhaps I will re-evaluate my stance. I mean, if the rest of the
world thinks he is still the same then chances are I am mistaken that he
has changed. Thank you for bringing this up, it does deserve serious
> >
> > The accusation of my giving favored posters a pass? Lookie in the
> > mirror on that one Ann. That's an easy one.
> So, you can agree that you do this if I do?
> >
> > And perhaps finally, (and because I am out of time), you might want
> > take a look at some of the comments directed your way as to whether
> > really have moved past those three and a half years of 8-10 hours of
> > day of your time with Robin.
> I am not bothered by any of this Steve. I don't need to look at
comments made by Curtis and Barry, two people who neither know me or
know who I was 25 years ago or what being involved in the this cult was
all about. In fact, in a nutshell, they know nothing about any of this.
They are throwing out generalizations based on the fact that they don't
like me and are attempting to make my willingness to forgive and move on
look like someone who is still ambivalent about and somehow longs for a
return to the old days. If I was ranting and bellyaching and rabidly
denouncing the whole time I spent in WTS and against Robin would that
make me look better, healthier, more "free" from the influences of the
> > I can't help but feel that you might
> > be having trouble seeing things objectively even now.
> Your prerogative.
> >
> > Oh, and kudos to taxi's points about how logic can take some
> > funny turns depending on how it applied and what is filtered through
> > it.
> >
> > On the other hand Annie, you've been posting some funny stuff, and
> > I certainly appreciate that.
> I like it when people call me "Annie". I am not really someone who
that name really readily pops up for but some have used it when I
addressing me and I have always liked it. Thanks. I know you did it
inadvertently or maybe as a slight but it is a name I could get used to.
> >
> > That's 50 4 me. (texting habit there)
> Well, have a productive day and I look forward to your return on
Friday. Thanks for using your last post to answer my post to you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In, "Ann" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > Judy, you are a genius. Maybe after this brilliant deduction you
> > can
> > > > work on a solution for the common cold.
> > > >
> > >
> > > At the risk of Share proclaiming I have de-balled you Steve, I
> > say that you must have had a very slow day at work. Unfortunately,
we at
> > FFL have been the recipients of this unfortuitous downturn in
> > because it has obviously given you scads of downtime to post here. I
> > can't say that your posts today have shown you in the best lights.
> > fact, at least two others have let it all hang out and it wasn't
> > If I am being too ambiguous I would be happy to clarify.
> > >
> > > You know, it is interesting how you seem to taunt and thumb your
> > with abandon at others here as if you expected some of the audience
> > to allow you membership into some sort of club as a result of your
> > shenanigans. I can tell you one thing: I wouldn't want to be a
member of
> > any club those kinds of people frequent. You seem to be trying just
> > tad too hard here and it makes you look, well, pathetic. I know you
> > close to posting out so, Share, take it away.
> > >
> >

Reply via email to