--- In [email protected], "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > Nice post Ann. I guess it shows you can have sharp disagreements > > with someone, and still not resort to nasty personal attacks. > > You're not planning to acknowledge all the things you got > wrong in the post she's responding to, all the things you > said in an attempt to make her look bad?
Cast your hook and line elsewhere Judy. > > --- In [email protected], "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > * 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 > > levels. > > > > > > > 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 > > allow > > > > myself some flexibility. In fact I have an early app't today, and so > > am > > > > 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 > > own > > > > 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 > > your > > > > 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 > > mortified. > > > > > > > > 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, > > "not > > > > 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 > > consideration. > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > you > > > > 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 > > cult? > > > > > > > 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 [email protected], "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 > > must > > > > 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 > > business > > > > 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. > > In > > > > fact, at least two others have let it all hang out and it wasn't > > pretty. > > > > 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 > > nose > > > > with abandon at others here as if you expected some of the audience > > here > > > > 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 > > a > > > > tad too hard here and it makes you look, well, pathetic. I know you > > are > > > > close to posting out so, Share, take it away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
