--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are sounding like a pompous, finger-wagging ass, authfriend.
> > 
> > (Says feste pompously, wagging his finger. Gee, and just
> > yesterday I had melted down and was reduced to sputtering
> > Yiddish insults. Pretty quick recovery, wouldn't you say?)
> Indeed, an excellent recovery. Back to your normal self in
> no time.

I never was *not* my normal self, feste, as hard as you
tried to make it appear so.

> The thing is authfriend, I actually like you, but it makes
> me mad when you lay into Share the way you do.

Obviously. (You can call me Judy, by the way.)

> It seems unfair and disrespectful. Share enjoys FFL, and most
> people here appreciate her,

I'd need to see a poll, but this isn't a voting issue. In
any case, I don't think many here really understand what's

> so I wish you could stretch yourself and be a little bit
> nicer to her. Why should that be so hard? The incident
> that seems to bug you most took place so long ago, why
> not just forget it, let it go?

Because it was a terrible, awful thing for her to say, a
*malevolent* thing for her to say, something that was
intended to do serious damage to a person who had done
and was continuing to do his damndest to rectify the
situation. It was based on Share's misunderstanding of
something entirely innocuous that he had said. She needs
to retract it and apologize to him, for the sake of her
own soul if nothing else.

> You talk all the time about honesty and truth, but such
> things are not always as black and white as you would like
> us to believe. Our opinions about all kinds of things can
> change as we reflect on them and consider them. A person
> can react in a certain way at the time to some incident
> involving someone else, but later (days, weeks, even months),
> the incident might seem rather different to them than it did
> at first. So they start to recontextualize it, to think of
> it in a different light. This happens all the time in 
> relationships. It doesn't mean the person is being dishonest.
> Indeed, sometimes it means that they are in fact being very
> honest -- to their changing feelings and understandings about
> what took place.

Generally speaking, all this is true, but not always. I do
not believe that was the case here, for a number of reasons
that I've already explained *and documented* a number of
times that your apologia cannot account for. I don't think
Share can account for them either, and I strongly suspect
that's why she has refused to provide a straightforward
explanation--because if it were honest, it would reflect
very badly on her, and perhaps even worse on some others.

> Share has tried in her own way to make it right with you,
> so why not take a step or two toward her?

It isn't me she needs to make it right with. And the steps
she has taken have been designed to get me off her back
without revealing the real story. She has also refused to
retract the accusation she made against Robin. She says
only that she isn't making that accusation *now*--but the
original accusation is still on the record. It needs to be
explicitly taken *off* the record; it didn't even come
close to being true in the first place.

This wasn't just a minor misstep, feste. This was
scandalous and entirely indefensible. I would suggest you
read over my posts to Share about it and her responses,
because I don't think you've retained the crucial details
from when you read them the first time (assuming you did).

Reply via email to