Sure Ann. And perhaps my final comment, why not just stick with what a person says, and thereby stay on same ground. Once you deviate from what a person says, then you open yourself to different interpretations. It seems pretty simple to me. The only reason to change an actual quote would be to try to skew it in some way. And let's be real about it. Legal documents are written in such a way so as to remove any ambiguities. And if someone touts themselves as a high arbiter of truthfulness, then that is what I'd expect. And yes, in case you're wondering, I find Judy to fall well short of that goal both in spirit and practice.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to > > admit that it follows if someone said they had been "psychologically > > raped" by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a > > psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either > > don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical > > reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to > > look like a fool. > > > > > > Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the > > person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at > > least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say > > those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me > > there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was > > "psychologically raped", and calling someone a "psychological rapist" > > Of course your mileage may vary. That is fine. > > > > Certainly Judy, (and perhaps this is your take), feels that techincally > > there is no difference. I just see it differently. > > Let me just say this, because I am getting mighty tired of this subject, so I say it as a general point; a point I would be making no matter who we were talking about here. There is no leap of faith, there is no reason to bicker over small semantics in this case. It is not a huge stretch, or even a stretch at all, for someone to make the very rational step from saying "I felt psychologically raped" to saying "The person who got into my mind in a way that made me feel psychologically raped is a psychological rapist." Although you wouldn't actually say that because it is a corollary that naturally follows so you would look like a twit actually using a sentence like that which proves redundant. At this point I am through with this subject because not only do I not actually care whether Share or anyone else does what I think she could and probably should do but there has been so much 'press' already on this subject that it is becoming, for me, very tiresome with very little result in the way of admission/apology/personal responsibility taken on the 'rape' statement. Everything but has been spoken about and there has been endless beating around the proverbial bush. The mere fact that you or Share will not take the actual words and just ADMIT what she meant AT THE TIME was exactly what I think (and it appears Judy does as well) she meant means you both think it was a terrible thing to say so you are avoiding it like the plague. > > Still, we are all free agents here and as of this moment I am officially moving on from the rape subject. That does not mean to say I am moving on from the truth subject as it may or may not rear its beautiful head. > > On another note, your admission of having gotten the Monsanto subject wrong was a big thing to do in my opinion and although it is a normal thing to be able to admit (I was wrong) it is relatively rare to see it here. > > > > > > > Now on that note I am going to sleep. Fun is fun but tomorrow is > > another day and I am sure we will all have lots of fascinating examples > > of the human character to analyze and enjoy then. Good night to you. > > >
