--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Ann's turn to PLONK. Simply amazing! > > > > from google dictionary > > > > de·bate > > /diËbÄt/ > > Noun > > A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or > > legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. > > > > Verb > > Argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner. > > > > Synonyms > > noun. discussion - dispute - argument - disputation > > verb. dispute - discuss - argue - deliberate - canvass > > It does no good to point out to compulsive arguers > that they're compulsive arguers, Share. They're not > really human beings; they're just EGOs trying to > assert themselves and (in their minds, at least) > "win" some imaginary battle that is going on only > inside their heads. > > Isn't it fascinating that the SAME people who could > not see that Robin's behavior *had never changed* > from the Bad Old Days we've read about and the > Equally Bad New Days on FFL are the people who > *act just like him*? > > That is, they all seem to live for *confrontation*, > for luring (or badgering, or insulting, or slander- > ing) people into one-on-one "battles" with them. > I honestly believe that for many of these people, > the ones who have been doing it the longest, that > the goal is no longer to "win," and assert their > opinions or their POVs as "better" or "more true." > They're "in it" for the battles themselves. What > their EGOs *get off on* is that direct battle with > other EGOs.
Says Barry, injecting his particular strain of poison. "I have no EGO but boy can I make people feel bad or talk about myself incessantly, comparing what I do to all the other EGO bloated losers around here to show how despicable they are. Now listen to ME, I've got more to say, DON'T you walk away, I was talking. Hey, get back here, I'm not done...(squeak)". > > I've stated my opinion on this many times, and I > know that there are a few here who share it, and > find this description of what Internet chat groups > are all about (a place to "do battle," and argue > incessantly about things that only EGOs could > possibly care about) is rather sad, and kinda > misses the point. I don't understand the motivations > that such people have to turn *everything* into some > kind of imaginary "battle" that they think they can > "win." > > But then, my EGO isn't terribly attached to the > opinions I post from time to time. They're JUST > opinions. WHY on earth should I get involved in > "defending" them or arguing about them? Ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee, ha, ha, ha. Is posting this same assertion time after time not a way of asserting, defending and promoting your opinions? This opinion (one among many dozens of yours that appear and reappear here day after day) is stated over and over again. Oh wait, I see, repetition is NOT a form of involvement in what one has to say. It is just a technique for boring everyone to death. And of course Barry Wright has no ego, now I get it; repetition and living in denial is a state of the egoless man. > > It seems to me that a much better use of my time > and my energy is to just *present* opinions, and > leave the "debating" of them to those who are > attached to their own opinions. >
