--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > Hey Share, > > Wonderful point. My God, do these people worship this woman. Now > you've got Raunchy coming to the fore. > > I had a chance to skim over some the posts. > > I especially enjoyed the exchange between Edg and turqb on the cult > article, and the point Xeno made about what must be the emotional make > up of someone who demands an apology from someone, (for a percevied > infraction against someone else -for God's sake!)
Bingo and well said - that is exactly the weirdness of the situation: expecting apologies on behalf of someone else - someone you never met or talked to on the phone, no less. Someone who is not your friend, someone who has been created out of the compilation of posts at FFL. > > That must have hit the target pretty well, because it elicited a "Fuck > Off" from Judy. We don't see that very often. Still not a "Fuck Off > and Die". That's most been reserved mostly for Curtis when Judy has > exhausted most every other argument she can put forth, and still fallen > way short. > > Seeing alot of the "f" word from Judy lately. Talk about psychological > stress, I guess. > > Anyway, returning tomorrow. Been a fun vacation, but a lot of staying > in touch with work, and handling other issues back home. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > For the record Ravi, Judy's opinions are not facts much less the > truth. Nor are her distortions whether they be deliberate or merely out > of habit due to lack of whole brain development eg mirror neurons. Nor > are her untrained attempts to understand the emotional conditions within > or between others, much less her attempts to write beneficially or even > usefully about them. > > > > > > As for shooting the messenger, this is not that. This is recognizing > that the messenger has distorted messages many times in the past and > thus wisely taking the incompetent messenger's messages with a huge > grain of salt. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 6:18 PM > > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Four for Share > > > > > > > >  > > On 7/12/13 4:08 PM, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > > > Dear Share - I think this is a brilliant move. This new strategy is > the right way to avoid Judy's perverse, obsessive, pathological need to > stick to facts, stick to truth. Clearly she lacks emotional > intelligence, or why would she continually insist on presenting the > gory, cruel, torturous facts with links to your posts over and over > again. Why can't she just let you rest in peace, why does she trigger > you and your attachment disorder? > > > > > >Your new strategy is sure to perplex and thwart Judy. Yep - > > where is her moral authority, what are her credentials - is > > she a fucking therapist, does she like have a Ph. D? Or is she > > even a pastoral counsellor even? Ha. > > > > > So - yes, to reiterate dear Share, presenting facts is not good > enough unless someone has moral or professional authority. Let her > produce evidence of her training and/or authority. > > > > The gall of this vengeful woman that we will just accept the truth in > the absence of any credentials. She must think we are naive and > gullible. > > > > > > > > > > >This is a sickness dear Share. People like Judy who insist on > > truth, insist on facts should be fucking institutionalized, > > they need to be fucking medicated - yeah that's we need and > > your efforts are very admirable, brave and courageous my dear. > > > > > >On 7/12/13 7:29 AM, Share Long wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Judy, in order of importance: IMO you do not have the moral > authority to comment beneficially on the upsets bt me and Robin; you do > not have the emotional good health to comment beneficially on them; you > do not have the emotional intelligence to comment usefully on them; you > do not have the professional training to comment usefully or > beneficially on them. IMO this is a matter bt me and Robin so lastly, I > don't think it is useful or appropriate for you to comment on these > matters bt him and me. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>________________________________ > > >> From: authfriend authfriend@ > > >>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > >>Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:17 AM > > >>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Four for Share > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Judy, my own discernments re the > > upset bt me and Robin have > > >>> been validated by objective people > > like Xeno and Susa > > >>Not only are they obviously not objective, > > they weren't > > >>following what went on. Recently I had to > > give Susan a > > >>primer as to the facts. Xeno has > > acknowledged he didn't > > >>follow things closely. > > >> > > >>> Plus when Robin emailed me a few > > weeks ago, on June 17, > > >>> he said nothing specific about our > > upset. So I don't > > >>> think it is appropriate for you to > > comment on these > > >>> matters. > > >> > > >>You don't seem to get it. This has to do > > with your behavior > > >>on FFL, in public, which gives me every > > right to comment. > > >> > > >>Whatever he may have said or not said to > > you in private > > >>weeks ago, your refusal to apologize > > hadn't even been a > > >>topic here for some time. If he wants to > > come on FFL and > > >>say something about it, he's welcome to do > > so. > > >> > > >>Let me repeat what I said below, because > > you appear to > > >>have missed it: > > >> > > >>"There is no basis for you to demand > > behind-the-scenes > > >>negotiations. With behavior as appalling > > as this, the > > >>target does not have to give you any > > 'indications' that > > >>an apology is in order, or that he would > > accept one if > > >>you made it. Difficult though it may be > > for you to face, > > >>the reality is that you don't get to put > > conditions on > > >>making that apology. You owe it > > unconditionally." > > >> > > >>> Nor do I think you have the moral > > authority or mental good > > >>> health to do so. > > >> > > >>I have to assume that is said without > > intentional irony. > > >> > > >>> As to the former, I've seen how you > > distort what I say. > > >> > > >>No, you haven't. I don't distort what > > you've said. I can > > >>back up every word of what I wrote below. > > >> > > >>> As to the latter, IMO I think you are > > out of balance with > > >>> regards to Robin. > > >> > > >>Says the person who called him a > > "psychological rapist." > > >> > > >>Barry, you're going to lose your Master of > > Inadvertent > > >>Irony title if you aren't careful. > > >> > > >>> ________________________________ > > >>> From: authfriend authfriend@ > > >>> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > >>> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:06 > > PM > > >>> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Four for > > Share > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> à> > >>> 349555 > > >>> > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > >>> (snip) > > >>> > OTOH, thank you so much for your > > insights about > > >>> > apologizing. > > >>> > > >>> Xeno has no insights about > > apologizing. He makes > > >>> it up as he goes along because he > > knows it impresses > > >>> people like you. > > >>> > > >>> > Robin didn't accept my apologies > > >>> > before and I've had no > > indication from him that > > >>> > he'd do so now. And actually I > > have apologized > > >>> > many times so I agree with you > > that some posters > > >>> > are using that issue, I'd say in > > an unhealthy > > >>> > way. IMO they need to focus on > > their own lives > > >>> > and let Robin and I, if we want, > > figure out who > > >>> > needs to apologize to whom and > > for what. > > >>> > > >>> This is grossly offensive total > > bullshit, Share. And > > >>> somewhere deep in your stunted heart > > and atrophied > > >>> conscience, you know it. > > >>> > > >>> > There was plenty of hurtful > > words on both sides. > > >>> > > >>> There did not have to be *any* > > hurtful words on > > >>> either side had you, Share, simply > > accepted Robin's > > >>> initial explanation of what he had > > said to you that > > >>> you had so absurdly misunderstood. > > >>> > > >>> Instead, you mulishly resisted that > > explanation--as > > >>> well as his gracious (and entirely > > undeserved) *apology* > > >>> to you for having written something > > quite simple and > > >>> straightforward that you somehow > > managed to get > > >>> thoroughly garbled in your own mind. > > It was so > > >>> ridiculously, hideously garbled that > > Robin didn't even > > >>> understand what you were objecting to > > at first. > > >>> > > >>> Robin was blameless in all this. What > > you call "hurtful > > >>> words" on his side were no more than > > his trying to get > > >>> you to deal with reality. This > > terrified you so badly > > >>> that you made your inexcusable and > > utterly unjustified > > >>> accusation that he had > > "psychologically raped" you-- > > >>> referring back to your *original* > > misunderstanding. I've > > >>> documented how mild your initial > > complaint was and how > > >>> you went on to inflate and embroider > > it, contradicting > > >>> yourself time and again and refusing > > to address the > > >>> contradictions when they were pointed > > out to you. > > >>> > > >>> There is no way anybody but you needs > > to apologize. And > > >>> your apology needs to be made in the > > same place as you > > >>> made your false accusation, right > > here on FFL, in public > > >>> where everyone can see it. That has > > not happened yet. Not > > >>> only have you not apologized "many > > times," you have > > >>> *never* apologized for that. > > >>> > > >>> There is no basis for you to demand > > behind-the-scenes > > >>> negotiations. With behavior as > > appalling as this, the > > >>> target does not have to give you any > > "indications" that > > >>> an apology is in order, or that he > > would accept one if > > >>> you made it. Difficult though it may > > be for you to face, > > >>> the reality is that you don't get to > > put conditions on > > >>> making that apology. You owe it > > unconditionally. > > >>> > > >>> Your refusal to apologize for what > > you know was a false > > >>> accusation is the elephant in the > > room of your claims > > >>> to be all about seeking healing and > > making amends for > > >>> your bad behavior. You will never be > > successful at either > > >>> until you confront the reality of > > that false accusation > > >>> and apologize for it. > > >>> > > >>> 349462 > > >>> > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > turq has gone after me before > > and I've survived. > > >>> > > >>> But you would much rather he didn't > > do it again. > > >>> That's understandable. *Pandering* to > > him in order > > >>> to get on his good side is > > contemptible. > > >>> > > >>> > One of the qualities of Libra > > ascendent which I > > >>> > am, is that they like to balance > > discussions and > > >>> > situations. So when many are > > opposing someone > > >>> > here, I tend to take the > > opposite view. > > >>> > > >>> Said with a completely straight face, > > not even > > >>> a whiff of irony. Unbelievable. > > >>> > > >>> > OTOH I don't like it when turq > > says what are IMO > > >>> > really mean things to or about > > someone. But I > > >>> > don't like it when anyone, > > including myself, does > > >>> > that. It seems that we're all on > > a learning curve > > >>> > about that. > > >>> > > >>> It seems you need to speak for > > yourself, Share. > > >>> > > >>> 349579 > > >>> > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > You funny, Ann! turq and I are > > what I call > > >>> > frenemies. We know what we like > > and what we > > >>> > don't like about each other and > > we've expressed > > >>> > that here. I like that kind of > > balance in a > > >>> > frenemyship (-: > > >>> > > >>> Do you seriously think Barry has paid > > one nanosecond's > > >>> attention to what you've said you > > don't like about him? > > >>> (Or what you've said you do like, for > > that matter?) > > >>> > > >>> Seriously? > > >>> > > >>> How do you manage to tie your shoes > > in the morning? > > >>> > > >>> P.S.: "frenemy": one who pretends to > > be a friend but is > > >>> actually an enemy > > >>> > > >>> "The enemy of my enemy is my > > frenemy." > > >>> > > >>> 349552 > > >>> > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > Addled Judy about Share's > > response: (And you're > > >>> > responding to Xeno in any case, > > not Nabby. > > >>> > > > >>> > Share clarifies her own response > > for Judy's sake: > > >>> > I'm replying to both. The smiley > > face was to Xeno > > >>> > for his humor. And hopefully > > Addled Judy, you can > > >>> > see that the PS was to Nabby. > > That it was a joke, > > >>> > I realize, may be harder for you > > to discern. > > >>> > > >>> Tell the truth, Share. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
