dear Richard, I'm happy to call you whatever your preference is. I notice a lot
of the guys call you by the WT name. I enjoyed calling you punditster sir with
various spellings. Anyway, hope all your new equipment is working great (-:
________________________________
From: Richard J. Williams <pundits...@gmail.com>
To: Richard J. Williams <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Surviving Whole Foods
My statement about Judy being prejudiced toward anyone
living in Texas still stands. Let's see, how many times did she
address me as 'willytex', AFTER I told her my name was Richard
at least six times?
Judy hates people from Texas so ergo, she hates George W.
Bush. So, she called him a liar. Judy is a hateful hypocrite.
It's no coincidence that Whole Foods is headquartered in Texas
so she told a fib about visiting the store in New Jersey. I guess
she thought she could get away with fibbing, but I caught her
lying. Now she's really upset - can't deal with it, I guess.
Case closed.
On 9/23/2013 6:45 AM, Share Long wrote:
>Judy, right before this argument, Xeno defended you and your desire for
>privacy to Richard with regards to Whole Foods. And even in this argument,
>Xeno sounds like a philosophical friend. In such circumstances, can't 2 little
>words *if true* be given a positive spin by you? Or at least a neutral one?!
>Your sort of knee jerk response feels like you're wasting a potential
>friendship with Xeno.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com>
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 4:53 PM
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re:
>[FairfieldLife] Re: Surviving Whole Foods
>
>
>
>
>Xeno wrote:
>
>Authfriend wrote: 'For, what, the sixth time, what was the basis for your
>suspicion that what I had written was a lie?'
>
>
>You seem to be looking for a response
from me of the form J says x but y is
true.
>
>
>I am looking for an explanation of why you think this.
>
>
>But it is not a specific fact that makes me come to my conclusion. It is
>rather your pattern of deviousness
>
>
>OK, stop right there and document that I have a "pattern of deviousness," with
>examples.
>
>
>I am not devious, I am as straightforward as it gets, so it's going to be
>pretty difficult.
>
>
>and extended argumentation, which is an intuitive and subjective evaluation by
>which I come to this conclusion. You kind of remind me of the tenant portrayed
>by Michael Keaton the movie 'Pacific Heights'. You begin with the appearance
>of being on the level, and then....
>
>
>Wikipedia:
>In Internet slang, a troll is a person
who sows discord on the Internet by
starting arguments
>
>
>I have been known to start an argument. So have you, so have many others here.
>Since when is this a sign of "a pattern of deviousness"?
>
>
>or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic
>messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either
>accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an
>emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
>
>
>Yeah, I don't do any of that. And I'm quite sure you know it.
>
>And in fact, I undoubtedly engage in
some of the same when I am arguing with
you; there does not seem to be much
choice if one wants to continue the
discussion. I do not like to sow
discord, but it inevitably happens when
we get into a discussion.
>
>Do I ever lie? The answer is yes. Even M
recommended lying under certain
circumstances. This world of illusion is
rotten to the core. Do you ever lie? Of
all the people currently on FFL, you
accuse others of lying more than anyone.
That is of course, my other reason for
suspecting you of a lack of integrity.
>
>
>That's not a rational reason, of course. And I don't just accuse, I document
>my accusations.
>
>
>Certain people seem to manage to create the aura of integrity without
>insisting others prove their own or without asking others to apologise for
>doubting theirs. The late Senator Moynihan from New York comes to mind, a
>rarity in the political world. In my world, the personal aspect of life really
>cannot have integrity; only the whole of life has integrity, but that is not
>the integrity arrived at by conforming to a model of behaviour; it is simply
>it cannot be compared to anything else.
>
>
>Blablabla...more irrelevant bafflegab.
>
>I just find it disingenuous that you try
to ride the moral high horse, from which
you have fallen long ago
>
>
>Please give the specifics of this claim (including when this falling
>purportedly happened).
>
>
>you are rather lifting the tail of a dead one. I never really could ride a
>horse myself. As an individual body, there is always something corruptible
>when compared to some fictional higher standard. If you want to discuss
>philosophy or science or music, fine. But this issue of your alleged,
>self-promoted integrity and the incredible lack of it in others is not a
>viable subject.
>
>
>
>As I reminded Curtis when he tried this ploy, the only time I "promote my
>integrity" is when I'm accused of having a lack of it. It's not an uncommon
>response from people I've caught being dishonest, but never has anybody been
>able to make it stick. Rarely is an example even given, just the vague charge.
>Vaj used to do that a lot.
>
>Why don't we discuss Mozart?
>
>
>Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until
>you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.
>
>
>You bit off a lot more than you can chew here.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
