--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > One of my complaints is actually the opposite, that she > actively tries to *prevent* the context of discussions > from shifting to something other than what she *wants* > them to be. How many times have you heard her use the > term "non-sequitur," hurled as an insult, a putdown, > and a thought-stopper at someone who has read something > she (or someone else) posted and then springboarded off > it to a topic that *they* felt was related and relevant? > > Judy reacts badly to this, in the same way that Robin > did, and I believe for the same reason. She has control > issues. She wants discussions to work the way *she* > wants them to. If they're about an interesting general > topic and she's managed to transform it into a "hit" > on someone she doesn't like, she'll declare that the > "hit" is the "real" topic and try to put down anyone > who wants to go back and discuss the larger, less > hostile, and more interesting topic.
Since we all know she'll demand "documentation" for this :-), lets take an example from recent history. I posted a link to a funny article in HuffPost about Whole Foods. Only a few people here commented (thanks) on how funny it was. Instead, within six posts Judy had adopted an argumentative tone in a thread about a funny article, and within eleven posts she was calling someone a liar. At last count there were 137 posts in the thread, *most* of them about the tempest in a pisspot she created and then refused to let die. Can you say "shifting context?" Can you say "Doing it for your own petty, self-serving reasons?" I think you can.
