Actually, Share, you have it precisely backwards: The fact that Ann's comments were about you rather than about Emily means that she can be more objective about them than you can.
You want to see nasty? Here's nasty: "I saw that picture of her looking like, IMO, an SS commando with tight, smug smile, cocky posture and judgmental eyes. I don't wonder anymore. I've heard that by the age of 40 a woman has the face she deserves. Judging by her nasty posts towards me, I'd say that's quite true of Ann and her face." And one more time, here are Ann's comments that inspired what I just quoted from you: "Me too, me too (squeal!). How many types of granola does YOUR Whole Foods carry Richard? Are some made with hemp and are some organic? I just love organic hemp granola, don't you? I hope you'll post more pictures from your part of the world, I find them so uplifting, so refreshing. They are like a little part of yourself which is sacred and infinite and beautiful. How do you think granola relates to Arjuna? I kind of envision the Mahbharata would have been so much more interesting if it had included those warriors munching on granola as they approached the Kauravas to do battle." I don't think very many here would have trouble recognizing that Ann's post is a lighthearted parody, whereas Share's response is a vicious, dead serious, hate-filled attack. It simply doesn't get much nastier than a Nazi comparison, but in close competition are spiteful, disparaging remarks about a person's appearance. Share's remarks are way too off-target to upset Ann; but they reveal the extreme unpleasantness of Share's character underneath her faux-saintly facade. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: > Emily, #1, you're not objective about me or Ann. #2, Ann's comments were not > directed > against you, so you really can't accurately access their alleged gentleness > imo. Why don't > you think about it? On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:39 AM, "emilymaenot@..." <emilymaenot@...> wrote: Share, Ann was gently teasing you and commenting on the thread in general, in her inimitably creative style. "Nasty ridiculing?" - Ann doesn't do this. Your writing is a mirror of you. Think about it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Ann, imo you have a *gift* for especially nasty ridiculing of people. And my sense of humor is fine. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: turq, you're wrong. Ann started it by writing a post ridiculing me under the thread What I Did Today. She's very good IMO at presenting herself nicely after she's been nasty. Neither she nor Judy has the integrity to acknowledge this other post. Share, here is the thing. Yes I goof on you, yes it may seem like my intention is to ridicule, yes I was making fun of your post to Richard about the Whole foods thing. But come on, get a grip. You claim to love the smorgasbord that is FFL, you say you like the personal challenges you encounter here. Who is exempt from name calling, chastising, rudeness, misunderstanding or downright verbal abuse (as opposed to psychological rape) here on this forum? NO ONE. I am sorry if you are not getting the support you had hoped for your interesting "take" on my face in the photo (comprising about 1/100th of the image space BTW) but you are certainly welcome to your opinion about my Nazi-like stance and demeanor as wrong as I think it may be. However, your hostility was evident and that is also fine, as long as you are willing to admit ownership of it. I don't blame you for despising me, I get it and I probably deserve it but be straight for a change and own up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: Share, YOU started this latest round of Mean Girls Dumping On You. Not them. You didn't *have* to comment on Ann's photo, let alone try to rope me into it by addressing me directly. I didn't reply 1) because I disagreed, and thought it was a fairly nice photo of Ann enjoying nature, and 2) because I knew what would happen, and WHY it was going to happen. YOU started up the fray again. As far as I can tell, you were getting antsy with them NOT dumping on you for a couple of days, after I posted the number of times they have done so since August, and them laying low as a result. You missed the attention, so you tried to provoke them. And, of course, it worked. So much for my belief that you -- out of the four of you old biddies who have nothing to do but subject the rest of us to your petty dislikes and grudges -- could be appealed to. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Judy in her cunning way has completely ignored the nasty, ridiculing post that Ann wrote. Which shows the depth of Judy's dishonesty. Or perhaps at this point she's simply totally self deluded about her alleged honesty. > > Also notice how she attempts to justify the deluge of negativity the MGC has directed at me over the past year. > > Also notice that if I'm positive, then according to Judy, I'm pandering. But if I stand up to their ridicule, then according to her, I deserved it retroactively! > > This is why I will never see Judy as the paragon of honesty that she's so desperate to present herself as. > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:14 AM, "awoelflebater@..." awoelflebater@... wrote: > > That is my happy look Share, you should see me when I'm mad! I'm also looking at the man I most love in the world at that moment surrounded by the pristine beauty of British Columbia in celebration of two birthdays. Focus on the scenery, that is what I most wanted to show you. Of course it isn't as interesting as pictures of the strip malls in Texas but then there's no accounting for taste and perception. Is Knowledge Structured in Consciousness do you think? > > > ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, > authfriend@ wrote: > > > And this post from Share tells us absolutely everything we need to know about what kind of human being she is. Of course she hasn't the foggiest idea how revealing it is of the accuracy of the criticisms and ridicule that have been directed her way. > > > Share spewed: > > turq, coincidentally I read this right after seeing the picture of herself that Ann posted. Lightbulb! I had been wondering why someone with such a reportedly wonderful life like hers could write such nasty, posts ridiculing me. Then I saw that picture of her looking like, IMO, an SS commando with tight, smug smile, cocky posture and judgmental eyes. I don't wonder anymore. I've heard that by the age of 40 a woman has the face she deserves. Judging by her nasty posts towards me, I'd say that's quite true of Ann and her face. > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 2:45 AM, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: > >  > Hey, I didn't write it. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/a-cold-war-fought-by-women.htm\ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/science/a-cold-war-fought-by-women.htm%5C l >
