Re: "I do not initiate attack." Share has re-written reality in order to
justify her post to you yesterday which wasn't even close to an "in kind"
response. Then, she chooses to defend her reality re-write like it represents
"truth" so she doesn't have to accept responsibility for her own behavior and
motivations. Of course, I can't see her "figment of imagination" in her own
mind. Share, try and be kind today. Standing up for yourself involves
accepting your own behavior first and having the guts to own it, not fighting a
battle to preserve your self-created delusions.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Heck! It might even help global warming! But what about horses?!
On Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:19 AM, "awoelflebater@..."
<awoelflebater@...> wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Judy, imo MGC did Avoidance Dance recently WRT indiff's language. Where was
their outrage then?! It's still about RWC for them imo and that's why they
exempt their buddies from their protestations, moral posturings, etc. and focus
on me. Going by what others here have said, you are the queen of grudge holding
and as such your words have little value from my perspective. Same for Ann and
Emily when they're in that prejudiced and or nasty mode.
And to answer the MGC posts from last night: one of your most vicious tactics
imo is to poison a fun exchange I'm having with another poster. Which usually
happens when I've been ignoring you all. IMO this is what Ann did, despite all
of her clever and or politically correct utterances and your moral posturing.
And I don't feel like a victim at all. I feel like someone who has stood up
appropriately for herself.
From the beginning of all this, you initiate attack, Judy and I defend myself
as I see fit. I do not initiate attack and that is, I think an important
difference. One that you will more likely neither see nor admit.
Will this help?
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:45 PM, "emilymaenot@..." <emilymaenot@...>
wrote:
Ann, I love you. You and Judy are in a tie for the best post of year - song
wise.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBd93pJRJ54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBd93pJRJ54
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emilymaenot@...> wrote:
Are you saying that Ann's picture of herself at the beach was vicious? Or are
you saying her parody was vicious? I understand that you truly believe that
Ann was after you, personally, on a public forum with public posting and you
thought you were responding "in-kind." Share, you are doing the classic
re-write of reality here to try and not take responsibility for yourself. I
don't think you can help this. Take me on next, Share. Come on, I dare you -
stop going after just Judy and Ann. I feel left out. And remember, If you
like it, I love it.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Emily, imo, Ann viciously poisoned a fun exchange that I was having with
Richard, a tactic used often by MGC, not only when I ignore you all, but imo
precisely because I'm enjoying exchanges with other posters. It's one of the
most vicious things that you all do and I will continue to respond in kind.
btw, turq once said something mean about Judy's looks.
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:32 PM, "emilymaenot@..." <emilymaenot@...>
wrote:
And look, you are still at it Share...reaching for anything to distract
yourself from the fact that you wrote a mean and malicious post. I can't even
think of anyone else who has stooped so low as to attack someone's personal
visage, except you. Face it Share. Your post was trying to hit below the belt
and create hurt. Sad, but true. No biggie, just the "bad" part of the "blend
of good and bad" (and I paraphrase what you say there) that human beings are,
right? No reason to apologize.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
imo, RWC is the #1 big reason you all keep attacking me. Expecially you, Judy,
the number 1 grudge holder maybe on the internet if what others say is true.
Since that seems to be what's needed to be Queen Bee, I'm happy to let you keep
that job. As for Emily, why exclude Obbajee and Susan? Except that my exchanges
with them disproves what Emily initially said about me.
From the beginning I've acknowledged that I have flaws. But Judy, when you
don't like someone, it's as if you put on black glasses and see the person only
through them. Worse, you either don't see that you've got the glasses on, or
you won't admit that you do.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote:
Unlike you, Emily has integrity. So when you claimed that you liked Obbajeeba
and Susan, she took you at your word and amended what she said about you to
exclude them. And after she'd done that to accommodate your claim, you accused
her of saying Obbajeeba and Susan weren't "strong and beautiful" and demanded
to know how she accounted for your claim not to be threatened by them--when
she'd just got done accounting for it.
It's all right here in black and white, Share, but you simply can't
acknowledge the facts.
One of the big reasons we keep going after you, Share, is because of your
inability to be straightforward when there's any kind of conflict--one more
unmistakeable sign that your saintly pose is just that, a pose, not the real
Share. You twist and obfuscate and conceal and confound and create massive
muddles to protect yourself from having to deal with reality.
And the reality is, as Emily so aptly points out, that your posts are not
"cute," you are not the Queen Bee of FFL that you'd like to see yourself as.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
> I believe Obbajee posted recently and Susan about a month ago. But you both
> want to
> exclude them from Emily's assessment for an obvious reason.
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:32 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
wrote:
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
