Alright, let's give Judy some slack - she's not as bad as that banned
poster, but she really got low and mean with Share, for no good reason
that I could see. You'd think Judy was an editor or something the way
she carries on about Share. The sad thing is, she took Ann and Emily
down with her - she's a bad influence. Never mind that she hates my
guts. LoL!
On 11/21/2013 7:04 PM, feste37 wrote:
Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing
them. It's got nothing to do with fear.
You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You
are not abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I
actually like you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves
a bad taste in the mouth and I think you should tone it down.
---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote:
*You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it?
Interesting. Why not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be
your friends? Because I'd say it's not much of a friendship that can't
survive honest criticism.*
*
*
*I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below
of both my and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I
were to take Share's line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share,
you're biased, and therefore I don't consider anything you have to say
about this to be worthwhile.)*
*
*
*Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for
banning me. In the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick
didn't tell us. I'm guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill,
something I have never done to anyone. In the second place, I have
never spoken to /anyone/ on this forum anything like the way indiff
spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to indiff, for that
matter.*
---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote:
To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is
my friend and I do not criticize my friends.
You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a
year now, I would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil
fashion and has even tried to engage you in friendly conversation.
But your hostility and abuse has been relentless. Were I the
moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a warning to stop
the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is
already a precedent for that with the poster who was recently banned.
---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote:
You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my
description applied to /all/ my posts; I never said none of my
posts were nasty or vicious. I stand by what I /did/ say, however.
I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact,
"love to be mean, nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard
not to be when dealing with an individual like Share.
Just out of curiosity, what do /you/ think about Share's
attack on Ann, comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her
appearance because Ann wrote a funny parody of one of Share's
posts? Let's see how honest /you/ are.
---In [email protected],
<[email protected]> wrote:
*Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient
of [her] opponent's posts down a level":
*
*
*
*Share snarled:*
*Share pleaded:*
*Share babbled:*
*Share spewed:*
*Share blubbered:*
*Share bleated:*
*All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what
you do, authfriend? You are always
babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you
are and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't
you just admit that you love to be mean, nasty, and
vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why you do
it on this forum day after day, week after week, month
after month, year after year. It satisfies something
inside you, although what that might be, only you know.
*
***
*
*
*
---In [email protected], <authfriend@...>
wrote:
I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other
guy--and/or his or her supporters--often experiences
my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than they
actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread
my own posts from some epic argument to realize how
restrained they were and how I instinctively took the
nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a
level with each response rather than escalating it.
I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is
directly proportional to how accurate my criticisms
are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation.
You're remembering your emotional response rather than
the tone of my posts themselves.
---In [email protected],
<[email protected]> wrote:
Of course you think that, because you seem unaware
of how you come across on this forum.
---In [email protected],
<authfriend@...> wrote:
I think you'd have a real hard time backing
that up in my case, feste. But a no-brainer
that Barry would be at the top of the list.
---In [email protected],
<[email protected]> wrote:
With all this recent talk about "vicious"
and "nasty" posts, if one were to take a
year's worth of FFL posts and list by
poster all the posts that might reasonably
be considered either vicious or nasty,
there would be two posters at the top of
the list, way ahead of any others. These
would of course be authfriend and
turquoise b. Share would be well down on
the list.
