So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly?
IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and reality that you continually present yourself as. My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and RWC that began Sept 2012. That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on this forum. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> 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.
