Judy claims she wasn't paying attention to indiff's exchange with emptybill. Yet see post #363507 excerpted below. So much for Judy's continuing claim to honesty.
---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote: For the record, indiff, I didn't say you were So-and-so, I said you sounded like So-and-so. And then when you threatened to out emptybill, I mentioned that this guy So-and-so had been thrown off the forum for outing somebody. ---In [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Let me clarify this issue again since even Judy seems to have gotten confused >here. > > >I'm using an pseudonym for a reason, to clearly post anonymously. You may recognize my energy, my writing style but you are not supposed to reveal my first name or any other details. > > >But this dumb retarded motherfucker emptybill seems to have lot of trouble understanding it. He spouts and spews scriptures but lacks the normal maturity and intelligence of an adult and I have always given him a free pass in the past since I understand his disability. He thinks he can indulge in dishonesty like referring me as a troll, telling me that one cannot discuss Amma here, that I have been kicked off other forums and some other retarded bullshit. On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:08 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, I've jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line. As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you disgraced yourself with Robin. So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and shove them where the sun don't shine. ---In [email protected], <sharelong60@...> wrote: 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 [email protected], <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 [email protected], <[email protected]> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
