Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you?
Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a "pissing contest" by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've "let lie" far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/AAAAAAAAB4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIKp8/TTEOb-lcvLI/AAAAAAAAB4A/FMEPJJcCFbI/s400/oneup.jpg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is > about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. > > > In a post to Barry, you wrote: > > > > Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. > > > As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September > 9. > > > But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond > to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: > > > > She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She > > did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or > > even I think. > > > In fact, I said: > > > "After all the lovely conversations you'd had with > him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had > decided you were going to "suspend communications" > altogether because of a single remark sure sounded > like you had felt seriously insulted." > > > AND: > > > "Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as > though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, > even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* > misunderstanding and apologized at length." > > > Then you wrote: > > > > Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just > > declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my > > head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. > > > In fact, I said: > > > "And now you seem to feel even more seriously > insulted that he's left you a public apology." > > > AND: > > > "I couldn't figure out either what your problem > was with what he had said." > > > AND: > > > "For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so > snarky." > > > Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed > yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what > you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting > attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) > > > For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check > to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 > > > > > It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely > contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty > post! > > > I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal > fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in > front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here > as well. > > > Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented > what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself > appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you > brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, > piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. > > > I "ran my number" on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. > > > As Ann pointed out to you: > > > "Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous > territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that > you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry > and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to > launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or > somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true." > > > > > Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: > > Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by > replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be > *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge > (-: >
