---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote:
More stalking. Feste catches her in a simple mistake, and she wants to make
him PAY for it.
Note the gratuitous insults and taunts (bolded below) and names like "sweetie"
and "toots" inserted to make it clear how much "lower" and inconsequential he
is than she is. Note the appeal to other people trying to "sell" them on the
idea that there is something "wrong" with Feste, just because 1) he's standing
up to her, and 2) he pointed out a simple mistake on her part. Note the
constant attempts to lure him into arguing with her.
This is stalking.
And this is obsession Bawwy. Take a break, go for a walk, eat some quinoa,
read a biography on Jim Morrison. You'll feel much, much better. For a guy who
shuns the ego and attachment you seem so terribly subjectively imprisoned
somehow.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Feste blustered:
> >
> > No, auth, I do not have a problem. The title you posted was incorrect.
> > There is no article before "Art of Living." Now that's not so hard to
> > understand, is it? If you are going to correct someone who has made a
> > mistake on a book title, the least you can do is get it right yourself. And
> > then, when your error is pointed out, you could just say, "Yes, you're
> > right, thanks for pointing that out," rather than try to wriggle out of it
> > and dig yourself in deeper.
>
> No wiggling, no digging, sweetie. None needed. And you obviously do have a
> problem, a bigger one than I realized.
>
> You don't seem to have answered my question: Which do you think would be a
> bigger hindrance to looking up the book by its title, an extra "the" or a
> reversal of the order of the main words? IOW, which correction is important,
> and which is just Feste determined to "get Judy" on something insignificant?
>
> Yes, you're right, there isn't a second "the" in the title. Thank you, thank
> you, thank you for pointing out such an awful error. Feel better now?
>
> And you didn't answer my other question, about whether you'd seen the post I
> directed to your attention yesterday.
>
