Emily, the link didn't work...
On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:44 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: What Child is this Share? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC9cbEHjvPs The afterthought was something Share wrote that didn't represent her "immediate and mundane" response, which was the truth, imho. Read what she wrote. I wasn't being dishonest or sneaky; I was commenting on her response. "Should I get booted." That's funny. I'm already on probationary status for not having a direct TM connection (although a friend has a sister that did TM - does that count?). If I suddenly disappear, just assume the Texas rangers finally tracked me down and sent me to a prison farm in Arkansas. I'm hoping I can stay under the radar until the new year. ---In FairfieldLife@{{emailDomain}}, <punditster@...> wrote: Are you suggesting that Emily was dishonest and sneaky about leaving out the part where you said that her tree and photo were lovely. Should she get booted for that? Where's Judy when we need her? On 12/20/2013 9:36 AM, Share Long wrote: > >See, Emily, imo your post is a form of dishonesty because you leave out the >part where I say the tree and photo are lovely. And it's sneaky dishonesty to >boot. > > > > > > > >On Friday, December 20, 2013 8:53 AM, "emilymaenot@..." <emilymaenot@...> >wrote: > > >Re: I shall now enlighten you both about my immediate and mundane reaction to >the photo of her Christmas tree that Ann posted. Hold onto your seatbelts! >"Huh?! But wait a minute! I've seen this photo before! Is this the same photo >Ann posted last year?!" > > >Yes, Barry is correct. Share definitely exhibits "range and an ability to >feel positive emotion." I'm all teared up with this warm and fuzzy response. > > >
