Judy, I'm not afraid of answering any questions that are asked in a genuine spirit of wanting to increase understanding. This is not the intent I get from this post of yours, even from the very beginning. And I don't get that from your previous post either. I think it is pointless to continue communicating with you.
On Friday, December 27, 2013 3:46 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com> wrote: This doesn't make any sense, Share. If my post was included in another post and you were able to open that one, you wouldn't need to open mine separately. And once again, you didn't answer my question, or any of Ann's. What are you so afraid of? << My reply wasn't to you Judy because your post was at the very bottom of the page and I wasn't able to get it to open. Not sure what was going on with that. >> On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:04 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: << I ask, Judy because I've never met anyone like you >> That's a big ditto. << and I'd like to understand better. I've never encountered such grudge holding in my life and again, I'd like to understand better. >> First thing to do is drop the notion of "grudge holding." That's a thought-stopper that is designed to block understanding. << I don't often encounter people so stuck in the past as you and the MGC are. >> And drop the "MGC" idea. There is no such thing. Use people's names. Next drop the "stuck in the past" notion, because that isn't true either. << Again, my aim is for more understanding. >> No, it isn't. Your aim is to find a way to protect yourself from understanding while attacking me and preserve what you've already decided is the case, as everything you've said so far in this post proves. << This is why I ask what you hope to accomplish. >> I don't have any hope of getting you to do the right thing. << If I were to do what you suggest, how would your view of reality change? >> I don't believe you are capable of taking responsibility for what you do and say. If you suddenly did, I'd be astonished. I note that you're responding to a post from Ann rather than one from me. But you haven't responded to what she said in her post: << Sharon, have you ever been raped or raped? Has your mother, your sister? If they had been how would you like someone describing the rapists as "frisky"? It's that simple. >> Finally, did you read the account of the context of your "frisky fellers" remark I gave to Steve? Do you agree that it's accurate? Here it is again: << Right, the context was Share's preference for punjabis over saris: "Plus they are practical, meaning one could still flee or er apply one's knee to a feller's nether regions if he got too frisky. So punjabis I'm guessing are great for setting boundaries if one is about to experience PhysR rather than PsyR or EmoR. I'm just sayin." (That's a reference, BTW, to her having accused Robin of "psychological rape," another very ugly story involving Share.) IOW, "got too frisky" here refers to attempted rape. Curtis was confused, thinking she was referring to Fairfield. She corrected him: "Oh, I meant the women in India. From recent news reports there seems to be a lot of hyper frisky fellers there." She was referring to an NPR story Buck had linked to about the terrible problems India was having with rape (including murderous rape--one of the recent victims was 4 years old). She later claimed calling the Indian rapists "frisky fellers" had been a "joke." I kid you not, folks. This is what Steve is trying to defend her from. The NPR story is here: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175471907/on-indias-trains-seeking-safety-in-the-women-s-compartment I can give you links to any of the posts I quoted. >>
