<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> I agree with your (apparent) premise that kindness should flourish
in
> our posts. My comment, though a bit smirky, was also a bit snarky.
> Perhaps best left unsaid.
>
> Was is Jesus who said "He that snarks upon you, turn the other
> cheek."? A lot of wasted discussion appears to be people snarking
back
> after having been snarked, leading to snark wars and worse.
You're using "snark" when I think you mean to use "snarky"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snark
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snarky
>
> Even if Turq or others make snarky and presumptuous comments to me,
> that does not give me the right to snark back. FFL deserves that
> higher standard of conduct. So I appreciate your kindess in
bringing
> my snarkiness, albeit mild, to my attention. I vow to try to
refrain
> from such in the future. Please feel free to bring any lapses of
such
> to my attention.
>
> Thank you for your kind attention.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], new_morning_blank_slate
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected],
> > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
> > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote:
> > >
> > > TorquiseB Snipped
> > > Dude, I took your new screen name at face value, and
> > > took you out of the Pissant Bin long enough for one
> > > test reply to see if you really had turned over a
> > > new leaf. Won't make that mistake again...back in
> > > the bin you go. :-)
> > >
> > > Tom T
> > > Ed Zaktely. Some things never change. We change they don't.
Tom T
> >
> >
> > Tom,
> > I am curious about your comment. It implies that you see some
great
> > rudeness, nastiness or sin in my comment below. I don't see it.
Indeed
> > it was a bit imitative of Barry's style -- a quick smirk of a
comment
> > -- (perhaps deserving of a smiley face) building on his
phrasing "I
> > honestly think you are ..." and hypothesing on his inner mental
> > dynamics as he (mistakenly) did of mine.
> >
> > But I am touched by your kind attention.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > > > >I honestly think that what you're *hoping* is that the
> > > > >description of enlightenment can be internally consis-
> > > > >tent and logical, so that you can "understand" it
> > > > >using the rational mind. And you hope that despite
> > > > >the fact that most of the enlightened throughout
> > > > >history have said just the opposite, that it *can't*
> > > > >be understood or described by the rational mind.
> >
> >
> > > --- new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> >
> > > > See my adjacent posts. You will find your hypothesis is quite
> > > > one-dimensional and off base. I honestly think you may be
> > > > projecting here, projecting onto others an issue you are
> > > > dealing with and are uncomfortable with your lack of internal
> > > > resolution.
> >
>
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
