> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > No, sorry, you meant the vets to start with,
> > > and the above is a reactive backpedal:
> > >
> > > "The vast majority of them fought and died because
> > > they were told to and had so little imagination
> > > that it never occurred to them that they could
> > > say no, to conscription and to the whole stupid
> > > business of war."
> > >
> > > Backpedal regardless, I *agree* with you that
> > > all of us who don't dedicate our lives and
> > > material resources to opposing war share in the
> > > responsibility for war.
> > >
> > > But (a) that was not what you said to start
> > > with; and (b) running away to France does not
> > > absolve you of that responsibility.
> > 1-800-FUCK-OFF is a free call for you, too. :-)
> I sruck a nerve, apparently.
I know that Judy won't understand this, because
she's too far gone, but the above comment is
*exactly* why she and new_morning_blank_slate
are consigned to my "Pissant Bin."
It's not that they have nothing to say. They
don't, but that's beside the point. :-) It's that
they are compelled to react to positions they don't
agree with by TRYING TO MAKE THE OTHER PERSON FEEL
BAD. *That* is what they are trying to achieve
in their posts. I suspect that anyone here with
any psychic sensibilities has felt this.
In this thread, when new_morning first jumped on
Bhairitu for what he posted, his *first reaction*
was to imply that there was something *wrong*
with him for stating that opinion. He tried to
portray Bhairitu as somehow "bad" and not caring
about vets just because he made the points that
he'd made. His *first reaction* was to try to make
the person who disagreed with him the "bad guy"
and (IMO) to try to make him feel bad about
himself. It didn't work. Bhairitu laughed at him.
Above, Judy expresses (not for the first time)
her fantasy and her main reason for posting on
the Internet. She has said many times that she
*delights* in trying to make her opponents in
a debate feel bad. That's *why* she debates them.
Her *first reaction* in this thread was the same
as new_morning's; she was interested only in finding
someone she could put down, and hopefully make feel
It didn't work. It rarely does. It's sad, but
as I and a number of others have said in the past,
it's really Not Our Problem. Just because these
two people get their jollies by trying to suck
people into extended arguments with them so that
they can put them down doesn't mean that we have
to fall for it.
In other words, it's a lot like the codependency
issue with war that I've been talking about. The
only way one can have a war is that a bunch of
codependent people agree to fight it or pay for
it. The only way one can have an argument on a
forum like this is to agree to argue with those
who seem to *need* arguments to define who they
are. Just say NO.
To subscribe, send a message to:
Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'
|Religion and spirituality||Maharishi mahesh yogi|
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.