Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
What on earth are you talking about? - I'm not sitting at a computer all day and night like you are. On 12/3/2013 8:59 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
Judy's inflammatory posts can only be construed as harassment and abuse by a junkyard bully at this point. Go figure. On 12/3/2013 4:03 PM, Share Long wrote: Judy, just fyi, I'm still at my Mom's in Annapolis and as yet, there's no Dome here! I haven't been reading all your posts so thanks for the summary. As I told Emily, your initial response and your continuing harassment more than outweigh what you posted from the archive imo. We are never going to agree about this. All we can do is proceed or not on that basis. On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:47 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" wrote: So Share, you've had another full day and two Dome programs to think about whether you'd like to get this issue out of your hair, or whether you want to prolong it indefinitely. What's your decision? Do you want me to keep posting the proof that you told falsehoods about my September 9, 2012, post, or would you prefer to just admit to having done so and be done with it? Remember, everybody here knows that you told those falsehoods, because they've seen the evidence. It's not as if they're going to start doubting that you did it if you don't cop to it. They're just going to think: She did it, and she refuses to take responsibility for it. At any rate, here's the evidence, again, from my post to you on Sunday: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: > Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: > She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She > did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or > even I think. In fact, I said: "After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to "suspend communications" altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted." AND: "Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length." Then you wrote: > Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just > declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my > head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: "And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology." AND: "I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said." AND: "For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky." Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I "ran my number" on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: "Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true." Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: > Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge (-:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
Maybe Share would like to respond after you admit you fibbed about the TM mantras not being the names of the Hindu gods. Until then, why would she or anyone want to dialog with a liar? Go figure. "We saw tapes of Maharishi where he repeatedly explained that the sounds of the mantras, especially as one approaches transcendence, had the effect of summoning very refined 'impulses of creative intelligence.' In other tapes, he explained that the 'impulses of creative intelligence' or 'laws of nature' were devas such as Indra, Agni, and so forth. He also explicitly said that in the proper state of consciousness, that repeating the name of 'impulses of creative intelligence' in Sanskrit had the effect of creating or summoning the 'form.' http://minet.org/www.trancenet.net/secrets/mantras.shtml On 12/3/2013 3:47 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: So Share, you've had another full day and two Dome programs to think about whether you'd like to get this issue out of your hair, or whether you want to prolong it indefinitely. What's your decision? Do you want me to keep posting the proof that you told falsehoods about my September 9, 2012, post, or would you prefer to just admit to having done so and be done with it? Remember, everybody here knows that you told those falsehoods, because they've seen the evidence. It's not as if they're going to start doubting that you did it if you don't cop to it. They're just going to think: She did it, and she refuses to take responsibility for it. At any rate, here's the evidence, again, from my post to you on Sunday: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: > Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: > She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She > did not qualify with in my opinion orit sounds like or > even I think. In fact, I said: "After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to "suspend communications" altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted." AND: "Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length." Then you wrote: > Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just > declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my > head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: "And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology." AND: "I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said." AND: "For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky." Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I "ran my number" on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: "Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is tr
Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
That was my intention, Share. I didn't really think I needed your permission, actually.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
Judy, whatever you think I'm doing or not doing, have done or not done, simply proceed as you want. On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 4:33 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" wrote: It's not a "summary," Share, it's my entire post to you on Sunday proving that you made those false statements, with a little introduction added. And as I told you, "initial response" makes no sense in this context. The post in question--the one you told falsehoods about--was my initial response to you. Nor is it a matter of one thing "outweighing" some other thing. You told falsehoods about me with malicious intent; I have never, ever told falsehoods about you. And one more time: It isn't a matter of "agreement" either, as I also pointed out to you. It is not a matter of opinion that you told falsehoods, it's a matter of verified fact. The only issue is how long you're going to try to fend off taking responsibility for the falsehoods. The longer you take, the worse you look. This is a life lesson for you, Share, one you have apparently never learned in your 66 years on this planet, at least from the evidence of your participation on FFL: When you are publicly caught in an untruth, it's better to own up to it as soon as possible instead of letting it hang over your head indefinitely. Share shilly-shallied: > Judy, just fyi, I'm still at my Mom's in Annapolis and as yet, there's no > Dome here! I haven't been reading all your posts so thanks for the summary. > As I told Emily, your initial response and your continuing harassment more > than outweigh what you posted from the archive imo. We are never going to > agree about this. All we can do is proceed or not on that basis. On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:47 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: So Share, you've had another full day and two Dome programs to think about whether you'd like to get this issue out of your hair, or whether you want to prolong it indefinitely. What's your decision? Do you want me to keep posting the proof that you told falsehoods about my September 9, 2012, post, or would you prefer to just admit to having done so and be done with it? Remember, everybody here knows that you told those falsehoods, because they've seen the evidence. It's not as if they're going to start doubting that you did it if you don't cop to it. They're just going to think: She did it, and she refuses to take responsibility for it. At any rate, here's the evidence, again, from my post to you on Sunday: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: > Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: > She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She > did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or > even I think. In fact, I said: "After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to "suspend communications" altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted." AND: "Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length." Then you wrote: > Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just > declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my > head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: "And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology." AND: "I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said." AND: "For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky." Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
It's not a "summary," Share, it's my entire post to you on Sunday proving that you made those false statements, with a little introduction added. And as I told you, "initial response" makes no sense in this context. The post in question--the one you told falsehoods about--was my initial response to you. Nor is it a matter of one thing "outweighing" some other thing. You told falsehoods about me with malicious intent; I have never, ever told falsehoods about you. And one more time: It isn't a matter of "agreement" either, as I also pointed out to you. It is not a matter of opinion that you told falsehoods, it's a matter of verified fact. The only issue is how long you're going to try to fend off taking responsibility for the falsehoods. The longer you take, the worse you look. This is a life lesson for you, Share, one you have apparently never learned in your 66 years on this planet, at least from the evidence of your participation on FFL: When you are publicly caught in an untruth, it's better to own up to it as soon as possible instead of letting it hang over your head indefinitely. Share shilly-shallied: > Judy, just fyi, I'm still at my Mom's in Annapolis and as yet, there's no > Dome here! I haven't been reading all your posts so thanks for the summary. > As I told Emily, your initial response and your continuing harassment more > than outweigh what you posted from the archive imo. We are never going to > agree about this. All we can do is proceed or not on that basis. On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:47 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: So Share, you've had another full day and two Dome programs to think about whether you'd like to get this issue out of your hair, or whether you want to prolong it indefinitely. What's your decision? Do you want me to keep posting the proof that you told falsehoods about my September 9, 2012, post, or would you prefer to just admit to having done so and be done with it? Remember, everybody here knows that you told those falsehoods, because they've seen the evidence. It's not as if they're going to start doubting that you did it if you don't cop to it. They're just going to think: She did it, and she refuses to take responsibility for it. At any rate, here's the evidence, again, from my post to you on Sunday: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: > Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: > She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She > did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or > even I think. In fact, I said: "After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to "suspend communications" altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted." AND: "Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length." Then you wrote: > Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just > declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my > head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: "And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology." AND: "I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said." AND: "For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky." Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
Judy, just fyi, I'm still at my Mom's in Annapolis and as yet, there's no Dome here! I haven't been reading all your posts so thanks for the summary. As I told Emily, your initial response and your continuing harassment more than outweigh what you posted from the archive imo. We are never going to agree about this. All we can do is proceed or not on that basis. On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 3:47 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" wrote: So Share, you've had another full day and two Dome programs to think about whether you'd like to get this issue out of your hair, or whether you want to prolong it indefinitely. What's your decision? Do you want me to keep posting the proof that you told falsehoods about my September 9, 2012, post, or would you prefer to just admit to having done so and be done with it? Remember, everybody here knows that you told those falsehoods, because they've seen the evidence. It's not as if they're going to start doubting that you did it if you don't cop to it. They're just going to think: She did it, and she refuses to take responsibility for it. At any rate, here's the evidence, again, from my post to you on Sunday: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: > Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: > She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She > did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or > even I think. In fact, I said: "After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to "suspend communications" altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted." AND: "Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length." Then you wrote: > Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just > declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my > head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: "And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology." AND: "I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said." AND: "For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky." Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I "ran my number" on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: "Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true." Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: > Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by > replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to be > *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm Lounge > (-:
[FairfieldLife] Decision time for Share, Day 3
So Share, you've had another full day and two Dome programs to think about whether you'd like to get this issue out of your hair, or whether you want to prolong it indefinitely. What's your decision? Do you want me to keep posting the proof that you told falsehoods about my September 9, 2012, post, or would you prefer to just admit to having done so and be done with it? Remember, everybody here knows that you told those falsehoods, because they've seen the evidence. It's not as if they're going to start doubting that you did it if you don't cop to it. They're just going to think: She did it, and she refuses to take responsibility for it. At any rate, here's the evidence, again, from my post to you on Sunday: OK, Share, let's see if you can both listen and reply to this post, which is about some unfinished business from yesterday that we need to deal with. In a post to Barry, you wrote: > Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. As I've already noted, this is not true. We had clashed well before September 9. But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: > She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She > did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or > even I think. In fact, I said: "After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to "suspend communications" altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted." AND: "Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length." Then you wrote: > Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just > declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my > head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: "And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology." AND: "I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said." AND: "For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky." Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) For your convenience, here's the link to my September 9 post so you can check to make sure I haven't misquoted either you or myself: http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 It was crammed with qualifiers and expressions of uncertainty, entirely contrary to your characterization of it yesterday. And it wasn't even a nasty post! I'm betting you can't do it, Share. I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to confess to your untruthfulness, even with the evidence right in front of your eyes, even knowing it's in front of everyone else's eyes here as well. Goodness knows this wasn't the first or the only time you've misrepresented what someone else has said in an attempt to make them look bad and yourself appear to be a blameless victim. It's just such a clear-cut case, and you brought it on yourself. Your post yesterday was an entirely gratuitous slam, piling on to a long list of dishonest statements of Barry's about me. I "ran my number" on you? No, babe, you ran your number on me. As Ann pointed out to you: "Share, take a moment and have a care. You are moving into some dangerous territory for yourself as an individual and as a human being. Be careful that you do not use the mistaken and erroneous notions of your faux friend Barry and your well-intentioned but not-really-helping-you associate Feste to launch into this head space of yours. I don't think it is a healthy one or somewhere that is characterized by what is real or what is true." Share wrote, oblivious to the irony: > Nice, turq, and I'd add: we often listen with the intention to reply and by > replying, *improve* our fellow humans any way we can, whether they want to > be *improved* or not! Of course this doesn't apply much to the Funny Farm > Lounge (-:
