[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
I don't know Emily, but frustration, I would say was a good description of what came through on your posts yesterday. But that is understandable. Returning from time spent for rest and relaxation can often be difficult, so I am understanding. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: Do you think he has some inherent frustration growing about being Share's knight in shining armor? Wait, is that a kind and sensitive thing to say?  I hope so.  (Alex, I have applied to volunteer as Saint FFL - I might need that application back...) From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry  The strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi- intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady. Something has happened or is happening to him, something distinctly ungood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were defending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Steve: This is the problem with the internet. You could not see that I was typing away doing a mindfulness technique watching the words that rolled off my fingertips. Hence, my surprise at the little tangent I took towards Curtis. Very relaxed. In no way was I frustrated - now, I was frustrated when I left as my taxes were looming and I had procrastinated on all that all year long. From: seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry I don't know Emily, but frustration, I would say was a good description of what came through on your posts yesterday. But that is understandable. Returning from time spent for rest and relaxation can often be difficult, so I am understanding. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: Do you think he has some inherent frustration growing about being Share's knight in shining armor? Wait, is that a kind and sensitive thing to say?  I hope so.  (Alex, I have applied to volunteer as Saint FFL - I might need that application back...) From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry  The strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi- intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady. Something has happened or is happening to him, something distinctly ungood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were defending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: Steve:  This is the problem with the internet.  You could not see that I was typing away doing a mindfulness technique watching the words that rolled off my fingertips.  Hence, my surprise at the little tangent I took towards Curtis.  Very relaxed.  In no way was I frustrated - now, I was frustrated when I left as my taxes were looming and I had procrastinated on all that all year long.  You know just how to disarm a person! (-: From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:45 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry  I don't know Emily, but frustration, I would say was a good description of what came through on your posts yesterday. But that is understandable. Returning from time spent for rest and relaxation can often be difficult, so I am understanding. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: Do you think he has some inherent frustration growing about being Share's knight in shining armor? Wait, is that a kind and sensitive thing to say? àI hope so. à(Alex, I have applied to volunteer as Saint FFL - I might need that application back...) From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry àThe strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi- intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady. Something has happened or is happening to him, something distinctly ungood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were defending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Ann, the FACT is, according to Judy's oft beloved but now strangely rejected archives, that in the upsets with Robin I used the term psychological rape not rapist. Judy's sneaky attributing of the latter term to me as something I said is an example IMO of the depth of her dishonesty, more so because she presents herself as the epitome of honesty, as the one who always sticks to the facts. Here is just one example that she, like the rest of us, does not always stick to the facts. But in this case I think she does so maliciously not because of faulty memory and or emotional upset. Judy herself has said in a recent post to Steve that Robin pushes people. I use the term psychological rape to say that Robin pushed me too hard and he went too far in terms of attributing thoughts and feelings to me that I wasn't having. And since it was happening to me, the fact is it is for me to label what I was experiencing. And it is for Robin and I to reconcile about. As for the initial upset, it is the same. Judy can use the term innocuous all she wants to describe Robin's comment that upset me on Sept 6. That is her opinion and she is entitled to it. But the fact is that again only I can say whether Robin's comment was merely innocuous TO ME. And again it is for he and I to reconcile about. Of course anyone can say to me how it seemed to them from the outside. And I am open to such feedback from reasonable and unprejudiced individuals. But I do not put Judy in either one of these categories. BTW, Judy, according to google, kabash is a valid spelling. TO ROBIN: you recently said to Curtis that you want a reconciliation with me. I am cautious because I remember at least one other time when you said such but later said you were just being ironic. In any case, I would like a reconciliation with you. And I don't think FFL is the best venue for that. Nor IMO is Judy a reasonable choice for mediator. If you want, we can go from this point and see if we can have a reconciliation. In case you don't already know, Judy is demanding an apology from me to you and says she will continue to demand it. However, given that we both have apologized and not accepted the apologies of each other, I think it wisest to save additional apologies for after more reconciliation has taken place. To FFL: I will send this to Robin directly given that I don't know if he's currently lurking on FFL. I don't know if the addresses I have are still valid, but hopefully they are. From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 12:29 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: As you know, you're just echoing Share's dimwit ploy. As you also know, I pointed out to her that someone who commits rape (psychological or physical) is *by definition* a rapist. So if you claim you were psychologically raped by somebody, as Share did, you are ipso facto accusing them of being a psychological rapist. Right Judy. So the fact is that Share never called Robin a psychological rapist. That's what we call in the trade, the bottom line. That is a business term that is often applied to other situations. Another example might be something like saying someone hit a home run in a non baseball context. These all come under the heading of devices that are sometimes used by writers. Wait, could we also say that you are what is called a, a, a, LIAR Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. (Kibosh, not kabash.) _._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6) Recent Activity:* New Members 2 * New Photos 1 Visit Your Group To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' MARKETPLACE img width=1 height=1 alt= src=http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=38729aa0-ae32-11e2-a761-3b588f5d5e4aT=1ddfrcs4a%2fX%3d1366954149%2fE%3d1705077076%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d3329868077%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iRXZlbnRzO1lhaG9vX1NlYXJjaF9NYXJrZXRpbmc7Qm9va21hcms7UG9kY2FzdHM7R3JvdXBzO0FzdHJvbG9neTtFZHVjYXRpb247QWxlcnRzO0dlb2NpdGllcztHcmVldGluZ3M7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSIzODcyOWFhMC1hZTMyLTExZTItYTc2MS0zYjU4OGY1ZDVlNGEiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzNjY5NTQxNDkzMTcyNjQiIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d0827C10AU
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist Of course your mileage may vary. That is fine. Certainly Judy, (and perhaps this is your take), feels that techincally there is no difference. I just see it differently. Now on that note I am going to sleep. Fun is fun but tomorrow is another day and I am sure we will all have lots of fascinating examples of the human character to analyze and enjoy then. Good night to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
To borrow a word from The Bush lexicon, you misunderestimated my meaning...The joke about breast feeding from across the room was a general musing, and had nothing to do with Sal. The later comment about four teats was riffing on Ravi's stuff. I was in a mood to joke about tits last night. I barely remember Sal, and used the memory as a convenient vehicle for a laugh. Go figure. Tits! LOL --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sorry, but that reminds me, would a male, or lesbian, (snip) DrD, no matter what Sal's faults may be, this post was out of line, IMHO. Nobody deserves this kind of crap. Using my last post of the week to clean up a bunch of pathetic messes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: It's hard to read, feste, that you consider calling someone a psychological rapist to be no big deal. Hey Judy, would you care to put your well honed investigative skills to work and show where Share actually used this, exact, term in addressing, or referring to Robin, or is just this just some concoction on your part. I'll wait. P.S. A straight answer will be preferred if you are capable of one. Well, yours is not a straight question, but I'll give you a straight answer anyway: As you know, you're just echoing Share's dimwit ploy. As you also know, I pointed out to her that someone who commits rape (psychological or physical) is *by definition* a rapist. So if you claim you were psychologically raped by somebody, as Share did, you are ipso facto accusing them of being a psychological rapist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Judy, honey, hopefully you have extinguished your fifty posts for the week, But thank you, thank you very much for this Share - Monsanto tirade. You're not even smart enough to respond to the right post. This one had nothing to do with Monsanto. But I'll comment on your remarks as if they had been in response to the correct post: This truly is one for the records books. Share's stature in your mind is of global proportions. Yes, it's true, I've liked her from the start, but you are elevating her status to a whole other level. You missed the irony *again*, Stevie boy. It was Share who elevated *me* to global stature by suggesting that I was so powerful I could take on Monsanto. I'm just riffing on that idiocy. But it's pretty good entertainment, if it wasn't so poisonous to the person spewing it. Sorry to disappoint you, but actually I'm immune to my own poison. Hopefully it did cause Share some discomfort (although she'll deny it), if only because of the effort required for her to block out the reality and pretend she was untouched by it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: turq, please don't you go daft too. Of course I figured Sunshine was not her last name! But I wanted to kid Doc without fibbing so I did look it up in the FF phone book. Besides I don't think having been bullied by Judy makes a great basis for anything Actually Sal was the bully. I just bullied her back, and she didn't like it. (snip) Just how desperate Judy is shows in her most recent jabs at feste. Feste and Robin, as best as I remember, have had only cordial and interesting exchanges. But Judy seems to be trying to put the kabash (Kibosh, not kabash.) on that friendship too. Hmmm, detecting a pattern, light bulb going on over Share head... Light bulb going on over Share['s] head: Oh, boy, I'll bet I can make feste loathe Judy and make Robin loathe feste *and* Judy by pretending she was trying to create enmity between them. You poor sap. Did you really think I wouldn't correct you? Did you really think either feste or Robin would fall for this? (What was the *other* friendship I've been trying to put the k[ibo]sh on, by the way?) In the first place, as I'm quite sure you know, feste not long ago went through a phase of denouncing Robin rather nastily. He's told us he got over that, and I hope it's true, because he and Robin *did* have some wonderful exchanges. In the second place, my jab at feste had to do with his dismissing your accusation that Robin was a psychological rapist as no big deal. That's shocking, and what it told us about him was that he was willing to sacrifice his sense of what's right in order to defend you. That had nothing to do with Robin; no matter who the accusation was aimed at, it would have been a *very* big deal indeed, and it's shameful for feste to pretend otherwise. In any case, we know even more about *you* now, snooks. You're the kind of person who is willing to misrepresent something a person you are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist Of course your mileage may vary. That is fine. Certainly Judy, (and perhaps this is your take), feels that techincally there is no difference. I just see it differently. Let me just say this, because I am getting mighty tired of this subject, so I say it as a general point; a point I would be making no matter who we were talking about here. There is no leap of faith, there is no reason to bicker over small semantics in this case. It is not a huge stretch, or even a stretch at all, for someone to make the very rational step from saying I felt psychologically raped to saying The person who got into my mind in a way that made me feel psychologically raped is a psychological rapist. Although you wouldn't actually say that because it is a corollary that naturally follows so you would look like a twit actually using a sentence like that which proves redundant. At this point I am through with this subject because not only do I not actually care whether Share or anyone else does what I think she could and probably should do but there has been so much 'press' already on this subject that it is becoming, for me, very tiresome with very little result in the way of admission/apology/personal responsibility taken on the 'rape' statement. Everything but has been spoken about and there has been endless beating around the proverbial bush. The mere fact that you or Share will not take the actual words and just ADMIT what she meant AT THE TIME was exactly what I think (and it appears Judy does as well) she meant means you both think it was a terrible thing to say so you are avoiding it like the plague. Still, we are all free agents here and as of this moment I am officially moving on from the rape subject. That does not mean to say I am moving on from the truth subject as it may or may not rear its beautiful head. On another note, your admission of having gotten the Monsanto subject wrong was a big thing to do in my opinion and although it is a normal thing to be able to admit (I was wrong) it is relatively rare to see it here. Now on that note I am going to sleep. Fun is fun but tomorrow is another day and I am sure we will all have lots of fascinating examples of the human character to analyze and enjoy then. Good night to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist Especially when the equivalence is coming from the person who screams the loudest when anyone does the same thing to her, placing something in quotes (scare or otherwise) and (in her eyes) WILLFULLY, HARMFULLY, and MALEVOLENTLY making it sound as if she (Judy) said the words in quotes. Yet again, it's fine when she does it, but a terrible crime punishable by The Corrector if anyone else does it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Here Ann goes one step further. She actually drops the word psychological altogether! Of course recently Ann wrote a whole paragraph about physical rape so I guess she had already primed herself for that leap. OTOH she is now tired of this topic so probably she won't respond to this. I used the phrase psychological rape. I never said I was psychologically raped. More importantly, I never called Robin a psychological rapist. As Judy well knows, because she is a word person, these phrases carry differing connotations and weight. I have already emailed Robin about the separate but related issues of reconciliation and apologies. As far as I'm concerned, the next step is his. Any badgering by Judy et al IMHO should be directed his way. From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 8:50 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist Of course your mileage may vary. That is fine. Certainly Judy, (and perhaps this is your take), feels that techincally there is no difference. I just see it differently. Let me just say this, because I am getting mighty tired of this subject, so I say it as a general point; a point I would be making no matter who we were talking about here. There is no leap of faith, there is no reason to bicker over small semantics in this case. It is not a huge stretch, or even a stretch at all, for someone to make the very rational step from saying I felt psychologically raped to saying The person who got into my mind in a way that made me feel psychologically raped is a psychological rapist. Although you wouldn't actually say that because it is a corollary that naturally follows so you would look like a twit actually using a sentence like that which proves redundant. At this point I am through with this subject because not only do I not actually care whether Share or anyone else does what I think she could and probably should do but there has been so much 'press' already on this subject that it is becoming, for me, very tiresome with very little result in the way of admission/apology/personal responsibility taken on the 'rape' statement. Everything but has been spoken about and there has been endless beating around the proverbial bush. The mere fact that you or Share will not take the actual words and just ADMIT what she meant AT THE TIME was exactly what I think (and it appears Judy does as well) she meant means you both think it was a terrible thing to say so you are avoiding it like the plague. Still, we are all free agents here and as of this moment I am officially moving on from the rape subject. That does not mean to say I am moving on from the truth subject as it may or may not rear its beautiful head. On another note, your admission of having gotten the Monsanto subject wrong was a big thing to do in my opinion and although it is a normal thing to be able to admit (I was wrong) it is relatively rare to see it here. Now on that note I am going to sleep. Fun is fun but tomorrow is another day and I am sure we will all have lots of fascinating examples of the human character to analyze and enjoy then. Good night to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Sure Ann. And perhaps my final comment, why not just stick with what a person says, and thereby stay on same ground. Once you deviate from what a person says, then you open yourself to different interpretations. It seems pretty simple to me. The only reason to change an actual quote would be to try to skew it in some way. And let's be real about it. Legal documents are written in such a way so as to remove any ambiguities. And if someone touts themselves as a high arbiter of truthfulness, then that is what I'd expect. And yes, in case you're wondering, I find Judy to fall well short of that goal both in spirit and practice. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist Of course your mileage may vary. That is fine. Certainly Judy, (and perhaps this is your take), feels that techincally there is no difference. I just see it differently. Let me just say this, because I am getting mighty tired of this subject, so I say it as a general point; a point I would be making no matter who we were talking about here. There is no leap of faith, there is no reason to bicker over small semantics in this case. It is not a huge stretch, or even a stretch at all, for someone to make the very rational step from saying I felt psychologically raped to saying The person who got into my mind in a way that made me feel psychologically raped is a psychological rapist. Although you wouldn't actually say that because it is a corollary that naturally follows so you would look like a twit actually using a sentence like that which proves redundant. At this point I am through with this subject because not only do I not actually care whether Share or anyone else does what I think she could and probably should do but there has been so much 'press' already on this subject that it is becoming, for me, very tiresome with very little result in the way of admission/apology/personal responsibility taken on the 'rape' statement. Everything but has been spoken about and there has been endless beating around the proverbial bush. The mere fact that you or Share will not take the actual words and just ADMIT what she meant AT THE TIME was exactly what I think (and it appears Judy does as well) she meant means you both think it was a terrible thing to say so you are avoiding it like the plague. Still, we are all free agents here and as of this moment I am officially moving on from the rape subject. That does not mean to say I am moving on from the truth subject as it may or may not rear its beautiful head. On another note, your admission of having gotten the Monsanto subject wrong was a big thing to do in my opinion and although it is a normal thing to be able to admit (I was wrong) it is relatively rare to see it here. Now on that note I am going to sleep. Fun is fun but tomorrow is another day and I am sure we will all have lots of fascinating examples of the human character to analyze and enjoy then. Good night to you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Response to two posts from Share: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Here Ann goes one step further. She actually drops the word psychological altogether! Of course recently Ann wrote a whole paragraph about physical rape so I guess she had already primed herself for that leap. Do you think you can sink any lower, Share? If you were talking about some vanilla ice cream you had eaten, and then a few sentences later you referred to it as ice cream, would that be a leap? Or is that just the way normal people talk? OTOH she is now tired of this topic so probably she won't respond to this. It's self-evidently preposterous and self-evidently malicious, so there's no need for her to respond. I don't know why *I'm* bothering. I used the phrase psychological rape. I never said I was psychologically raped. Well, you've cooked your own goose now, baby doll. Let's go to the archives that you accuse me of having rejected, shall we? Here's what you said (I've capitalized the phrase you used so it can't be missed): Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post. Being PSYCHOLOGICALLY RAPED didn't feel good then just as it doesn't feel good now. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321664 You couldn't even remember which phrase you used, psychological rape or psychologically raped. That's how much difference there is between them. More importantly, I never called Robin a psychological rapist. As Judy well knows, because she is a word person, these phrases carry differing connotations and weight. Being a word person, of course I say (as any word person would) that those phrases do not carry different connotations and weight. That's absurd. If you are robbed, the person who robs you is a robber. If you are taught TM, the person who teaches you TM is a TM teacher. If you are psychologically raped, the person who psychologically rapes you is a psychological rapist. A psychological rape doesn't happen in the abstract. For a psychological rape to occur, someone has to commit the psychological rape, and the person who does so is a psychological rapist. One uses whichever form of the phrase suits the grammatical context of what one wants to say. You don't have *any* wiggle room here, Share. (And FWIW, the phrase psychological rapist has been used here since the day you first made the accusation back on October 1, and you never objected to it until now. Even Robin used it, and you didn't correct *him*. Again, that's how much difference it makes--i.e., none.) I have already emailed Robin about the separate but related issues of reconciliation and apologies. As far as I'm concerned, the next step is his. Any badgering by Judy et al IMHO should be directed his way. Even if he were here, there's nothing to badger him *about*. He never did anything wrong. I would have something to say to Robin on this only if he asked my advice about reconciling with you, in which case I would recommend, as I've said, that he stay as far away from you as possible, even if you apologize and retract your accusation. I'd tell him I thought he should accept the apology, grant forgiveness, then never interact with or speak about you again. You should become a nonperson to him. For that matter, this is what I would tell anyone who was contemplating any kind of personal relationship with you, online or offline: Do not get involved with Share. You'll only come to regret it, because if any disagreement ever arises between you, you will find yourself dealing with a person who does everything she can to keep reality off her radar screen, who has no sense of personal accountability, and who is entirely unable to cope with the demands of reason and logic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, the FACT is, according to Judy's oft beloved but now strangely rejected archives, Does Share mean the archives I keep quoting over and over? Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post. Being psychologically raped didn't feel good then just as it doesn't feel good now. (Trouble is, this is not how Share said she felt *at the time*, as I keep pointing out.) that in the upsets with Robin I used the term psychological rape not rapist. Judy's sneaky attributing of the latter term to me as something I said is an example IMO of the depth of her dishonesty, more so because she presents herself as the epitome of honesty, as the one who always sticks to the facts. Here is just one example that she, like the rest of us, does not always stick to the facts. But in this case I think she does so maliciously not because of faulty memory and or emotional upset. I've dealt with this in my response to her other post. Here I'll just say that I think the fact that Share has doubled down on
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist That's, um, an idiosyncrasy of yours, Stevie-weevie. A person doesn't get psychologically raped all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the psychological rape. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was murdered and calling the person who murdered him a murderer? The quotes around the various versions of the phrase are what is known as scare quotes. Look it up. Especially when the equivalence is coming from the person who screams the loudest when anyone does the same thing to her, placing something in quotes (scare or otherwise) and (in her eyes) WILLFULLY, HARMFULLY, and MALEVOLENTLY making it sound as if she (Judy) said the words in quotes. Yet again, it's fine when she does it, but a terrible crime punishable by The Corrector if anyone else does it. Nice try, Barry, no cigar. Apples and qumquats. You almost always foul up, you know, when you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Makes you look RELY REEELY STOOOPID.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist That's, um, an idiosyncrasy of yours, Stevie-weevie. A person doesn't get psychologically raped all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the psychological rape. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was murdered and calling the person who murdered him a murderer? The quotes around the various versions of the phrase are what is known as scare quotes. Look it up. Especially when the equivalence is coming from the person who screams the loudest when anyone does the same thing to her, placing something in quotes (scare or otherwise) and (in her eyes) WILLFULLY, HARMFULLY, and MALEVOLENTLY making it sound as if she (Judy) said the words in quotes. Yet again, it's fine when she does it, but a terrible crime punishable by The Corrector if anyone else does it. Nice try, Barry, no cigar. Apples and qumquats. You almost always foul up, you know, when you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Makes you look RELY REEELY STOOOPID.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. Precisely. And your point being? You die from being murdered. Yes indeedy you do. There is a difference. Yes there is. Sorry about that. Don't be sorry about that Steve. Be sorry that you can not be reasonable in this situation though. Be sorry that you are confusing backing up someone you like with enabling questionable behaviour. Be sorry that you can not seem to see this. Be sorry that if you do see this you are not prepared to be honest about it. Be sorry that as you pursue this tack of yours you are looking, well, ridiculous. Be sorry that this direction you are taking is going nowhere and yet you continue to do so. This is entering the theatre of the absurd and you are, evidently, one of the leads. Sorry about that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist That's, um, an idiosyncrasy of yours, Stevie-weevie. A person doesn't get psychologically raped all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the psychological rape. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was murdered and calling the person who murdered him a murderer? The quotes around the various versions of the phrase are what is known as scare quotes. Look it up. Especially when the equivalence is coming from the person who screams the loudest when anyone does the same thing to her, placing something in quotes (scare or otherwise) and (in her eyes) WILLFULLY, HARMFULLY, and MALEVOLENTLY making it sound as if she (Judy) said the words in quotes. Yet again, it's fine when she does it, but a terrible crime punishable by The Corrector if anyone else does it. Nice try, Barry, no cigar. Apples and qumquats. You almost always foul up, you know, when you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Makes you look RELY REEELY STOOOPID.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Yeah - it's kind of sad to watch Steve - Barry's worst fears have come true. An actual attention vampire and an obnoxious moronic troll, someone should have warned him to keep away from Share. On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:34 PM, authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
No problem Ann. I understand your perspective. What you don't realize, but the rest of world sees, (yes, it is the rest of the world, my dear) is that a number was done on you some 25 or 30 years ago. Remember the end of that time - going to the paper, court actions. It's all on the record. You had control of your senses at that time. Unfortunately you are experiencing a relapse. It's the gravity thing. The only time we don't feel it, is when we are most under its influence. And yes, you are under the influence. I am sorry about that Ann. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. Precisely. And your point being? You die from being murdered. Yes indeedy you do. There is a difference. Yes there is. Sorry about that. Don't be sorry about that Steve. Be sorry that you can not be reasonable in this situation though. Be sorry that you are confusing backing up someone you like with enabling questionable behaviour. Be sorry that you can not seem to see this. Be sorry that if you do see this you are not prepared to be honest about it. Be sorry that as you pursue this tack of yours you are looking, well, ridiculous. Be sorry that this direction you are taking is going nowhere and yet you continue to do so. This is entering the theatre of the absurd and you are, evidently, one of the leads. Sorry about that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist That's, um, an idiosyncrasy of yours, Stevie-weevie. A person doesn't get psychologically raped all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the psychological rape. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was murdered and calling the person who murdered him a murderer? The quotes around the various versions of the phrase are what is known as scare quotes. Look it up. Especially when the equivalence is coming from the person who screams the loudest when anyone does the same thing to her, placing something in quotes (scare or otherwise) and (in her eyes) WILLFULLY, HARMFULLY, and MALEVOLENTLY making it sound as if she (Judy) said the words in quotes. Yet again, it's fine when she does it, but a terrible crime punishable by The Corrector if anyone else does it. Nice try, Barry, no cigar. Apples and qumquats. You almost always foul up, you know, when you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Makes you look RELY REEELY STOOOPID.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Translation: Oh, never mind, everybody knows what the translation is. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were defending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Ann, Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were defending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
The strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi- intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady. Something has happened or is happening to him, something distinctly ungood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were defending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: No problem Ann. I understand your perspective. What you don't realize, but the rest of world sees, (yes, it is the rest of the world, my dear) I never realized there was such a big audience here. If I had known I wouldn't be writing this naked lying in bed right now. is that a number was done on you some 25 or 30 years ago. You're telling me. Remember the end of that time - going to the paper, court actions. It's all on the record. You had control of your senses at that time. I did? Unfortunately you are experiencing a relapse. It's the gravity thing. I'm not sure that relapsing has anything to do with gravity. Falling off a horse does though. The only time we don't feel it, is when we are most under its influence. And yes, you are under the influence. I am sorry about that Ann. The influence of gravity? Oh, well I'm afraid gravity effects us all. It's a relief to know we're all bound by the same laws of physics - unless, of course, you can fly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. Precisely. And your point being? You die from being murdered. Yes indeedy you do. There is a difference. Yes there is. Sorry about that. Don't be sorry about that Steve. Be sorry that you can not be reasonable in this situation though. Be sorry that you are confusing backing up someone you like with enabling questionable behaviour. Be sorry that you can not seem to see this. Be sorry that if you do see this you are not prepared to be honest about it. Be sorry that as you pursue this tack of yours you are looking, well, ridiculous. Be sorry that this direction you are taking is going nowhere and yet you continue to do so. This is entering the theatre of the absurd and you are, evidently, one of the leads. Sorry about that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was psychologically raped, and calling someone a psychological rapist That's, um, an idiosyncrasy of yours, Stevie-weevie. A person doesn't get psychologically raped all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the psychological rape. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was murdered and calling the person who murdered him a murderer? The quotes around the various versions of the phrase are what is known as scare quotes. Look it up. Especially when the equivalence is coming from the person who screams the loudest when anyone does the same thing to her, placing something in quotes (scare or otherwise) and (in her eyes) WILLFULLY, HARMFULLY, and MALEVOLENTLY making it sound as if she (Judy) said the words in quotes. Yet again, it's fine when she does it, but a terrible crime punishable by The Corrector if anyone else does it. Nice try, Barry, no cigar. Apples and qumquats. You almost always foul up, you know, when you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Makes you look RELY REEELY STOOOPID.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Do you think he has some inherent frustration growing about being Share's knight in shining armor? Wait, is that a kind and sensitive thing to say? I hope so. (Alex, I have applied to volunteer as Saint FFL - I might need that application back...) From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry The strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi- intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady. Something has happened or is happening to him, something distinctly ungood. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So, I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to you. Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you. (-: Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were defending. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered. There is a difference. Sorry about that. My *God*, you are stupid. Let's say you got mugged. A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has to be a person who commits the mugging. Is there a subtle difference between saying a person was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a mugger? (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity: about 3 seconds.) Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Using my last post of the week to clean up a bunch of pathetic messes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: It's hard to read, feste, that you consider calling someone a psychological rapist to be no big deal. Hey Judy, would you care to put your well honed investigative skills to work and show where Share actually used this, exact, term in addressing, or referring to Robin, or is just this just some concoction on your part. I'll wait. P.S. A straight answer will be preferred if you are capable of one. Well, yours is not a straight question, but I'll give you a straight answer anyway: As you know, you're just echoing Share's dimwit ploy. As you also know, I pointed out to her that someone who commits rape (psychological or physical) is *by definition* a rapist. So if you claim you were psychologically raped by somebody, as Share did, you are ipso facto accusing them of being a psychological rapist. Right Judy. So the fact is that Share never called Robin a psychological rapist. That's what we call in the trade, the bottom line. That is a business term that is often applied to other situations. Another example might be something like saying someone hit a home run in a non baseball context. These all come under the heading of devices that are sometimes used by writers. Wait, could we also say that you are what is called a, a, a, LIAR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Judy, honey, hopefully you have extinguished your fifty posts for the week, But thank you, thank you very much for this Share - Monsanto tirade. You're not even smart enough to respond to the right post. This one had nothing to do with Monsanto. But I'll comment on your remarks as if they had been in response to the correct post: This truly is one for the records books. Share's stature in your mind is of global proportions. Yes, it's true, I've liked her from the start, but you are elevating her status to a whole other level. You missed the irony *again*, Stevie boy. It was Share who elevated *me* to global stature by suggesting that I was so powerful I could take on Monsanto. I'm just riffing on that idiocy. Well good. Thank you for clarifying that. Mostly I am just happy for you. I never can be sure of how far off the rails* you can get. * this is another figure of speech applied to a non railroad situation. But it's pretty good entertainment, if it wasn't so poisonous to the person spewing it. Sorry to disappoint you, but actually I'm immune to my own poison. That doesn't surprise me. But it has a tendency to ooze out of you. Sort of like someone who eats a ton of garlic. Eventually it starts to come out of the pores. Hopefully it did cause Share some discomfort (although she'll deny it), if only because of the effort required for her to block out the reality and pretend she was untouched by it. I can't speak for Share, but Idon't think anyone enjoys being the target of your constant, vicious, demeaning attacks. (and I can't help but feeling that a slight smile come over your face at these words) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: turq, please don't you go daft too. Of course I figured Sunshine was not her last name! But I wanted to kid Doc without fibbing so I did look it up in the FF phone book. Besides I don't think having been bullied by Judy makes a great basis for anything Actually Sal was the bully. I just bullied her back, and she didn't like it. Epitaph material here. (replacing Sal with fill in the blank) (snip) Just how desperate Judy is shows in her most recent jabs at feste. Feste and Robin, as best as I remember, have had only cordial and interesting exchanges. But Judy seems to be trying to put the kabash (Kibosh, not kabash.) on that friendship too. Hmmm, detecting a pattern, light bulb going on over Share head... Light bulb going on over Share['s] head: Oh, boy, I'll bet I can make feste loathe Judy and make Robin loathe feste *and* Judy by pretending she was trying to create enmity between them. You poor sap. Did you really think I wouldn't correct you? Did you really think either feste or Robin would fall for this? (What was the *other* friendship I've been trying to put the k[ibo]sh on, by the way?) In the first place, as I'm quite sure you know, feste not long ago went through a phase of denouncing Robin rather nastily. He's told us he got over that, and I hope it's true, because he and Robin *did* have some wonderful exchanges. In the second place, my jab at feste had to do with his dismissing your accusation that Robin was a psychological rapist as no big deal. That's shocking, and what it told us about him was that he was willing to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
Ravi, you are a piece of work. Perhaps at some point you will realize that people change, situations change, and people respond to them accordingly. Even if you find yourself stuck in the same rut, others may not be so stuck. Does this remind you of someone you know, rather intimately? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbYIGS8lvf8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbYIGS8lvf8 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: Just how desperate Judy is shows in her most recent jabs at feste. Feste and Robin, as best as I remember, have had only cordial and interesting exchanges. But Judy seems to be trying to put the kabash Uncle Feste of yore - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/298103 On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:27 PM, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Sorry, but that reminds me, would a male, or lesbian, (snip) DrD, no matter what Sal's faults may be, this post was out of line, IMHO. Nobody deserves this kind of crap. Using my last post of the week to clean up a bunch of pathetic messes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: It's hard to read, feste, that you consider calling someone a psychological rapist to be no big deal. Hey Judy, would you care to put your well honed investigative skills to work and show where Share actually used this, exact, term in addressing, or referring to Robin, or is just this just some concoction on your part. I'll wait. P.S. A straight answer will be preferred if you are capable of one. Well, yours is not a straight question, but I'll give you a straight answer anyway: As you know, you're just echoing Share's dimwit ploy. As you also know, I pointed out to her that someone who commits rape (psychological or physical) is *by definition* a rapist. So if you claim you were psychologically raped by somebody, as Share did, you are ipso facto accusing them of being a psychological rapist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Judy, honey, hopefully you have extinguished your fifty posts for the week, But thank you, thank you very much for this Share - Monsanto tirade. You're not even smart enough to respond to the right post. This one had nothing to do with Monsanto. But I'll comment on your remarks as if they had been in response to the correct post: This truly is one for the records books. Share's stature in your mind is of global proportions. Yes, it's true, I've liked her from the start, but you are elevating her status to a whole other level. You missed the irony *again*, Stevie boy. It was Share who elevated *me* to global stature by suggesting that I was so powerful I could take on Monsanto. I'm just riffing on that idiocy. But it's pretty good entertainment, if it wasn't so poisonous to the person spewing it. Sorry to disappoint you, but actually I'm immune to my own poison. Hopefully it did cause Share some discomfort (although she'll deny it), if only because of the effort required for her to block out the reality and pretend she was untouched by it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: turq, please don't you go daft too. Of course I figured Sunshine was not her last name! But I wanted to kid Doc without fibbing so I did look it up in the FF phone book. Besides I don't think having been bullied by Judy makes a great basis for anything Actually Sal was the bully. I just bullied her back, and she didn't like it. (snip) Just how desperate Judy is shows in her most recent jabs at feste. Feste and Robin, as best as I remember, have had only cordial and interesting exchanges. But Judy seems to be trying to put the kabash (Kibosh, not kabash.) on that friendship too. Hmmm, detecting a pattern, light bulb going on over Share head... Light bulb going on over Share['s] head: Oh, boy, I'll bet I can make feste loathe Judy and make Robin loathe feste *and* Judy by pretending she was trying to create enmity between them. You poor sap. Did you really think I wouldn't correct you? Did you really think either feste or Robin would fall for this? (What was the *other* friendship I've been trying to put the k[ibo]sh on, by the way?) In the first place, as I'm quite sure you know, feste not long ago went through a phase of denouncing Robin rather nastily. He's told us he got over that, and I hope it's true, because he and Robin *did* have some wonderful exchanges. In the second place, my jab at feste had to do with his dismissing your accusation that Robin was a psychological rapist as no big deal. That's shocking, and what it told us about him was that he
[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Using my last post of the week to clean up a bunch of pathetic messes: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: It's hard to read, feste, that you consider calling someone a psychological rapist to be no big deal. Hey Judy, would you care to put your well honed investigative skills to work and show where Share actually used this, exact, term in addressing, or referring to Robin, or is just this just some concoction on your part. I'll wait. P.S. A straight answer will be preferred if you are capable of one. Well, yours is not a straight question, but I'll give you a straight answer anyway: As you know, you're just echoing Share's dimwit ploy. As you also know, I pointed out to her that someone who commits rape (psychological or physical) is *by definition* a rapist. So if you claim you were psychologically raped by somebody, as Share did, you are ipso facto accusing them of being a psychological rapist. Right Judy. So the fact is that Share never called Robin a psychological rapist. That's what we call in the trade, the bottom line. That is a business term that is often applied to other situations. Another example might be something like saying someone hit a home run in a non baseball context. These all come under the heading of devices that are sometimes used by writers. Wait, could we also say that you are what is called a, a, a, LIAR Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been psychologically raped by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Now on that note I am going to sleep. Fun is fun but tomorrow is another day and I am sure we will all have lots of fascinating examples of the human character to analyze and enjoy then. Good night to you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: Judy, honey, hopefully you have extinguished your fifty posts for the week, But thank you, thank you very much for this Share - Monsanto tirade. You're not even smart enough to respond to the right post. This one had nothing to do with Monsanto. But I'll comment on your remarks as if they had been in response to the correct post: This truly is one for the records books. Share's stature in your mind is of global proportions. Yes, it's true, I've liked her from the start, but you are elevating her status to a whole other level. You missed the irony *again*, Stevie boy. It was Share who elevated *me* to global stature by suggesting that I was so powerful I could take on Monsanto. I'm just riffing on that idiocy. Well good. Thank you for clarifying that. Mostly I am just happy for you. I never can be sure of how far off the rails* you can get. * this is another figure of speech applied to a non railroad situation. But it's pretty good entertainment, if it wasn't so poisonous to the person spewing it. Sorry to disappoint you, but actually I'm immune to my own poison. That doesn't surprise me. But it has a tendency to ooze out of you. Sort of like someone who eats a ton of garlic. Eventually it starts to come out of the pores. Hopefully it did cause Share some discomfort (although she'll deny it), if only because of the effort required for her to block out the reality and pretend she was untouched by it. I can't speak for Share, but Idon't think anyone enjoys being the target of your constant, vicious, demeaning attacks. (and I can't help but feeling that a slight smile come over your face at these words) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: turq, please don't you go daft too. Of course I figured Sunshine was not her last name! But I wanted to kid Doc without fibbing so I did look it up in the FF phone book. Besides I don't think having been bullied by Judy makes a great basis for anything Actually Sal was the bully. I just bullied her back, and she didn't like it. Epitaph material here. (replacing Sal with fill in the blank) (snip) Just how desperate Judy is shows in her most recent jabs at feste. Feste and Robin, as best as I remember, have had only cordial and interesting exchanges. But Judy seems to be trying to put the kabash (Kibosh, not kabash.) on that friendship too. Hmmm, detecting a pattern, light bulb going on over Share head... Light bulb going on over
