[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Judy, I *almost* wrote a fragment-by-fragment response to your fragment-by-fragment counter arguments to everything I'd offered (in what I called the right spirit) in response to RD's questions. I say *almost* because I caught myself before getting hopelessly lost in the blackhole, then I cancelled the beginnings of my counters to your counters ad nauseum infinitum. The reason I did this is because the two of us can go no further in this particular discussion because you just cannot (or will not) hear what I'm saying. For someone who prides herself in her editing skills (and I'm sure you're very good at what you do), it is your *comprehension* skills that are lacking. It's like a wall of Judy truth exists, and unlike the Berlin Wall, just won't come down. Did anything I wrote make any sense whatsoever to you? There is nothing further to be gained by me in this discussion so I'm bowing out in what I hope is a graceful manner, but not before getting a few digs in. And BTW, I *do* think things through, and I *do* use my brain. You might not believe it, but I put alot of thought and time into most of my responses and they really come from a good place inside me (well, that is, until I post something stupid like When did the word 'bitch' get to be a bad thing?). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Is wts Share's fantasy? I'm thinking one might refer to FFL having *similarities* to WTS (hence lowercase letters used) particularly if that person feels like she's being confronted on an internet forum very much like what happened in the WTS cult. That isn't what she means by it. See here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/325721 People are confronted all the time on Internet forums. FFL is no different than most others in that regard. snip And I'm probably right in saying that the *relentlessness* of the questions and opinions coming from *many* directions within hours, if not minutes, of each other are two similarities that might make any intelligent person feel that way. That's absurd. Timing is not significant on that small a scale. It's not the case that we are all sitting in front of our computers reading and responding on FFL 24 hours a day. People have different schedules and pop in at different times. Posts closely adjacent to one another in time are almost always a matter of coincidence. Plus which, of course, the same thing happens on many if not most other Internet forums; FFL is by no means unique in that regard. You really are not thinking things through here, laughinggull. It's simply not the case that because a significant number of FFL members have nearly identical negative opinions of her, it must be because Robin is trying to create a cult for himself on FFL. snip Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671, she writes: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion... For the record, Share does *exactly the same things*. Notice she goes on to define what psychological rape means to her therefore if what Judy is doing falls within that definition, then to Share, Judy is doing the psychological rape thing. So let's see, if I define terrorism as calling someone a jerk, and you call me a jerk, does that mean it's reasonable for me to call you a terrorist? JESUS, laughinggull, USE YOUR BRAIN. Psychological rape is a term that, like wts, Share uses to insult people she doesn't like. The terms have no validity of their own. I like Xeno's take on this at the end of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 when he writes: When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with it, even if the attempt is made. You will probably eventually learn that Xeno's version of what people have said on FFL is often not accurate. Here is Share's first use of the term: 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. So not just an attempt at psychological rape. She is claiming she *was* psychologically raped. BTW, she did not get so upset initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
laughinggull108: Judy, So, it's all about Judy. I *almost* wrote a fragment-by-fragment response to your fragment-by-fragment counter arguments to everything I'd offered (in what I called the right spirit) in response to RD's questions. I say *almost* because I caught myself before getting hopelessly lost in the blackhole... You're already falling way down a rabbit hole. LoL! snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case. http://youtu.be/CI8UPHMzZm8 This is a brilliant post, raunchy. And it says everything I could ever think of saying. I think the deer crossing signs should definitely be taken down--or moved to a more suitable place--putting them at a school crossing seemed like a good idea to me. But until the deer get used to the new crossings, they need to put up signs saying, e.g., No Deer Crossing Here. Nearest Crossing at XXX Elementary School in West Bumfield. Otherwise the deer are going to be very confused.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: snip I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case. http://youtu.be/CI8UPHMzZm8 This is a brilliant post, raunchy. And it says everything I could ever think of saying. I think the deer crossing signs should definitely be taken down--or moved to a more suitable place--putting them at a school crossing seemed like a good idea to me. But until the deer get used to the new crossings, they need to put up signs saying, e.g., No Deer Crossing Here. Nearest Crossing at XXX Elementary School in West Bumfield. Otherwise the deer are going to be very confused. http://tinyurl.com/c7qfc4h
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: RD, where do you stand on this? Did you need to revise your questions posed to me perhaps based on an incomplete reading of all my comments as suggested by me below (BTW, no shame in that), or do the questions stand as originally asked? If I don't hear from you (and sometimes no response might be in and of itself a loud and clear answer), then I'll do my best to answer them as originally posted. I do this because, at some time in the future, I wouldn't want you or anyone suggesting that I *couldn't* answer them therefore you were right in your assumptive basis for asking them...I'm going to start calling this the MWE (muddying the waters effect) as I think that I try to keep FFL discussions in which I'm involved simple and *clear* (pun intended). snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this might be beginning to happen in a very logical and intelligent manner, and not from my posts alone. As my wise grandfather used to say: It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, snip could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? I'm thinking one might refer to FFL having *similarities* to WTS (hence lowercase letters used) particularly if that person feels like she's being confronted on an internet forum very much like what happened in the WTS cult. I can't speak as to anyone's *limits* that would have to be reached in order to feel the way they do...everyone differs in this regard but I think we should all respect those limits as we become aware of them. And I'm probably right in saying that the *relentlessness* of the questions and opinions coming from *many* directions within hours, if not minutes, of each other are two similarities that might make any intelligent person feel that way. Then again, perhaps we completely missed any irony or humor by the person in referring to FFL as wts...afterall, Robin might be the master of irony but others can be pretty good at it as well. Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 , she writes: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion... Notice she goes on to define what psychological rape means to her therefore if what Judy is doing falls within that definition, then to Share, Judy is doing the psychological rape thing. I like Xeno's take on this at the end of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 when he writes: When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with it, even if the attempt is made. Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Probably, but then again, Judy does that to most of her opponents in order to fluff her argument. Again, I'll defer to Xeno again at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 when he writes: She [Judy] also seems to attribute feelings and thoughts to others. I do this too, but with the caveat that I really cannot knows what anybody's thoughts are unless they speak or write them out, and maybe those are not what they are really thinking. And, my interpretation of other's emotions are probably pretty unreliable. Judy seems to imply that she is really good at this. Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Thanks for the effort, LG. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: RD, where do you stand on this? Did you need to revise your questions posed to me perhaps based on an incomplete reading of all my comments as suggested by me below (BTW, no shame in that), or do the questions stand as originally asked? If I don't hear from you (and sometimes no response might be in and of itself a loud and clear answer), then I'll do my best to answer them as originally posted. I do this because, at some time in the future, I wouldn't want you or anyone suggesting that I *couldn't* answer them therefore you were right in your assumptive basis for asking them...I'm going to start calling this the MWE (muddying the waters effect) as I think that I try to keep FFL discussions in which I'm involved simple and *clear* (pun intended). snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this might be beginning to happen in a very logical and intelligent manner, and not from my posts alone. As my wise grandfather used to say: It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, snip could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? I'm thinking one might refer to FFL having *similarities* to WTS (hence lowercase letters used) particularly if that person feels like she's being confronted on an internet forum very much like what happened in the WTS cult. I can't speak as to anyone's *limits* that would have to be reached in order to feel the way they do...everyone differs in this regard but I think we should all respect those limits as we become aware of them. And I'm probably right in saying that the *relentlessness* of the questions and opinions coming from *many* directions within hours, if not minutes, of each other are two similarities that might make any intelligent person feel that way. Then again, perhaps we completely missed any irony or humor by the person in referring to FFL as wts...afterall, Robin might be the master of irony but others can be pretty good at it as well. Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 , she writes: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion... Notice she goes on to define what psychological rape means to her therefore if what Judy is doing falls within that definition, then to Share, Judy is doing the psychological rape thing. I like Xeno's take on this at the end of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 when he writes: When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with it, even if the attempt is made. Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Probably, but then again, Judy does that to most of her opponents in order to fluff her argument. Again, I'll defer to Xeno again at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 when he writes: She [Judy] also seems to attribute feelings and thoughts to others. I do this too, but with the caveat that I really cannot knows what anybody's thoughts are unless they speak or write them out, and maybe those are not what
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
You're welcome RD. Now can we have a love fest of our own like authfriend and emptybill appear to be doing? Come on you guys, get a room! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Thanks for the effort, LG. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: RD, where do you stand on this? Did you need to revise your questions posed to me perhaps based on an incomplete reading of all my comments as suggested by me below (BTW, no shame in that), or do the questions stand as originally asked? If I don't hear from you (and sometimes no response might be in and of itself a loud and clear answer), then I'll do my best to answer them as originally posted. I do this because, at some time in the future, I wouldn't want you or anyone suggesting that I *couldn't* answer them therefore you were right in your assumptive basis for asking them...I'm going to start calling this the MWE (muddying the waters effect) as I think that I try to keep FFL discussions in which I'm involved simple and *clear* (pun intended). snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this might be beginning to happen in a very logical and intelligent manner, and not from my posts alone. As my wise grandfather used to say: It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, snip could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? I'm thinking one might refer to FFL having *similarities* to WTS (hence lowercase letters used) particularly if that person feels like she's being confronted on an internet forum very much like what happened in the WTS cult. I can't speak as to anyone's *limits* that would have to be reached in order to feel the way they do...everyone differs in this regard but I think we should all respect those limits as we become aware of them. And I'm probably right in saying that the *relentlessness* of the questions and opinions coming from *many* directions within hours, if not minutes, of each other are two similarities that might make any intelligent person feel that way. Then again, perhaps we completely missed any irony or humor by the person in referring to FFL as wts...afterall, Robin might be the master of irony but others can be pretty good at it as well. Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 , she writes: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion... Notice she goes on to define what psychological rape means to her therefore if what Judy is doing falls within that definition, then to Share, Judy is doing the psychological rape thing. I like Xeno's take on this at the end of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 when he writes: When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with it, even if the attempt is made. Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Probably, but then again, Judy does that to most of her opponents in order to fluff her argument. Again, I'll defer to Xeno again at
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip Is wts Share's fantasy? I'm thinking one might refer to FFL having *similarities* to WTS (hence lowercase letters used) particularly if that person feels like she's being confronted on an internet forum very much like what happened in the WTS cult. That isn't what she means by it. See here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/325721 People are confronted all the time on Internet forums. FFL is no different than most others in that regard. snip And I'm probably right in saying that the *relentlessness* of the questions and opinions coming from *many* directions within hours, if not minutes, of each other are two similarities that might make any intelligent person feel that way. That's absurd. Timing is not significant on that small a scale. It's not the case that we are all sitting in front of our computers reading and responding on FFL 24 hours a day. People have different schedules and pop in at different times. Posts closely adjacent to one another in time are almost always a matter of coincidence. Plus which, of course, the same thing happens on many if not most other Internet forums; FFL is by no means unique in that regard. You really are not thinking things through here, laughinggull. It's simply not the case that because a significant number of FFL members have nearly identical negative opinions of her, it must be because Robin is trying to create a cult for himself on FFL. snip Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671, she writes: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion... For the record, Share does *exactly the same things*. Notice she goes on to define what psychological rape means to her therefore if what Judy is doing falls within that definition, then to Share, Judy is doing the psychological rape thing. So let's see, if I define terrorism as calling someone a jerk, and you call me a jerk, does that mean it's reasonable for me to call you a terrorist? JESUS, laughinggull, USE YOUR BRAIN. Psychological rape is a term that, like wts, Share uses to insult people she doesn't like. The terms have no validity of their own. I like Xeno's take on this at the end of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 when he writes: When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with it, even if the attempt is made. You will probably eventually learn that Xeno's version of what people have said on FFL is often not accurate. Here is Share's first use of the term: 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. So not just an attempt at psychological rape. She is claiming she *was* psychologically raped. BTW, she did not get so upset initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post. Initially she attributed her misunderstanding of what Robin had said to grumpiness and the fact that she had eaten some sugar the day before, and she apologized for taking it out on him. It was only several days later that she suspended communications with him over her misunderstanding. He had previously explained what he had meant and apologized to her for having been ambiguous (except that he hadn't been at all ambiguous; he was bending over backward to avoid making her feel bad about her misunderstanding). But she insisted at the time that she had never been upset or hurt by what he had said. It was a month later that she came out with the psychological rape accusation, and she has insisted since then what she had earlier denied, that she had been terribly upset initially. That's the kind of thing those of us who have been paying attention are concerned about with Share. Here are two detailed posts I wrote about all this, with links to other relevant posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321880 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/325657 Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Probably, but then again, Judy does that to most of her opponents in order to fluff her argument. Au contraire, Pierre. I am almost always explicit about why I attribute thoughts and feelings to others. Again, I'll defer to Xeno
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: snip Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? It's amazing to me that it's still necessary to point out this obvious fact to anyone: FFL is a *public forum*, not a series of private exchanges. Anything anyone posts is open for comment from everybody else. If you don't want your post commented on, take it private. That's what email is for. (The only sin where butting in is concerned is not having paid attention to the context of the discussion you're butting in on. If you haven't had time to keep up with the discussion, *don't comment on it*. Simple.) Laughinggull, you need to rewrite your post to eliminate all the references to butting in, because that isn't an issue. I'm going to snip all that. snip [raunchy wrote:] Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618 Raunchy meant the thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have in the post of mine about which Share made that accusation. There weren't any. In the post of Share's you cite above, as I've already pointed out, there isn't a single honest sentence. then follow the post trail beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share to do your homework for you. Have you lost your marbles?? BTW, if you do check out the post Share mentions, you'll find it's quite other than how she has portrayed it. Share consistently misrepresents the past posts of others when she refers to them in current posts. I'll be happy to give you more examples if you like. snip Of course, I realize that I've just butted in on a post from RD to Share but I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate from simplicity to complexity then gets completely out of hand when all sides start jumping in. Oh, I see, you were *trying* to confuse the issues. No wonder you weren't making any sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Thank you dear Ann - considering Steve has a not-so-secret crush on me, this should please him to no end. There are four kinds of people - people I love whom I bend over backwards to be nice to them and please them, people I love who I bend over backwards to curse, yell, mock them, people I don't know and people I don't care much about. I don't mind shifting people around these categories. Why can't Steve just say - look Ravi,I love you and you are hurting me by calling stupid and I would just apologize and be nice to him and move him to category 1. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:21 PM, awoelflebater no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: As to Ravi, he is an enigma to me. I know that many have a far longer history with him at FFL than I do. He can be abrasive, shocking, strong. But he is not malevolent, he does not alarm me like that other dark troll who I was, frankly, horrified by. Can't even remember his name. No, Raviis a passionate, sensitive albeit an opinionated man. But I don't get any 'bad vibes' or maliciousness from him. He plays, he dances, he is Ravi. I don't know his full history but he seems to live life by diving in. He appears to have had more than his dollop of pain and suffering but here he is - boisterous, caustic sometimes but bursting with life. I like that.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Concerning making amends: though I continue to do the forgiveness prayers every day, til now I've dropped mentioning it since wts also loves to diss on that so much. BTW FFLers I have done my best to spare you all from all the piling on. But some accusations had to be answered IMO. Concerning my alleged lashing out: of course it's possible that I've been triggered to the point of wanting to hurt someone's feelings! Duh! After all I'm not a saint. Though wts likes to accuse me of either being such or thinking I'm such. But you know, also accusing me of actually not being such. Isn't it fun how wts attempts to cover all the bases in this regard? Anyway, I know I've done my best to state what I believe in a reasonable non hurtful way. About the latter can you say the same Judy? Probably wts will make fun of me for what I'm about to say. But hey everybody has to have a hobby: For any of my serious accusations, I've agonized over the possibility of hurting Robin's feelings. My wise others here know this. An example is the so called stalking issue. I never intended to divulge the information I did. But Raunchy was giving her so called opinion about my alleged crush on Robin and stalking behavior. I said what I said not to hurt Robin but to shed light on her speculations. And the only reason I brought up my crush on merudanda was to indicate to FFL how off Raunchy's speculations are in this matter. Anyway, can't resist ending by saying that maybe Judy said EEEK because she saw PRADi pompous reality avoiding doormouse inc (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:43 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Share has demonstrated very effectively that the last two sentences are bullshit. Either that, or her best is appallingly inadequate. When she's under any kind of pressure, and sometimes even when she's just feeling punk, she lashes out repeatedly with the intent to hurt people. She has *no* inhibitions whatsoever about attempting to hurt people, nor has she the slightest interest in making genuine amends. And she writes far nastier snark than Stupid Sal ever did. This, by the grace of God, was Judy's last post of the week. Oops, I guess she's got one more. I wonder what she can do to top this one? This evening's post count put her at 45, and the post you're commenting on here was her third after the post count. 45 + 3 = 48. Her post beginning with K! was number 49. I guess we can add basic arithmetic to your list of not so strong points.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. Concerning making amends: though I continue to do the forgiveness prayers every day, til now I've dropped mentioning it since wts also loves to diss on that so much. BTW FFLers I have done my best to spare you all from all the piling on. But some accusations had to be answered IMO. Concerning my alleged lashing out: of course it's possible that I've been triggered to the point of wanting to hurt someone's feelings! Duh! After all I'm not a saint. Though wts likes to accuse me of either being such or thinking I'm such. But you know, also accusing me of actually not being such. Isn't it fun how wts attempts to cover all the bases in this regard?   Anyway, I know I've done my best to state what I believe in a reasonable non hurtful way. About the latter can you say the same Judy? Probably wts will make fun of me for what I'm about to say. But hey everybody has to have a hobby: For any of my serious accusations, I've agonized over the possibility of hurting Robin's feelings. My wise others here know this. An example is the so called stalking issue. I never intended to divulge the information I did. But Raunchy was giving her so called opinion about my alleged crush on Robin and stalking behavior. I said what I said not to hurt Robin but to shed light on her speculations. And the only reason I brought up my crush on merudanda was to indicate to FFL how off Raunchy's speculations are in this matter. Anyway, can't resist ending by saying that maybe Judy said EEEK because she saw PRADi pompous reality avoiding doormouse inc (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:43 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Share has demonstrated very effectively that the last two sentences are bullshit. Either that, or her best is appallingly inadequate. When she's under any kind of pressure, and sometimes even when she's just feeling punk, she lashes out repeatedly with the intent to hurt people. She has *no* inhibitions whatsoever about attempting to hurt people, nor has she the slightest interest in making genuine amends. And she writes far nastier snark than Stupid Sal ever did. This, by the grace of God, was Judy's last post of the week. Oops, I guess she's got one more. I wonder what she can do to top this one? This evening's post count put her at 45, and the post you're commenting on here was her third after the post count. 45 + 3 = 48. Her post beginning with K! was number 49. I guess we can add basic arithmetic to your list of not so strong points.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post? Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an example, albeit early stages, of piling on to which Share and others have referred. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then follow the post trail beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share to do your homework for you. Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Does context count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long ago, you tried to revive the milk and cookie debacle by posting the *one* comment taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst possible light. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. Of course, I realize that I've just butted in on a post from RD to Share but I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate from simplicity to complexity then gets completely out of hand when all sides start jumping in. Could that be the intent of the butter-inners all along? Couldn't be, because then that would make them very bad people, and we just don't have any bad people on FFL. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? -- wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiculous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with -- your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. It is true Judy backs up many of her statements with properly quoted facts etc., though selective snipping often seems to alter the argument (and she dismisses the snipped material as not relevant to the argument even though the person on the other end of the argument might feel it is definitely relevant). She also seems to attribute feelings and thoughts to others. I do this too, but with the caveat that I really cannot knows what anybody's thoughts are unless they speak or write them out, and maybe those are not what they are really thinking. And, my interpretation of other's emotions are probably pretty unreliable. Judy seems to imply that she is really good at this. Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without supporting fact. 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646 'intent to hurt people' #327646 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962 These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that none of us can experience directly. What we say, and this of course includes me, gives an indication, a window into our mental state, but given that we often are not even clearly aware of our own mental states, this does not reflect well on our ability to determines what others's states may be based on limited information. Still, there is the old saying (Jesus) 'Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.' Judy's arguments would be far stronger if they were not so often interspersed with this kind of characterisation. In a way it is a kind of mental Judo, by aiming at a person's emotions, you can sometimes throw them off balance because they will react with an emotional undercurrent rather than a logical, factual one. When someone talks of psychological rape, this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to put up with it, even if the attempt is made.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without supporting fact. 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646 'intent to hurt people' #327646 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962 These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that none of us can experience directly. [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/486300_101522706\ 87590427_1978368277_n.jpg]
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2 to buck and turq, lg and b2
oh God, buck and turq, thank you for making me laugh. Yeah, even at myself. Here's the kind of shoe woman I am: I have a pair of Aersoles that I bought years ago. Even though they now have a hole in the right heel, they're perfect for keeping the Morton's neuroma on my left foot at bay. I've tried unsuccessfully for 2 years to find a replacement shoe that's as good for walking around town. Toto, we're not in the big city anymore. Meaning, the clothes shopping situation in FF is pathetic. Buck once you get FFL straightened out, can you work on the shopping for clothes situation? Shopping therapy dontcha know? (-: laughinggull, you make compassionate sense once again. No bad people on FFL. Bhairitu, right, I forgot about Costco and buying in quantity. Especially in an Iowa blizzard,, I really don't want to drive 60 miles and 60 minutes to buy a bazillion roles of tp. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:03 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without supporting fact. 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646 'intent to hurt people' #327646 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962 These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that none of us can experience directly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without supporting fact. 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646 'intent to hurt people' #327646 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962 These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that none of us can experience directly. Margaret Hamilton was an actress; when the makeup came off, she was a normal person:
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape? If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend her? Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites because she cannot defend what she has written? In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? Do you think these are fair questions? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post? Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an example, albeit early stages, of piling on to which Share and others have referred. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then follow the post trail beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share to do your homework for you. Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Does context count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long ago, you tried to revive the milk and cookie debacle by posting the *one* comment taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst possible light. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. Of course, I realize that I've just butted in on a post from RD to Share but I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate from simplicity to complexity then gets completely out of hand when all sides start jumping in. Could that be the intent of the
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this might be beginning to happen, and not from my posts alone. As my grandfather used to say: It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the stupid people *as a group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or any of the others and the stupid people are just plain overwhelmed and start making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. I'm simply the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of stupid people...I simply cannot allow anymore. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape? If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend her? Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites because she cannot defend what she has written? In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? Do you think these are fair questions? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post? Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an example, albeit early stages, of piling on to which Share and others have referred. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Start here:
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this might be beginning to happen in a very logical and intelligent manner, and not from my posts alone. As my wise grandfather used to say: It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the stupid people *as an entire group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or any of the others and the stupid people get just so overwhelmed and start making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. Think of me as the defender of fair play: one of you at a time against the entire group of stupid people...I simply cannot allow any more. (Keep reading, just a few more below.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, Oh, this sounds so familiar...where have I seen this so many times before? Oh, oh, I know, I know! You not trying to say that Robin isn't intelligent, are you? How dare you! could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape? If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend her? Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites because she cannot defend what she has written? In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? Do you think these are fair questions? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post? Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an example, albeit early stages, of piling on to which Share and others have referred. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Dear laughinggull, Your posts show you have started off on a wrong footing in this discussion with a priori conclusions viz..I'm simply the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of stupid people...I simply cannot allow anymore. You are unwilling to look at the entire facts here since that would go against your philosophy - being defender of fair play. Its just your fantasy that Judy, raunchy or I have not indulged in fair play, in fact each one of us have been exceedingly fair to Stupid Share and Stupid Steve. Steve of course is the tolerable - he doesn't come across as dishonest and vindictive like Share. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this might be beginning to happen, and not from my posts alone. As my grandfather used to say: It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the stupid people *as a group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or any of the others and the stupid people are just plain overwhelmed and start making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. I'm simply the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of stupid people...I simply cannot allow anymore. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape? If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend her? Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites because she cannot defend what she has written? In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? Do you think these are fair questions? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post? Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
If you are seeing more of reality than another person--that which actually exists independent of one's personal subjectivity--you will know it, because in the collision of views, you see your own view as separating itself from your own feelings--and you can see (in imagining yourself as your adversary) how he or she is--even quite sincerely--unable to do this. No, not even ever having *done* this. Hardly anyone on this forum really has thought of the possibility of reality having a point of view about an issue being controverted on FFL. Just pretend this is so--and I mean this to the extent of making reality appear as an angel and pronouncing who is right, and who is wrong--or at the very least where the most amount of truth lies. Think of the resolution of an argument as being something like getting Curiosity to land on Mars--What is the mission? What are the calculations? What is the physics of this? To get Curiosity to land on Mars means to get all the arguments out such that it then becomes possible to determine--objectively (or in terms of what the angel of reality would say)--what the final truth of this matter is. It is not a matter of triumph or defeat, then; it is matter--ideally--of quiet and final revelation. The a priori assumption that no controversy on FFL can ever be resolved through something resembling science--science having become a kind of metaphor for the objectification of subjectivities--means that each disputant (well, *almost* each disputant) believes the truth essentially comes from one's personal experience--which amounts to this: *Whatever feels like what the truth is such as to have that truth conform to my own predispositions and predilections subjectively*. It may be possible to say that, when there are conflicting views of something, *there just might be a context through which it can be determined what the truth is at the very end*--for both parties. This would be getting Curiosity to land on Mars. When one feels inclined to disagree with what someone has said (posted), then it is not the *feeling* that this is so that counts, *it is the willingness to contemplate that the universe itself has made judgment that coincides with one's own judgment*. The severity of one's self-scrutiny in this way is the only way the truth can get separated out from the first person point of view of each of the two duelling posters. What this means is that somehow truth is there, waiting to be found--or at least experienced. And the *experience* of truth being found is not one of personal satisfaction; it transcends affect; and of course it must transcend one's own subjective patterns of feeling and even thinking. Curiosity landing on Mars was not the achievement of any scientists's subjective will; he had to discover what laws of the universe had to be understood and obeyed in order to make the mission successful. There has to be a form of conceptual and intuitive engineering within any argument which is going to end up at some point of resolution. When reading the post of someone with whom one disagrees, if one already begins to start to argue against that post *before reading it as third person--standing apart from any fixed opinion*--then one is avoiding *allowing reality to impress itself upon one's mind and heart*--through that post of one's adversary. There has to be the willingness to entirely subject oneself to the content and intent of the person with whom one is disagreeing; what this means is: if you begin to develop and shape your rebuttal as you are reading the other person's post, you are only preserving the form of subjectivity which will insure that your response is predictable--and serving only the needs of your own need to have your point of view prevail *because it makes you feel good*. Argument means self-sacrifice, not self-assertion; and in the sacrifice of one's subjectivity, one allows that same subjectivity to be filled up with a sense of what is the case--what is, then objectively true.--There is at least this *possibility*. If you conceive of argument as simply the assertion of one's point of view, then this actually has nothing to do with the intrinsic truth of the matter. None. It has become a matter--even if this remains unconscious--of reinforcing the metaphysical bias of one's personality--so that reality remains what it was before the debate began. You are not saying anything *unless in the saying of it you get to travel somewhere inside yourself*. And why does this happen, or how does this happen? It happens--this movement and expansion and change--*because reality making itself present inside one's subjectivity as it (reality) senses the opportunity to have its say. Is this a fantasy? It certainly is not. And this phenomenon is happening--without perhaps the knowledge of any of the parties locked into disagreement. Yes, reality is more present in the argument of one person versus the
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Thank you for this, Robin. It seems easier to walk around in someone's shoes if it's a fit with reality, less painful pinching of the toes and cramping of the mind. Cinderella's fantasy shoes always crack under pressure and it's nearly impossible to walk beyond the pumpkin and mice if you're really interested in knowing the truth of who owns the glass slipper. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person--that which actually exists independent of one's personal subjectivity--you will know it, because in the collision of views, you see your own view as separating itself from your own feelings--and you can see (in imagining yourself as your adversary) how he or she is--even quite sincerely--unable to do this. No, not even ever having *done* this. Hardly anyone on this forum really has thought of the possibility of reality having a point of view about an issue being controverted on FFL. Just pretend this is so--and I mean this to the extent of making reality appear as an angel and pronouncing who is right, and who is wrong--or at the very least where the most amount of truth lies. Think of the resolution of an argument as being something like getting Curiosity to land on Mars--What is the mission? What are the calculations? What is the physics of this? To get Curiosity to land on Mars means to get all the arguments out such that it then becomes possible to determine--objectively (or in terms of what the angel of reality would say)--what the final truth of this matter is. It is not a matter of triumph or defeat, then; it is matter--ideally--of quiet and final revelation. The a priori assumption that no controversy on FFL can ever be resolved through something resembling science--science having become a kind of metaphor for the objectification of subjectivities--means that each disputant (well, *almost* each disputant) believes the truth essentially comes from one's personal experience--which amounts to this: *Whatever feels like what the truth is such as to have that truth conform to my own predispositions and predilections subjectively*. It may be possible to say that, when there are conflicting views of something, *there just might be a context through which it can be determined what the truth is at the very end*--for both parties. This would be getting Curiosity to land on Mars. When one feels inclined to disagree with what someone has said (posted), then it is not the *feeling* that this is so that counts, *it is the willingness to contemplate that the universe itself has made judgment that coincides with one's own judgment*. The severity of one's self-scrutiny in this way is the only way the truth can get separated out from the first person point of view of each of the two duelling posters. What this means is that somehow truth is there, waiting to be found--or at least experienced. And the *experience* of truth being found is not one of personal satisfaction; it transcends affect; and of course it must transcend one's own subjective patterns of feeling and even thinking. Curiosity landing on Mars was not the achievement of any scientists's subjective will; he had to discover what laws of the universe had to be understood and obeyed in order to make the mission successful. There has to be a form of conceptual and intuitive engineering within any argument which is going to end up at some point of resolution. When reading the post of someone with whom one disagrees, if one already begins to start to argue against that post *before reading it as third person--standing apart from any fixed opinion*--then one is avoiding *allowing reality to impress itself upon one's mind and heart*--through that post of one's adversary. There has to be the willingness to entirely subject oneself to the content and intent of the person with whom one is disagreeing; what this means is: if you begin to develop and shape your rebuttal as you are reading the other person's post, you are only preserving the form of subjectivity which will insure that your response is predictable--and serving only the needs of your own need to have your point of view prevail *because it makes you feel good*. Argument means self-sacrifice, not self-assertion; and in the sacrifice of one's subjectivity, one allows that same subjectivity to be filled up with a sense of what is the case--what is, then objectively true.--There is at least this *possibility*. If you conceive of argument as simply the assertion of one's point of view, then this actually has nothing to do with the intrinsic truth of the matter. None. It has become a matter--even if this remains unconscious--of reinforcing the metaphysical bias of one's personality--so that reality remains what it was before the debate began. You are not saying anything *unless in the
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine?
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine? Different how and why do you think so?
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
She was the ultimate witch, the standard by which all 'bad' witches should be judged. Scared the living bejeebers out of me as a small child. I had the Wizard of Oz album back in about 1962 and whenever her voice came on I had to, literally was compelled to, run behind the sofa and hide. The wicked witch of the West and that tornado still haunt me today. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments and states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, without supporting fact. 'masterfully dishonest response' #327631 'supremely, if inadvertently, ironic' #327646 'lashes out repeatedly' #327646 'intent to hurt people' #327646 'your appalling lack of honesty' #325575 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217 'Why is this so impossibly difficult for you to understand?' #63962 These are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong emotional flavours, to others. But these characterisations come out of Judy's mind, they are what is in *her* mind. Perhaps they give us a clue as to what goes on in her own mental world, something that none of us can experience directly. Margaret Hamilton was an actress; when the makeup came off, she was a normal person:
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine? Different how and why do you think so? A general impression. Not an analytical series of thoughts. That is why I said 'seems', not as if I perceived a definite fact. But if you must have some analysis, his expression seemed more definite and clear, more direct than previously.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. As the wise woman said: I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape? If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend her? Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites because she cannot defend what she has written? In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? Do you think these are fair questions? As the wise woman said: I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post? Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an example, albeit early stages, of piling on to which Share and others have referred. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then follow the post trail beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share to do your homework for you. Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Does context count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long ago, you tried to revive the milk and cookie debacle by posting the *one* comment taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst possible light. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Dear laughinggull, Your posts show you have started off on a wrong footing in this discussion with a priori conclusions viz..I'm simply the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of stupid people...I simply cannot allow anymore. You are unwilling to look at the entire facts here since that would go against your philosophy - being defender of fair play. Its just your fantasy that Judy, raunchy or I have not indulged in fair play, in fact each one of us have been exceedingly fair to Stupid Share and Stupid Steve. Steve of course is the tolerable - he doesn't come across as dishonest and vindictive like Share. And yet, once again: I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM, laughinggull108 no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote: ** RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've done and why I did it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. And it appears that this might be beginning to happen, and not from my posts alone. As my grandfather used to say: It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. Open up and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the stupid people *as a group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or any of the others and the stupid people are just plain overwhelmed and start making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. I'm simply the defender of fair play: one of you against the entire group of stupid people...I simply cannot allow anymore. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent adult, capable of responding to my post herself, could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but yes or no will do. Based on Share's post below: Is wts Share's fantasy? Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, accused him of psychological rape? If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your need to defend her? Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy cites because she cannot defend what she has written? In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? Do you think these are fair questions? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Here's Judy at her wts best.Ã Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had.Ã Then presenting her ideas as The Truth.Ã Then lacking in compassion. Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person you might be a yogi --that which actually exists independent of one's personal subjectivity--you will know it, because in the collision of views, you see your own view as separating itself from your own feelings--and you can see (in imagining yourself as your adversary) how he or she is--even quite sincerely--unable to do this. No, not even ever having *done* this. Hardly anyone on this forum really has thought of the possibility of reality having a point of view about an issue being controverted on FFL. Just pretend this is so--and I mean this to the extent of making reality appear as an angel and pronouncing who is right, and who is wrong--or at the very least where the most amount of truth lies. Think of the resolution of an argument as being something like getting Curiosity to land on Mars--What is the mission? What are the calculations? What is the physics of this? To get Curiosity to land on Mars means to get all the arguments out such that it then becomes possible to determine--objectively (or in terms of what the angel of reality would say)--what the final truth of this matter is. It is not a matter of triumph or defeat, then; it is matter--ideally--of quiet and final revelation. The a priori assumption that no controversy on FFL can ever be resolved through something resembling science--science having become a kind of metaphor for the objectification of subjectivities--means that each disputant (well, *almost* each disputant) believes the truth essentially comes from one's personal experience--which amounts to this: *Whatever feels like what the truth is such as to have that truth conform to my own predispositions and predilections subjectively*. It may be possible to say that, when there are conflicting views of something, *there just might be a context through which it can be determined what the truth is at the very end*--for both parties. This would be getting Curiosity to land on Mars. When one feels inclined to disagree with what someone has said (posted), then it is not the *feeling* that this is so that counts, *it is the willingness to contemplate that the universe itself has made judgment that coincides with one's own judgment*. The severity of one's self-scrutiny in this way is the only way the truth can get separated out from the first person point of view of each of the two duelling posters. What this means is that somehow truth is there, waiting to be found--or at least experienced. And the *experience* of truth being found is not one of personal satisfaction; it transcends affect; and of course it must transcend one's own subjective patterns of feeling and even thinking. Curiosity landing on Mars was not the achievement of any scientists's subjective will; he had to discover what laws of the universe had to be understood and obeyed in order to make the mission successful. There has to be a form of conceptual and intuitive engineering within any argument which is going to end up at some point of resolution. When reading the post of someone with whom one disagrees, if one already begins to start to argue against that post *before reading it as third person--standing apart from any fixed opinion*--then one is avoiding *allowing reality to impress itself upon one's mind and heart*--through that post of one's adversary. There has to be the willingness to entirely subject oneself to the content and intent of the person with whom one is disagreeing; what this means is: if you begin to develop and shape your rebuttal as you are reading the other person's post, you are only preserving the form of subjectivity which will insure that your response is predictable--and serving only the needs of your own need to have your point of view prevail *because it makes you feel good*. Argument means self-sacrifice, not self-assertion; and in the sacrifice of one's subjectivity, one allows that same subjectivity to be filled up with a sense of what is the case--what is, then objectively true.--There is at least this *possibility*. If you conceive of argument as simply the assertion of one's point of view, then this actually has nothing to do with the intrinsic truth of the matter. None. It has become a matter--even if this remains unconscious--of reinforcing the metaphysical bias of one's personality--so that reality remains what it was before the debate began. You are not saying anything *unless in the saying of it you get to travel somewhere inside yourself*. And why does this happen, or how does this happen? It happens--this movement and expansion and change--*because reality making itself present inside one's subjectivity as it (reality) senses the opportunity to have its say. Is this a fantasy? It certainly is not. And this phenomenon is happening--without perhaps the knowledge of any of the parties locked into disagreement. Yes, reality is more
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine? Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on him, counterintuitive though it would seem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. As the wise woman said: I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case. http://youtu.be/CI8UPHMzZm8
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine? Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on him, counterintuitive though it would seem. What the hell is a levening effect. I can only conjecture, Steve, that recently and most specifically right now, you are either: 1) on some sort of upper or speed. 2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV. 3) giddy. 4) lacking something better to do. 5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what to do with yourself. Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and wonder what the hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical, sort of like watching someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Ann, Is this your way of saying to don't care to address the question I asked you about the style and substance of Ravi's posts? I am comfortable with whatever legacy my posts leave. I just wish you could see how judgemental your posts come off most of the time. And yes, it so strange to me that when I read your posts I reflect on the criteria Robin often uses of how posts sometimes indicate such a distortion of reality. I wish I could be more charitable. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine? Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on him, counterintuitive though it would seem. What the hell is a levening effect. I can only conjecture, Steve, that recently and most specifically right now, you are either: 1) on some sort of upper or speed. 2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV. 3) giddy. 4) lacking something better to do. 5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what to do with yourself. Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and wonder what the hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical, sort of like watching someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: Ann, Is this your way of saying to don't care to address the question I asked you about the style and substance of Ravi's posts? I am comfortable with whatever legacy my posts leave. I just wish you could see how judgemental your posts come off most of the time. And yes, it so strange to me that when I read your posts I reflect on the criteria Robin often uses of how posts sometimes indicate such a distortion of reality. I wish I could be more charitable. No problem Steve. I don't expect or feel charity would be appropriate. For me to have my say I can only expect everyone else to have theirs. I am unsure what your second to last paragraph is saying but I feel that it is very easy to fall into the well-used Robin clone argument. I am my own person Steve, in virtually every way. Whatever I respect or value in someone else I will defend but I am never some shoddy second, some imitator. Perhaps I am judgmental, in fact, I am pretty sure I am. That does not seem so very terrible to me. My 'judgements' include evaluation, feeling something out and reacting to it. I would be dead if I did not. That is not to say my judgement, my opinion can't and won't change in a heartbeat, it often does. As to Ravi, he is an enigma to me. I know that many have a far longer history with him at FFL than I do. He can be abrasive, shocking, strong. But he is not malevolent, he does not alarm me like that other dark troll who I was, frankly, horrified by. Can't even remember his name. No, Ravi is a passionate, sensitive albeit an opinionated man. But I don't get any 'bad vibes' or maliciousness from him. He plays, he dances, he is Ravi. I don't know his full history but he seems to live life by diving in. He appears to have had more than his dollop of pain and suffering but here he is - boisterous, caustic sometimes but bursting with life. I like that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine? Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on him, counterintuitive though it would seem. What the hell is a levening effect. I can only conjecture, Steve, that recently and most specifically right now, you are either: 1) on some sort of upper or speed. 2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV. 3) giddy. 4) lacking something better to do. 5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what to do with yourself. Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and wonder what the hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical, sort of like watching someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Fair enough Ann. But I wasn't playing the you are a Robin clone card. Sorry if it came off that way. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: Ann, Is this your way of saying to don't care to address the question I asked you about the style and substance of Ravi's posts? I am comfortable with whatever legacy my posts leave. I just wish you could see how judgemental your posts come off most of the time. And yes, it so strange to me that when I read your posts I reflect on the criteria Robin often uses of how posts sometimes indicate such a distortion of reality. I wish I could be more charitable. No problem Steve. I don't expect or feel charity would be appropriate. For me to have my say I can only expect everyone else to have theirs. I am unsure what your second to last paragraph is saying but I feel that it is very easy to fall into the well-used Robin clone argument. I am my own person Steve, in virtually every way. Whatever I respect or value in someone else I will defend but I am never some shoddy second, some imitator. Perhaps I am judgmental, in fact, I am pretty sure I am. That does not seem so very terrible to me. My 'judgements' include evaluation, feeling something out and reacting to it. I would be dead if I did not. That is not to say my judgement, my opinion can't and won't change in a heartbeat, it often does. As to Ravi, he is an enigma to me. I know that many have a far longer history with him at FFL than I do. He can be abrasive, shocking, strong. But he is not malevolent, he does not alarm me like that other dark troll who I was, frankly, horrified by. Can't even remember his name. No, Ravi is a passionate, sensitive albeit an opinionated man. But I don't get any 'bad vibes' or maliciousness from him. He plays, he dances, he is Ravi. I don't know his full history but he seems to live life by diving in. He appears to have had more than his dollop of pain and suffering but here he is - boisterous, caustic sometimes but bursting with life. I like that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you are seeing more of reality than another person... You seem different Robin. Has something happened in your experience? Or has something happened in mine? Six weeks without hockey may possibly be having a levening affect on him, counterintuitive though it would seem. What the hell is a levening effect. I can only conjecture, Steve, that recently and most specifically right now, you are either: 1) on some sort of upper or speed. 2) under a mistaken notion of your superior and privileged POV. 3) giddy. 4) lacking something better to do. 5) your wife and children are out of town and you don't know what to do with yourself. Whatever the case, you will look back at your posts one day and wonder what the hell you were thinking. I am finding it slightly comical, sort of like watching someone slip on a banana peel -over and over.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a trigger making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your triggers and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. As the wise woman said: I hope you're not saying that *your* and your support group's reality is the one closest to the truth and that there's a need in you and in your support group to convince others to accept this. That would be proselytizing, wouldn't it? If *that's* the case, then perhaps you and I have nothing to discuss because we are never going to see eye to eye. I'm hoping that *isn't* the case. http://youtu.be/CI8UPHMzZm8 This is a brilliant post, raunchy. And it says everything I could ever think of saying. I think the deer crossing signs should definitely be taken down--or moved to a more suitable place--putting them at a school crossing seemed like a good idea to me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2
Oh dear. Share. This wts thing. Alright, let's discuss it. I missed this post earlier. What are the specific characteristics of wts that qualifies it's stated members? I'll start based on your post below, although it looks like your criteria involve the assumption that a number of people here are, in fact, out to get you. Remember, you are not a victim: 1) Engaging in psychological rape - defined here as attributing thoughts and feelings to you that you don't have. (This is characteristic of FFL discussions at large and results in some very humorous statements, actually - just another way to look at it.) 2) Presenting one's ideas as the Truth (goddamn it woman - don't you have a truth?) 3) Dissing on your forgiveness prayers (I think they are sweet, for the record). (You haven't made any amends to those you have condemned to wts - forgive yourself and make your amends and move on to insult again.) 4) Piling on - Pile on all you like - it's your right. I addressed this in an earlier post - just another way to look at it. 5) Thinking Share is a Saint - (Share, that was a joke - I think Feste explained it - no one thinks you are a Saint now, except possibly Feste, which is funny and ironic; also, I was kidding when I told you you didn't have to worry about FFL's tender feelings, but honestly I am highly-sensitive and you do need to worry about mine. Fuck the others. Who cares about their feelings.) 6) Attempts to cover all bases. (You bet your ass, sweetheart, and if you don't want to bet on it, you'd better cover it) 7) Making fun of Share (Feel free to return the favor anytime - no harm done) 8) Telling Share there is another way to look at it(wait, this is my criteria). 9) Not being a wise other. 10) Owning a prada anything - wait...that's not right. Is Robin PRADi? Ann? I forget. From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:55 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy day 2 Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. Concerning making amends: though I continue to do the forgiveness prayers every day, til now I've dropped mentioning it since wts also loves to diss on that so much. BTW FFLers I have done my best to spare you all from all the piling on. But some accusations had to be answered IMO. Concerning my alleged lashing out: of course it's possible that I've been triggered to the point of wanting to hurt someone's feelings! Duh! After all I'm not a saint. Though wts likes to accuse me of either being such or thinking I'm such. But you know, also accusing me of actually not being such. Isn't it fun how wts attempts to cover all the bases in this regard? Anyway, I know I've done my best to state what I believe in a reasonable non hurtful way. About the latter can you say the same Judy? Probably wts will make fun of me for what I'm about to say. But hey everybody has to have a hobby: For any of my serious accusations, I've agonized over the possibility of hurting Robin's feelings. My wise others here know this. An example is the so called stalking issue. I never intended to divulge the information I did. But Raunchy was giving her so called opinion about my alleged crush on Robin and stalking behavior. I said what I said not to hurt Robin but to shed light on her speculations. And the only reason I brought up my crush on merudanda was to indicate to FFL how off Raunchy's speculations are in this matter. Anyway, can't resist ending by saying that maybe Judy said EEEK because she saw PRADi pompous reality avoiding doormouse inc (-: From: Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:43 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 lurkernomore20002000@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Share has demonstrated very effectively that the last two sentences are bullshit. Either that, or her best is appallingly inadequate. When she's under any kind of pressure, and sometimes even when she's just feeling punk, she lashes out repeatedly with the intent to hurt people. She has *no* inhibitions whatsoever about attempting to hurt people, nor has she the slightest interest in making genuine amends. And she writes far nastier snark than Stupid Sal ever did. This, by the grace of God, was Judy's last post of the week. Oops, I guess she's got one more. I wonder what she can do to top this one? This evening's post count put her at 45, and the post you're commenting on here was her third after the post count
