Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.Steve, you have put me into a state of serious laughter with this one. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. From: seventhray1 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 8:22 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: snip Thank you, Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed. I hope it's not anytime soon! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" lurkernomore20002000@ > wrote: > > > > > > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to > > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a > > position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case" > > for my position? > > > > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that > > they must try to indicate public support for that position. > > > > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of > > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to > > assert the "rightness" of their opinon. > > > > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby > > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > > > be able to understand you if they did. > > > > > > snip > > > > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
It was a passionate, well written letter. But in the end, it's really a matter between Emily and Share, isn't it?* * yea, yea, all the usual caveats of the a public forum etc. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > I think Steve has dealt with the substance of Emily's analysis and his commentary here goes down much deeper into reality--and into himself--than does Emily's post. This to me makes the case for Steve: that what Emily went through to write her letter to Share entailed hardly anything that touched her compared to where Steve went in himself to write this. I feel I am eating humble pie now. You have just proven my philosophy, Steve. And I already feel the shame for Emily. Authfriend, she doesn't know what she is talking about. This post represents something so beautiful to be reading this Sunday night. Thank you, Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: > > > > > > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to > > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a > > position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case" > > for my position? > > > > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that > > they must try to indicate public support for that position. > > > > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of > > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to > > assert the "rightness" of their opinon. > > > > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby > > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > > > be able to understand you if they did. > > > > > > snip > > > > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: snip Thank you, Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed. I hope it's not anytime soon! > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: > > > > > > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to > > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a > > position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case" > > for my position? > > > > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that > > they must try to indicate public support for that position. > > > > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of > > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to > > assert the "rightness" of their opinon. > > > > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby > > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > > > be able to understand you if they did. > > > > > > snip > > > > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
No matter. I think this is what it boils down to: You are site's largest contributor (by posting volume). Obviously you have a lot invested here. I would venture to say that for most people, what they hope to derive from participation here is some entertainment or relaxation value, and some greater insight into things. But for you, at least much of the time, it is about the "win". And I suppose that is understandable, given the investment you make here on a daily and weekly basis. And the fact that no one else here is willing to go to the lenghts to which you go to achieve this end, the prize is often yours, by default. I suspect this situation is not uncommon for internet forums. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: > > > > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to > > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement > > with a position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this > > "makes the case" for my position? > > So cute that you snipped what I was responding to, Steve. I > bet you actually thought I wouldn't put it back, didn't you? > > [Share wrote:] > > I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are > > simply too different to ever understand each other. I said > > this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently > > realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way > > life sometimes is. > > My point is really not difficult to grasp in context, so > I'm afraid I have to assume that both you and Xeno are > intentionally misconstruing it. > > > > > > > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that > > they must try to indicate public support for that position. > > > > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of > > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to > > assert the "rightness" of their opinon. > > > > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby > > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > > > be able to understand you if they did. > > > > > > snip > > > > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
I think Steve has dealt with the substance of Emily's analysis and his commentary here goes down much deeper into reality--and into himself--than does Emily's post. This to me makes the case for Steve: that what Emily went through to write her letter to Share entailed hardly anything that touched her compared to where Steve went in himself to write this. I feel I am eating humble pie now. You have just proven my philosophy, Steve. And I already feel the shame for Emily. Authfriend, she doesn't know what she is talking about. This post represents something so beautiful to be reading this Sunday night. Thank you, Steve. I am going to reread this on my death bed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a > position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case" > for my position? > > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that > they must try to indicate public support for that position. > > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to > assert the "rightness" of their opinon. > > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > > be able to understand you if they did. > > > snip > > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement > with a position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this > "makes the case" for my position? So cute that you snipped what I was responding to, Steve. I bet you actually thought I wouldn't put it back, didn't you? [Share wrote:] > I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are > simply too different to ever understand each other. I said > this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently > realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way > life sometimes is. My point is really not difficult to grasp in context, so I'm afraid I have to assume that both you and Xeno are intentionally misconstruing it. > > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that > they must try to indicate public support for that position. > > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to > assert the "rightness" of their opinon. > > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > > be able to understand you if they did. > > > snip > > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement with a position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this "makes the case" for my position? All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that they must try to indicate public support for that position. It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to assert the "rightness" of their opinon. But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > be able to understand you if they did. snip > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > be able to understand you if they did. Yeesh. Let's try this again: And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's seven people who are apparently too different from you for you and them to understand each other--about half of the regulars who have had exchanges with you. The half who have defended you haven't had any arguments with you to begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would be able to understand you if they did.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are > simply too different to ever understand each other. I said > this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently > realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way > life sometimes is. And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's seven people who are apparently too different from you for you and them to understand each other--about half of the regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would be able to understand you if they did. (Just for the record, Share had only one "upset" with Robin, a very minor misunderstanding on her part that she managed to escalate into a huge battle.) > BTW, you were right a while back when you said that maybe my > being on FFL was a way for me to test myself. And are you happy with your score on the test? > I was studying the archives last Thursday and Friday to better > understand all that has happened. I felt sad when I saw how it > used to be more friendly. And I get my part in ALL of it. I > could see the mistakes I made along the way. But I still > totally believe in and hope for making amends and forgiveness > and more peace and happiness for everyone. So when do you plan to start making amends, Share? Believing and hoping don't do the trick all by themselves. [Xeno wrote:] > There are those who see forests and those who see trees. > Share seems to be a generalist, a caretaker of forests. > You are far more specific, taking care of individual trees. > I do not think you two will ever connect. There is something > to say for each of these views, but such a divergence > between them will never line up as an argument. Your thinking > styles are simply not compatible. She cannot understand you, > and you cannot understand her, though I suspect you feel you > have Share pegged, and she feels she has you pegged. Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy to Xeno
I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are simply too different to ever understand each other. I said this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way life sometimes is. BTW, you were right a while back when you said that maybe my being on FFL was a way for me to test myself. I was studying the archives last Thursday and Friday to better understand all that has happened. I felt sad when I saw how it used to be more friendly. And I get my part in ALL of it. I could see the mistakes I made along the way. But I still totally believe in and hope for making amends and forgiveness and more peace and happiness for everyone. Maybe Buck's optimism is getting to me (-: From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 4:48 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: >> You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and have continued to do >> so up to the present. > No, no, Share, generalizations are not acceptable. They're one of your many > ways of avoiding accountability for what you say. There are those who see forests and those who see trees. Share seems to be a generalist, a caretaker of forests. You are far more specific, taking care of individual trees. I do not think you two will ever connect. There is something to say for each of these views, but such a divergence between them will never line up as an argument. Your thinking styles are simply not compatible. She cannot understand you, and you cannot understand her, though I suspect you feel you have Share pegged, and she feels she has you pegged. This is an opinion, not a fact. If it were a fact, it would be hopeless to continue, unless bickering is the gold standard for social congress.
