RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
Feste tries again: Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. Uh, no. I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere. It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle. As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. Mmmm-hmmm. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Um, looks a whole lot different from here, Feste. As for the weird punctuation, you must not get around the Web a lot; it's pretty much standard practice these days for bloggers and commenters when they want to say something emphatically. Poor Richard has been exceedingly frustrated that he can't get me to respond to his trolling (but as I keep saying, if you'd like me to give you a detailed refutation of anything he says about me, just ask). If Share stood up to me, it must have been awfully feebly, because I didn't notice. Xeno's making a total ass of himself, not for the first time. And Barry? He's repeatedly shot himself in the foot trying to get me over the past few days. Trouble is, he doesn't have any ammunition except lies, and for some reason it never dawns on him that his lies are easily disposed of. I guess you've been reading only his posts and not my responses. Want to try again? Feste fumphs: Hey auth, what's with the weird punctuation? Doesn't. Make. Any. Sense. I can only conclude that you have cracked under the recent pressure. First, Share stands up to you. Then Richard J. Williams kicks your ass all over the park, without much reply from you, and then Xeno and Barry put the boot in, just to make sure you don't get up. Not a good week for you on this board, is it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste, You. Do. Not. Have. A. Clue. Feste the Clueless wrote: What you and authfriend don't like is that Share does not respond to you in the way you declare that she ought to, and that makes you mad and mean. You think she should say what you have scripted for her, but of course things don't work that way, and to expect them to is just another way of trying to control another person. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: It's interesting to see the different approaches taken by the Mean Girls. Authfriend practices a kind of knee-jerk negativity that produces crude, nasty attacks. In respect of Share (and Barry), she is All Nasty, All the Time. It doesn't matter what these two write; the response is always the same. Any excuse to belittle, mock, and insult -- that's authfriend's MO. With Emily, it's a little different at first. It starts with the pretense that she doesn't understand or is trying to understand something that Share wrote. No pretense. I *am* trying to understand by asking her to explain what she is saying or thinking or feeling when she says it. Sometimes I am asking her to provide a larger context for her comments because a lot of what she says doesn't make sense to me. I've stated that many, many, times. Objectively, human behavior does interest me, no doubt, and I truly am a sincerely curious sort of person. Emily likes to sound reasonable and sincere, carefully trying to disguise her hostility. I am *sounding* that way because I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I am often reasonable and usually sincere, albeit, sometimes within a context or a writing style that you don't seem to pick up on, given this statement of yours. I am not a hostile person and I don't hold onto or maintain hostility on this forum towards anyone ever, really. If I did, I wouldn't stay here. I have certain triggers - Share's mean streak is one of them, when it pops up. I respond to what shows up in the moment, or as a result of watching the trajectory of a conversation unfold. I try to keep a larger picture in mind almost always, even as I may descend into the energy and feeling of a thread as it resonates within me. I may not always succeed in the heat of the moment (in keeping the larger picture at the forefront), but behind the scenes, in my own life, I always go through a process of lessons learned, if you will. I am a human being and I *believe* in the concepts of accountability and humility, for example. This prepares the ground. It's a set up. Then when Share responds, Emily declares the response to be inadequate or shocking, and proceeds to plunge the knife in and twist it as much as she can. Jesus Christ
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
It's just a metaphor, hon. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Good, it appears that you do. OTOH, you gain pleasure from holding a perception that Judy is a punching bag getting beat up. Sounds kind of macabre to me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Feste, do you see the humor in this? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I think Feste must have taken one too many of his testosterone pills over Thanksgiving. Emily wrote: First of all, I am seldom, if ever, truly mean; I do get mad sometimes. I do tease others about themselves and only those who have no ability to laugh at themselves whatsoever take offense, from what I've noticed. I make fun of myself as well all the time. (Again, all in a manner and context sometimes that not everyone understands, particularly given that you can't see me or hear my tone of voice). Secondly, I always try to communicate from an honest place. I *never* script anyone - how could I do that? I have no power or control over what anyone except myself writes. Everyone here has a choice if and how, they respond. Share ignores most of what I comment to her on; she certainly never responds the way I think she ought; I am not her keeper, but like everyone here, including me, if she posts, she runs the risk of receiving feedback. If that bothers her, than she has the option not to post. Thank you for your feedback; I find it humorous honestly, although quite off-base. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: What you and authfriend don't like is that Share does not respond to you in the way you declare that she ought to, and that makes you mad and mean. You think she should say what you have scripted for her, but of course things don't work that way, and to expect them to is just another way of trying to control another person. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: It's interesting to see the different approaches taken by the Mean Girls. Authfriend practices a kind of knee-jerk negativity that produces crude, nasty attacks. In respect of Share (and Barry), she is All Nasty, All the Time. It doesn't matter what these two write; the response is always the same. Any excuse to belittle, mock, and insult -- that's authfriend's MO. With Emily, it's a little different at first. It starts with the pretense that she doesn't understand or is trying to understand something that Share wrote. No pretense. I *am* trying to understand by asking her to explain what she is saying or thinking or feeling when she says it. Sometimes I am asking her to provide a larger context for her comments because a lot of what she says doesn't make sense to me. I've stated that many, many, times. Objectively, human behavior does interest me, no doubt, and I truly am a sincerely curious sort of person. Emily likes to sound reasonable and sincere, carefully trying to disguise her hostility. I am *sounding* that way because I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I am often reasonable and usually sincere, albeit, sometimes within a context or a writing style that you don't seem to pick up on, given this statement of yours. I am not a hostile person and I don't hold onto or maintain hostility on this forum towards anyone ever, really. If I did, I wouldn't stay here. I have certain triggers - Share's mean streak is one of them, when it pops up. I respond to what shows up in the moment, or as a result of watching the trajectory of a conversation unfold. I try to keep a larger picture in mind almost always, even as I may descend into the energy and feeling of a thread as it resonates within me. I may not always succeed in the heat of the moment (in keeping the larger picture at the forefront), but behind the scenes, in my own life, I always go through a process of lessons learned, if you will. I am a human being and I *believe* in the concepts of accountability and humility, for example. This prepares the ground. It's a set up. Then when Share responds, Emily declares the response to be inadequate or shocking, and proceeds to plunge the knife in and twist it as much as she can. Jesus Christ Feste, I have been shocked by Share on many occasions, it's true, and she has deferred and refused to take accountability for her words, or even explain them, on even more occasions. I have also apologized more times and copped to my own actions more than many here and I have stated many times that I always check what I might say to others against my self - I am not a saint nor do I pretend to be. Share has a record of zero on that front. I hold no animosity towards her; I am just objectively stating what I have noticed from her posts here. To
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
Goodness me, just because it's a fad on the Web doesn't mean you have to follow it. It. Makes. No. Sense. At. All. It's. Stupid. I thought you were the sort of person who liked to uphold standards of good, effective writing, but alas, it appears that I am mistaken. I. Am. Sad. About. That. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste tries again: Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. Uh, no. I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere. It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle. As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. Mmmm-hmmm. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Um, looks a whole lot different from here, Feste. As for the weird punctuation, you must not get around the Web a lot; it's pretty much standard practice these days for bloggers and commenters when they want to say something emphatically. Poor Richard has been exceedingly frustrated that he can't get me to respond to his trolling (but as I keep saying, if you'd like me to give you a detailed refutation of anything he says about me, just ask). If Share stood up to me, it must have been awfully feebly, because I didn't notice. Xeno's making a total ass of himself, not for the first time. And Barry? He's repeatedly shot himself in the foot trying to get me over the past few days. Trouble is, he doesn't have any ammunition except lies, and for some reason it never dawns on him that his lies are easily disposed of. I guess you've been reading only his posts and not my responses. Want to try again? Feste fumphs: Hey auth, what's with the weird punctuation? Doesn't. Make. Any. Sense. I can only conclude that you have cracked under the recent pressure. First, Share stands up to you. Then Richard J. Williams kicks your ass all over the park, without much reply from you, and then Xeno and Barry put the boot in, just to make sure you don't get up. Not a good week for you on this board, is it? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste, You. Do. Not. Have. A. Clue. Feste the Clueless wrote: What you and authfriend don't like is that Share does not respond to you in the way you declare that she ought to, and that makes you mad and mean. You think she should say what you have scripted for her, but of course things don't work that way, and to expect them to is just another way of trying to control another person. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: It's interesting to see the different approaches taken by the Mean Girls. Authfriend practices a kind of knee-jerk negativity that produces crude, nasty attacks. In respect of Share (and Barry), she is All Nasty, All the Time. It doesn't matter what these two write; the response is always the same. Any excuse to belittle, mock, and insult -- that's authfriend's MO. With Emily, it's a little different at first. It starts with the pretense that she doesn't understand or is trying to understand something that Share wrote. No pretense. I *am* trying to understand by asking her to explain what she is saying or thinking or feeling when she says it. Sometimes I am asking her to provide a larger context for her comments because a lot of what she says doesn't make sense to me. I've stated that many, many, times. Objectively, human behavior does interest me, no doubt, and I truly am a sincerely curious sort of person. Emily likes to sound reasonable and sincere, carefully trying to disguise her hostility. I am *sounding* that way because I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt and I am often reasonable and usually sincere, albeit, sometimes within a context or a writing style that you don't seem to pick up on, given this statement of yours. I am not a hostile person and I don't hold onto or maintain hostility on this forum towards anyone ever, really. If I did, I wouldn't stay here. I have certain triggers - Share's mean streak is one of them, when it pops up. I respond to what shows up in the moment, or as a result of watching the trajectory of a conversation unfold. I try to keep a larger picture in mind almost always, even as I may descend into the energy and feeling of a thread as it resonates within me. I may not always succeed in the heat of the moment (in keeping the larger picture at the forefront), but behind the scenes, in my own life, I always go
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
I don't follow it because it's a fad. I don't follow it at all, actually; I very rarely use it. But it really isn't stupid--if you think about how it would sound if you said it aloud, you may hear an echo of, say, your mother: You. Get. In. Here. Right. Now. It can be an effective way of emphasizing something. Me, I don't think standards of good writing on a Web forum (i.e., highly informal, conversational) necessarily exclude what would be nonstandard in more formal writing if it adds something--flavor, humor, irony, surprise. It can be creative and entertaining if well used. Given your reaction, I'll most likely use the period-after-every-word effect more often. It's fun to see your stuffy freakout. I believe Barry has used it a few times, but that didn't seem to have upset you. Double standards, perhaps? Feste huffed: Goodness me, just because it's a fad on the Web doesn't mean you have to follow it. It. Makes. No. Sense. At. All. It's. Stupid. I thought you were the sort of person who liked to uphold standards of good, effective writing, but alas, it appears that I am mistaken. I. Am. Sad. About. That. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste tries again: Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. Uh, no. I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere. It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle. As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. Mmmm-hmmm.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
Are you still insisting that it's pretty much standard practice these days for bloggers and commenters when they want to say something emphatically? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I don't follow it because it's a fad. I don't follow it at all, actually; I very rarely use it. But it really isn't stupid--if you think about how it would sound if you said it aloud, you may hear an echo of, say, your mother: You. Get. In. Here. Right. Now. It can be an effective way of emphasizing something. Me, I don't think standards of good writing on a Web forum (i.e., highly informal, conversational) necessarily exclude what would be nonstandard in more formal writing if it adds something--flavor, humor, irony, surprise. It can be creative and entertaining if well used. Given your reaction, I'll most likely use the period-after-every-word effect more often. It's fun to see your stuffy freakout. I believe Barry has used it a few times, but that didn't seem to have upset you. Double standards, perhaps? Feste huffed: Goodness me, just because it's a fad on the Web doesn't mean you have to follow it. It. Makes. No. Sense. At. All. It's. Stupid. I thought you were the sort of person who liked to uphold standards of good, effective writing, but alas, it appears that I am mistaken. I. Am. Sad. About. That. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste tries again: Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. Uh, no. I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere. It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle. As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. Mmmm-hmmm.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
What is with you? I wouldn't have said it if I didn't mean it. But don't overinterpret. It's not that every time someone wants to be emphatic, they use it. Rather, it's standard in that it's used often enough that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they understand what it's meant to convey. It's been around for several years now. As I say, next time I see it used, I'll give you the link. Then maybe you can relax. You're getting yourself all worked up over nothing. The Internet is changing how people write, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. You didn't answer my question, BTW, as to why you didn't explode in blind rage when Barry has used it. Feste continues to fester: Are you still insisting that it's pretty much standard practice these days for bloggers and commenters when they want to say something emphatically? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I don't follow it because it's a fad. I don't follow it at all, actually; I very rarely use it. But it really isn't stupid--if you think about how it would sound if you said it aloud, you may hear an echo of, say, your mother: You. Get. In. Here. Right. Now. It can be an effective way of emphasizing something. Me, I don't think standards of good writing on a Web forum (i.e., highly informal, conversational) necessarily exclude what would be nonstandard in more formal writing if it adds something--flavor, humor, irony, surprise. It can be creative and entertaining if well used. Given your reaction, I'll most likely use the period-after-every-word effect more often. It's fun to see your stuffy freakout. I believe Barry has used it a few times, but that didn't seem to have upset you. Double standards, perhaps? Feste huffed: Goodness me, just because it's a fad on the Web doesn't mean you have to follow it. It. Makes. No. Sense. At. All. It's. Stupid. I thought you were the sort of person who liked to uphold standards of good, effective writing, but alas, it appears that I am mistaken. I. Am. Sad. About. That. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste tries again: Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. Uh, no. I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere. It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle. As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. Mmmm-hmmm.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
I don't think you have even remotely established this as standard practice. On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it is standard practice? In answer to your question, I do not in general read Turquoise B. He is a mean S.O.B. so I usually avoid him. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What is with you? I wouldn't have said it if I didn't mean it. But don't overinterpret. It's not that every time someone wants to be emphatic, they use it. Rather, it's standard in that it's used often enough that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they understand what it's meant to convey. It's been around for several years now. As I say, next time I see it used, I'll give you the link. Then maybe you can relax. You're getting yourself all worked up over nothing. The Internet is changing how people write, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. You didn't answer my question, BTW, as to why you didn't explode in blind rage when Barry has used it. Feste continues to fester: Are you still insisting that it's pretty much standard practice these days for bloggers and commenters when they want to say something emphatically? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I don't follow it because it's a fad. I don't follow it at all, actually; I very rarely use it. But it really isn't stupid--if you think about how it would sound if you said it aloud, you may hear an echo of, say, your mother: You. Get. In. Here. Right. Now. It can be an effective way of emphasizing something. Me, I don't think standards of good writing on a Web forum (i.e., highly informal, conversational) necessarily exclude what would be nonstandard in more formal writing if it adds something--flavor, humor, irony, surprise. It can be creative and entertaining if well used. Given your reaction, I'll most likely use the period-after-every-word effect more often. It's fun to see your stuffy freakout. I believe Barry has used it a few times, but that didn't seem to have upset you. Double standards, perhaps? Feste huffed: Goodness me, just because it's a fad on the Web doesn't mean you have to follow it. It. Makes. No. Sense. At. All. It's. Stupid. I thought you were the sort of person who liked to uphold standards of good, effective writing, but alas, it appears that I am mistaken. I. Am. Sad. About. That. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste tries again: Standard practice? You have got to be kidding. Uh, no. I have never seen it before. I. Think. It. Is. Very. Bad. Writing. LOL. Better learn to appreciate Web-speak for the sake of your blood pressure. It's not going anywhere. It's quite fun watching you being a punching bag for everyone else and lamely trying to claim victory. Actually I don't claim victory. The folks throwing the punches and missing (or smacking themselves in the face) are losers without any assistance from me. But I'm glad you're enjoying the spectacle. As for the testosterone pills, I don't need them. Just ask my girlfriend. Mmmm-hmmm.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: 00000000, right
No, I didn't suggest that the Google links were to examples. I was responding to Richard's claim that it didn't exist, essentially, because he'd never seen it. Obviously many people have seen it, but you wouldn't expect to see links to examples, for pete's sake. As I said, the next time I come across an example, I'll give you a link. But you're still overinterpreting standard practice, as I explained and you ignored. As to Barry, if you aren't going to call him on his behavior because he's a mean SOB and you don't read his posts, may I suggest you skip mine as well? Hypocrite. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: I don't think you have even remotely established this as standard practice. On the contrary, it's an unusual deviation from the norm. I wasn't impressed by the link you provided. It was a lot of people asking about the use of periods after every word, but not a single example that I could see. Nor have I seen a single example of its use by a good writer. Where are these blogs in which it is standard practice? In answer to your question, I do not in general read Turquoise B. He is a mean S.O.B. so I usually avoid him. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What is with you? I wouldn't have said it if I didn't mean it. But don't overinterpret. It's not that every time someone wants to be emphatic, they use it. Rather, it's standard in that it's used often enough that most readers have seen it before and don't think it's weird; they understand what it's meant to convey. It's been around for several years now. As I say, next time I see it used, I'll give you the link. Then maybe you can relax. You're getting yourself all worked up over nothing. The Internet is changing how people write, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. You didn't answer my question, BTW, as to why you didn't explode in blind rage when Barry has used it. Feste continues to fester: Are you still insisting that it's pretty much standard practice these days for bloggers and commenters when they want to say something emphatically? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I don't follow it because it's a fad. I don't follow it at all, actually; I very rarely use it. But it really isn't stupid--if you think about how it would sound if you said it aloud, you may hear an echo of, say, your mother: You. Get. In. Here. Right. Now. It can be an effective way of emphasizing something. Me, I don't think standards of good writing on a Web forum (i.e., highly informal, conversational) necessarily exclude what would be nonstandard in more formal writing if it adds something--flavor, humor, irony, surprise. It can be creative and entertaining if well used. Given your reaction, I'll most likely use the period-after-every-word effect more often. It's fun to see your stuffy freakout. I believe Barry has used it a few times, but that didn't seem to have upset you. Double standards, perhaps?
