RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Emily, thanks for making it simple for me. Since I'm with my family I don't have as much time as usual to read and respond on FFL. Yes, I think Judy used qualifiers in the example she gave. What I mainly remember is how she initially responded and how she continues to write to and about me. All that outweighs that example she posted. I don't think we are ever going to agree about all this. In that light, I think it's more beneficial for everyone to simply move on to more interesting topics and let all that go. I also recognize that Judy doesn't intend to do this and I'll deal with that as best as I can from day to day. IT'S JUST A CHAT ROOM! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Well, I couldn't figure out my question either. Let me rephrase: Share, do you agree that Judy *did* include qualifiers, including the one you specifically mention (sounds like) in the section of said post below that I have copied to this one? Share, this is a yes/no question. I won't take it any further, I promise. I'm paying attention to the feedback I'm getting on how I have been unfairly critiquing you, and even worse, I am doing this as a non-TM'er! It is true. I am, in fact, the only person posting here currently who has no affiliation with TM, past or present. I am checking the akashic records to make sure that past really means past. I will consult with a fortune teller to determine whether this may be part of my future. In the meantime, I am filling out an application for resident alien status and I will get my jyotish astrological chart read to glean the most fortuitous time to submit it. Why would I go to all this trouble? Well, there is a reason. I think God may have something to do with it, but I will do a little prayer and meditation on the whole affair before I get back to Bhairitu and Emptybill on their very astute questions; I have been here for between 2-3 years now. I *have* been thinking about it, but I'm not that impressed with my mind, honestly. The answer will come and it must be more than I have a right to be here. Judy presented: But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Emily, if you'll forgive me, I can't figure out what this question means; I wouldn't blame Share if she couldn't either: Emily wrote: Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, thanks for making it simple for me. Since I'm with my family I don't have as much time as usual to read and respond on FFL. Yes, I think Judy used qualifiers in the example she gave. What I mainly remember is how she initially responded and how she continues to write to and about me. All that outweighs that example she posted. I don't think we are ever going to agree about all this. In that light, I think it's more beneficial for everyone to simply move on to more interesting topics and let all that go. I also recognize that Judy doesn't intend to do this and I'll deal with that as best as I can from day to day. IT'S JUST A CHAT ROOM! Good point. On that note, I am currently enjoying a bowl of Cheerios and granola with pear and apple cut up on top. I had some Earl Grey tea earlier which I thoroughly enjoy in the mornings. I will probably try and stop in at Alexander's to grab a chai tea latte before I have to rush to work after riding. I hope your visit with your family is a pleasant one, Share. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Well, I couldn't figure out my question either. Let me rephrase: Share, do you agree that Judy *did* include qualifiers, including the one you specifically mention (sounds like) in the section of said post below that I have copied to this one? Share, this is a yes/no question. I won't take it any further, I promise. I'm paying attention to the feedback I'm getting on how I have been unfairly critiquing you, and even worse, I am doing this as a non-TM'er! It is true. I am, in fact, the only person posting here currently who has no affiliation with TM, past or present. I am checking the akashic records to make sure that past really means past. I will consult with a fortune teller to determine whether this may be part of my future. In the meantime, I am filling out an application for resident alien status and I will get my jyotish astrological chart read to glean the most fortuitous time to submit it. Why would I go to all this trouble? Well, there is a reason. I think God may have something to do with it, but I will do a little prayer and meditation on the whole affair before I get back to Bhairitu and Emptybill on their very astute questions; I have been here for between 2-3 years now. I *have* been thinking about it, but I'm not that impressed with my mind, honestly. The answer will come and it must be more than I have a right to be here. Judy presented: But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Emily, if you'll forgive me, I can't figure out what this question means; I wouldn't blame Share if she couldn't either: Emily wrote: Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Share tries her hardest to create confusion: Emily, thanks for making it simple for me. Since I'm with my family I don't have as much time as usual to read and respond on FFL. Yes, I think Judy used qualifiers in the example she gave. No, I gave no example, Share. Rather, I quoted a post of mine that you had said false things about, for the purpose of showing that they were false. And there is no I think about whether I used qualifiers in that post. I did use qualifiers in that post (not example), contrary to your claims in your post on Sunday about that post of mine. Emily quoted my post quoting your Sunday post, and the post of mine your Sunday post was about, below if you need to refresh your memory, but it couldn't have been clearer. What I mainly remember is how she initially responded and how she continues to write to and about me. All that outweighs that example she posted. No, no, Share. You are obfuscating. The post of mine I quoted from September 9, 2012, was the one you were referring to in your own post on Sunday. That post of yours from Sunday said things that were not true about that post of mine. The post of mine that you referred to and said false things about was my initial response to your own post of September 9, 2012, about your kerfuffle with Robin. You claimed in your post Sunday that my September 9, 2012, post was the first time I had run [my] game on you. It isn't true that that was the first time we clashed, but I'm not going into that for now. The issue of concern to me is the false things you said about that post on Sunday, and your refusal to take responsibility for doing so, including your attempt to obfuscate the whole business in your post that I'm responding to now. The notion that there was some example post is a deliberate obfuscation; so is your apparent claim that there was some initial post different from the one you said false things about. We are talking about one single post of mine, not three or more. I don't think we are ever going to agree about all this. There is no issue of agreement, only of facts as reflected in the FFL archives. You said things that were not true about a post of mine; I proved they were not true. It isn't a matter of anybody's opinion. Each of us created the respective posts in question by typing the words we wanted to say in them with our own fingers on our own keyboards. In that light, I think it's more beneficial for everyone to simply move on to more interesting topics and let all that go. Here's how we do that, Share: You admit that you said things that were false--factually false--about that post of mine of September 9. (It would be nice if you'd also apologize for saying those false things, but I don't believe you're capable of it.) Once you've taken responsibility for your own words, we can let all that go. I also recognize that Judy doesn't intend to do this and I'll deal with that as best as I can from day to day. There's no need for you to deal with it from day to day. You only have to deal with it once, as I just outlined. Whatever may go on from day to day will be a function of your not having dealt with it. IT'S JUST A CHAT ROOM! False and derogatory things said about other people in chat rooms are just as false, and just as morally and ethically reprehensible, as false and derogatory things said about other people anywhere else. We don't get excused from the responsibility to speak the truth just because we're in a chat room. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Well, I couldn't figure out my question either. Let me rephrase: Share, do you agree that Judy *did* include qualifiers, including the one you specifically mention (sounds like) in the section of said post below that I have copied to this one? Share, this is a yes/no question. I won't take it any further, I promise. I'm paying attention to the feedback I'm getting on how I have been unfairly critiquing you, and even worse, I am doing this as a non-TM'er! It is true. I am, in fact, the only person posting here currently who has no affiliation with TM, past or present. I am checking the akashic records to make sure that past really means past. I will consult with a fortune teller to determine whether this may be part of my future. In the meantime, I am filling out an application for resident alien status and I will get my jyotish astrological chart read to glean the most fortuitous time to submit it. Why would I go to all this trouble? Well, there is a reason. I think God may have something to do with it, but I will do a little prayer and meditation on the whole affair before I get back to Bhairitu and Emptybill on their very astute questions; I have been here for between 2-3 years now. I *have* been thinking about it, but I'm not that impressed with my mind, honestly. The
