RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-23 Thread authfriend
"We"??
 

 Yes, anyone who "remembers it differently" definitely needs to read those 
articles about false memories.
 

 Share continues to confabulate:

 > Judy, we remember it differently. Several articles about faulty memories 
 > have been posted recently. I think 
 > they apply also. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Share doubles down on her lie:
 

 > RWC and I had our big upset on Sept 6 and then Dudy butted in on Sept 9. 
 > Before that we 
 > all got along.
 
 

 No, we did not "all get along" before that.
 

 
 > Dudy even warned me once when I was new and almost posted out.
 
 
 You really just have to be amazed at her brazenness. No conscience. Yes, 
Quare, when you were new, before it was clear what a crappy human being you 
were, I did do you that favor. Complete non sequitur in this context, as you 
know.

 

 

 On Friday, November 22, 2013 5:15 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Share lied:
 

 > September 9, 2012, Richard, that's when Judy started her mission, whatever 
 > it is.
 

 This is a deliberate falsehood. As Share very well knows (and as I've reminded 
her over the past few days), she had run afoul of me (and Ann and Emily) well 
before her big mess-up with Robin. Those occasions were marked by her standard 
tactics: obfuscation, disingenuity, and refusal to take responsibility for her 
behavior (as she does above).
 

 

 
 










 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 









RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-23 Thread sharelong60
Judy, we remember it differently. Several articles about faulty memories have 
been posted recently. I think they apply also. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Share doubles down on her lie:
 

 > RWC and I had our big upset on Sept 6 and then Dudy butted in on Sept 9. 
 > Before that we 
 > all got along.
 
 

 No, we did not "all get along" before that.
 

 
 > Dudy even warned me once when I was new and almost posted out.
 
 
 You really just have to be amazed at her brazenness. No conscience. Yes, 
Quare, when you were new, before it was clear what a crappy human being you 
were, I did do you that favor. Complete non sequitur in this context, as you 
know.

 

 

 On Friday, November 22, 2013 5:15 PM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Share lied:
 

 > September 9, 2012, Richard, that's when Judy started her mission, whatever 
 > it is.
 

 This is a deliberate falsehood. As Share very well knows (and as I've reminded 
her over the past few days), she had run afoul of me (and Ann and Emily) well 
before her big mess-up with Robin. Those occasions were marked by her standard 
tactics: obfuscation, disingenuity, and refusal to take responsibility for her 
behavior (as she does above).
 

 

 
 










 
 

 
 



 
 
 
 







RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread emilymaenot
Just a challenge feste, on principle, of course and at a level that I thought 
she might understand.  The reality is I am working against a deadline and don't 
have much time to waste on this.  But, don't tell her that. I might change my 
mind and work to extend my deadline, however unlikely. 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Alert: Unprovoked Mean Girl Attack! 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Dear Share, stop bothering Judy with your incoherent BS.  Why don't you stop 
acting like a cowardly pansy and come after me?  I have no respect for the way 
that you treated Ann.  I am disgusted with your lack of ability to take 
responsibility for yourself in this matter and apologize for your mean-ass 
words.  I do not understand how you can not feel what it would be like to be on 
the receiving end of the post that you posted to Ann.  Come on, Share, you 
wanna fight?  Fight with me and leave Judy alone.  Why don't you start by 
personally attacking me and be advised that you better be able to back up what 
you say with examples that you are able to defend, coherently. Remember, "when 
you squeeze and orange, you get orange juice."  The orange juice coming  out of 
you is sour these days.  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You committed the violence, honey bunch. I didn't force you to insert your 
tits in that wringer; you did that all on your own.
 

 As to my purported hypocrisy, one of these days you might want to take a 
reading comprehension course. Also look up the meanings of the words "often" 
and "frequently." HINT: They don't mean "always."
 

 BTW, it's hypocrisy-squared for a hypocrite--that would be you, sweethole--to 
wrongly accuse others of hypocrisy.
 

 Nor is it "big, bad Share." It's "little, mean Share." That's "mean" as in 
nasty and malicious, but also as in a bunch of other senses my dictionary lists:
 

 "synonyms MEAN, IGNOBLE, ABJECT, SORDID mean being below the normal standards 
of human decency and dignity. MEAN suggests having such repellent 
characteristics as small-mindedness, ill temper, or cupidity...IGNOBLE suggests 
a loss or lack of some essential high quality of mind or spirit...ABJECT may 
imply degradation, debasement, or servility...SORDID is stronger than all of 
these in stressing physical or spiritual degradation and abjectness..."
 

 Share demonstrates her meanness and hypocrisy:

 > And btw, Richard, her *mammary gland* post was also violent! And posted 
 > right after her 
 > hypocritical post to feste about bringing down the nastiness quotient! Which 
 > included saying 
 > that it's hard for her not to be nasty when dealing with "someone like 
 > Share." Poor Dudy, 
 > forced to be nasty and vulgar and violent by big, bad Share! Let's all send 
 > Dudy some nice 
 > ice cream (-:
 
 


 No, you keep it, Whare. Dip your tits in it once you've got them out of the 
wringer; it'll make them feel a little better.
 


 







RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread doctordumbass
Hey Judy, it DOES seem a bit like a merry-go-round, that no one can get off, at 
this point. In other words, any fresh insights are fully drowned out by the 
dynamic, whether it remains valid, or not - and that goes for all of those on 
the carousel.

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Feste, if reading her posts doesn't make you want to throw up, there's no way 
I can explain it to you. (It isn't just me, either, you know, who has an 
acutely negative reaction to her FFL persona.)
 

 Appreciate the dinner invitation, but if it ever happens, let's talk about 
something pleasant, OK?
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Well, agreeing to disagree is a very civilized notion—one that I grew up 
with—and it doesn't often appear on FFL. I agree, on reflection, that there are 
many examples of you "taking the nastiness component down" but there are other 
examples of the opposite, especially with Share, where you crank up and 
perpetuate the hostility as a matter of course. I don't know why you do this. 
One day you will have to come to Fairfield and explain it to me -- perhaps over 
dinner and wine. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 BTW, Feste, this exchange with you turned out to be an example of what I meant 
when I said I often take the nastiness quotient down a level in my responses. 
If you read over the whole thing, you'll see that's just what I've done. I 
didn't do it consciously; as I said, it's instinctive.
 

I wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you 

RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread authfriend
We might want to call your slam on me on Share's behalf yesterday an 
"Unprovoked Mean Boy Attack."
 

 Did you read any of Share's attacks on me that led up to Emily's post, by the 
way?
 

 Emily, I don't actually need a break, but if you want to take a turn at 
schooling Share, go right ahead.
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Alert: Unprovoked Mean Girl Attack! 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Dear Share, stop bothering Judy with your incoherent BS.  Why don't you stop 
acting like a cowardly pansy and come after me?  I have no respect for the way 
that you treated Ann.  I am disgusted with your lack of ability to take 
responsibility for yourself in this matter and apologize for your mean-ass 
words.  I do not understand how you can not feel what it would be like to be on 
the receiving end of the post that you posted to Ann.  Come on, Share, you 
wanna fight?  Fight with me and leave Judy alone.  Why don't you start by 
personally attacking me and be advised that you better be able to back up what 
you say with examples that you are able to defend, coherently. Remember, "when 
you squeeze and orange, you get orange juice."  The orange juice coming  out of 
you is sour these days.  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You committed the violence, honey bunch. I didn't force you to insert your 
tits in that wringer; you did that all on your own.
 

 As to my purported hypocrisy, one of these days you might want to take a 
reading comprehension course. Also look up the meanings of the words "often" 
and "frequently." HINT: They don't mean "always."
 

 BTW, it's hypocrisy-squared for a hypocrite--that would be you, sweethole--to 
wrongly accuse others of hypocrisy.
 

 Nor is it "big, bad Share." It's "little, mean Share." That's "mean" as in 
nasty and malicious, but also as in a bunch of other senses my dictionary lists:
 

 "synonyms MEAN, IGNOBLE, ABJECT, SORDID mean being below the normal standards 
of human decency and dignity. MEAN suggests having such repellent 
characteristics as small-mindedness, ill temper, or cupidity...IGNOBLE suggests 
a loss or lack of some essential high quality of mind or spirit...ABJECT may 
imply degradation, debasement, or servility...SORDID is stronger than all of 
these in stressing physical or spiritual degradation and abjectness..."
 

 Share demonstrates her meanness and hypocrisy:

 > And btw, Richard, her *mammary gland* post was also violent! And posted 
 > right after her 
 > hypocritical post to feste about bringing down the nastiness quotient! Which 
 > included saying 
 > that it's hard for her not to be nasty when dealing with "someone like 
 > Share." Poor Dudy, 
 > forced to be nasty and vulgar and violent by big, bad Share! Let's all send 
 > Dudy some nice 
 > ice cream (-:
 
 


 No, you keep it, Whare. Dip your tits in it once you've got them out of the 
wringer; it'll make them feel a little better.
 


 







RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread feste37
Alert: Unprovoked Mean Girl Attack! 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Dear Share, stop bothering Judy with your incoherent BS.  Why don't you stop 
acting like a cowardly pansy and come after me?  I have no respect for the way 
that you treated Ann.  I am disgusted with your lack of ability to take 
responsibility for yourself in this matter and apologize for your mean-ass 
words.  I do not understand how you can not feel what it would be like to be on 
the receiving end of the post that you posted to Ann.  Come on, Share, you 
wanna fight?  Fight with me and leave Judy alone.  Why don't you start by 
personally attacking me and be advised that you better be able to back up what 
you say with examples that you are able to defend, coherently. Remember, "when 
you squeeze and orange, you get orange juice."  The orange juice coming  out of 
you is sour these days.  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You committed the violence, honey bunch. I didn't force you to insert your 
tits in that wringer; you did that all on your own.
 

 As to my purported hypocrisy, one of these days you might want to take a 
reading comprehension course. Also look up the meanings of the words "often" 
and "frequently." HINT: They don't mean "always."
 

 BTW, it's hypocrisy-squared for a hypocrite--that would be you, sweethole--to 
wrongly accuse others of hypocrisy.
 

 Nor is it "big, bad Share." It's "little, mean Share." That's "mean" as in 
nasty and malicious, but also as in a bunch of other senses my dictionary lists:
 

 "synonyms MEAN, IGNOBLE, ABJECT, SORDID mean being below the normal standards 
of human decency and dignity. MEAN suggests having such repellent 
characteristics as small-mindedness, ill temper, or cupidity...IGNOBLE suggests 
a loss or lack of some essential high quality of mind or spirit...ABJECT may 
imply degradation, debasement, or servility...SORDID is stronger than all of 
these in stressing physical or spiritual degradation and abjectness..."
 

 Share demonstrates her meanness and hypocrisy:

 > And btw, Richard, her *mammary gland* post was also violent! And posted 
 > right after her 
 > hypocritical post to feste about bringing down the nastiness quotient! Which 
 > included saying 
 > that it's hard for her not to be nasty when dealing with "someone like 
 > Share." Poor Dudy, 
 > forced to be nasty and vulgar and violent by big, bad Share! Let's all send 
 > Dudy some nice 
 > ice cream (-:
 
 


 No, you keep it, Whare. Dip your tits in it once you've got them out of the 
wringer; it'll make them feel a little better.
 


 





RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread authfriend
Feste, if reading her posts doesn't make you want to throw up, there's no way I 
can explain it to you. (It isn't just me, either, you know, who has an acutely 
negative reaction to her FFL persona.)
 

 Appreciate the dinner invitation, but if it ever happens, let's talk about 
something pleasant, OK?
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Well, agreeing to disagree is a very civilized notion—one that I grew up 
with—and it doesn't often appear on FFL. I agree, on reflection, that there are 
many examples of you "taking the nastiness component down" but there are other 
examples of the opposite, especially with Share, where you crank up and 
perpetuate the hostility as a matter of course. I don't know why you do this. 
One day you will have to come to Fairfield and explain it to me -- perhaps over 
dinner and wine. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 BTW, Feste, this exchange with you turned out to be an example of what I meant 
when I said I often take the nastiness quotient down a level in my responses. 
If you read over the whole thing, you'll see that's just what I've done. I 
didn't do it consciously; as I said, it's instinctive.
 

I wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In Fairfiel

RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread authfriend
Yup, Share's bad. Share's hilariously bad. Couldn't have been more fun to 
watch. She thought she was gonna get me and got herself instead, but good. 
Karma, baby, karma. Instant karma. Auto-smackdown.
 

 Will she learn anything? Of course not. She won't admit--even to herself--that 
she fouled up.
 

Share humiliates herself further:

 > Wow, Judy, vulgarity and violence in one post! Instinctive taking down of 
 > nastiness quotient?! Oh right, it's 
 > hard for you to not be nasty, etc. when dealing with someone like me. My 
 > bad!  

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Oh, God, I love it. Share gets her tits caught in her very own wringer.
 

 She accuses me of being disloyal by not warning indiff he was messing up, 
then, thinking she's catching me in a lie, cites a post documenting that I did 
warn him he risked being thrown out, way back toward the beginning of his visit 
here. (And if she wanted to look further she'd find that my first couple of 
posts to him also warned him about not getting folks' backs up.)
 

 After I'd warned him, I stopped paying attention to his exchanges with empty 
and didn't post to him again until the one Share cites. Following that he made 
another couple of dozen posts before Rick threw him out, mostly back-and-forth 
with empty. I didn't pay any attention to those either.
 

 So Share, I await your apology. I'm sure you'll do the right thing. Good luck 
prying your tits loose.
 

 (guffaw)
 

 

 Share messes up badly:

 > Judy claims she wasn't paying attention to indiff's exchange with emptybill. 
 > Yet see post 
 > #363507 excerpted below. So much for Judy's continuing claim to honesty.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


 For the record, indiff, I didn't say you were So-and-so, I said you sounded 
like So-and-so. And then when you threatened to out emptybill, I mentioned that 
this guy So-and-so had been thrown off the forum for outing somebody.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Let me clarify this issue again since even Judy seems to have gotten confused 
here.
 

 I'm using an pseudonym for a reason, to clearly post anonymously. You may 
recognize my energy, my writing style but you are not supposed to reveal my 
first name or any other details.
 

 But this dumb retarded motherfucker emptybill seems to have lot of trouble 
understanding it. He spouts and spews scriptures but lacks the normal maturity 
and intelligence of an adult and I have always given him a free pass in the 
past since I understand his disability. He thinks he can indulge in dishonesty 
like referring me as a troll, telling me that one cannot discuss Amma here, 
that I have been kicked off other forums and some other retarded bullshit.

 On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:08 PM, "authfriend@..."  
wrote:
 
   I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, 
I've jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.
 

 As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.
 

 So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 Feste wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and ther

RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread sharelong60
Wow, Judy, vulgarity and violence in one post! Instinctive taking down of 
nastiness quotient?! Oh right, it's hard for you to not be nasty, etc. when 
dealing with someone like me. My bad!  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Oh, God, I love it. Share gets her tits caught in her very own wringer.
 

 She accuses me of being disloyal by not warning indiff he was messing up, 
then, thinking she's catching me in a lie, cites a post documenting that I did 
warn him he risked being thrown out, way back toward the beginning of his visit 
here. (And if she wanted to look further she'd find that my first couple of 
posts to him also warned him about not getting folks' backs up.)
 

 After I'd warned him, I stopped paying attention to his exchanges with empty 
and didn't post to him again until the one Share cites. Following that he made 
another couple of dozen posts before Rick threw him out, mostly back-and-forth 
with empty. I didn't pay any attention to those either.
 

 So Share, I await your apology. I'm sure you'll do the right thing. Good luck 
prying your tits loose.
 

 (guffaw)
 

 

 Share messes up badly:

 > Judy claims she wasn't paying attention to indiff's exchange with emptybill. 
 > Yet see post 
 > #363507 excerpted below. So much for Judy's continuing claim to honesty.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


 For the record, indiff, I didn't say you were So-and-so, I said you sounded 
like So-and-so. And then when you threatened to out emptybill, I mentioned that 
this guy So-and-so had been thrown off the forum for outing somebody.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Let me clarify this issue again since even Judy seems to have gotten confused 
here.
 

 I'm using an pseudonym for a reason, to clearly post anonymously. You may 
recognize my energy, my writing style but you are not supposed to reveal my 
first name or any other details.
 

 But this dumb retarded motherfucker emptybill seems to have lot of trouble 
understanding it. He spouts and spews scriptures but lacks the normal maturity 
and intelligence of an adult and I have always given him a free pass in the 
past since I understand his disability. He thinks he can indulge in dishonesty 
like referring me as a troll, telling me that one cannot discuss Amma here, 
that I have been kicked off other forums and some other retarded bullshit.

 On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:08 PM, "authfriend@..."  
wrote:
 
   I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, 
I've jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.
 

 As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.
 

 So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 Feste wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I h

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-22 Thread feste37
Well, agreeing to disagree is a very civilized notion—one that I grew up 
with—and it doesn't often appear on FFL. I agree, on reflection, that there are 
many examples of you "taking the nastiness component down" but there are other 
examples of the opposite, especially with Share, where you crank up and 
perpetuate the hostility as a matter of course. I don't know why you do this. 
One day you will have to come to Fairfield and explain it to me -- perhaps over 
dinner and wine. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 BTW, Feste, this exchange with you turned out to be an example of what I meant 
when I said I often take the nastiness quotient down a level in my responses. 
If you read over the whole thing, you'll see that's just what I've done. I 
didn't do it consciously; as I said, it's instinctive.
 

I wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the n

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread authfriend
BTW, Feste, this exchange with you turned out to be an example of what I meant 
when I said I often take the nastiness quotient down a level in my responses. 
If you read over the whole thing, you'll see that's just what I've done. I 
didn't do it consciously; as I said, it's instinctive.
 

I wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
t

RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread awoelflebater
Yes, it was an interesting delving into the human condition yesterday and what 
a whirlwind of activity. One person is caught with their underpants down, one 
person is banned, another decides Paris is no longer in the cards, still 
another and another dig deep and unearth a couple of gems. And the Doc is 
waiting for his platinum MGC card. Of course, it is a fictitious scam - there 
is no club but it makes some feel better about it all if they can somehow put a 
label on something in order to make sense of it. And to think, some here don't 
see this as "spiritual". I guess they still haven't figured out humanity and 
all of their to-ings and fro-ings can not be categorized under something so 
limited and unimaginative as "spiritual". This is as "spiritual" as it gets 
folks.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Ann, did I tell you I love you today? And, as it goes, "boots are made for 
walkin'."  As of tomorrow in my house, it is officially holiday season with the 
older daughter coming home. She has 4 movies she wants to see:  Gravity; Much 
Ado About Nothing; The Butler; and Catching Fire. Sounds like a good plan to 
me.  
 

 To prepare for the fun family get-togethers on the horizon, it's almost time 
to start playing Opera.
 

 Being the sensitive person I am, I am recovering from yesterday's marathon 
explaining the basic rules of engagement to Share with this 6-hour Mozart 
compilation.  Best regards to FFL, as always, Em

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LM3ZlcDnk  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LM3ZlcDnk 
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Willytex drawled:
 
 What is the world coming to when you can't even make fun of someone's face or 
boots or where they were born? Emily seems like a nice girl, she's just running 
with the wrong pack. Go figure.
 

 How many does it take to make a "pack"? And don't let that Emily fool ya', 
she's the baddest of the lot. She just knows how to make it look like she's a 
nice guy. She's actually the ringleader and she's gonna be wearing those boots 
very, very soon.
 
 
 On 11/21/2013 6:05 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote:
 
   Well,  I must admit, I've been quite impressed by Judy's one word accurate 
descriptions of the tone of Share's posts.  Judy has the maturity to take 
responsibility for her language; Share doesn't.  Simple.  Can you imagine how 
poor Share would have behaved if someone went after her appearance and 
particularly if it was Judy, Ann or me?  It's a cowardly thing to do and she 
can spin it any way she wants; she's a bullshit artist.  And, that's all from 
me today.   
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":
 
 
 
 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 
 
 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 
 
 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:authfriend@... wrote:
 
 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
 
 With all this recent talk about "vicious" an

RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread authfriend
Oh, God, I love it. Share gets her tits caught in her very own wringer.
 

 She accuses me of being disloyal by not warning indiff he was messing up, 
then, thinking she's catching me in a lie, cites a post documenting that I did 
warn him he risked being thrown out, way back toward the beginning of his visit 
here. (And if she wanted to look further she'd find that my first couple of 
posts to him also warned him about not getting folks' backs up.)
 

 After I'd warned him, I stopped paying attention to his exchanges with empty 
and didn't post to him again until the one Share cites. Following that he made 
another couple of dozen posts before Rick threw him out, mostly back-and-forth 
with empty. I didn't pay any attention to those either.
 

 So Share, I await your apology. I'm sure you'll do the right thing. Good luck 
prying your tits loose.
 

 (guffaw)
 

 

 Share messes up badly:

 > Judy claims she wasn't paying attention to indiff's exchange with emptybill. 
 > Yet see post 
 > #363507 excerpted below. So much for Judy's continuing claim to honesty.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


 For the record, indiff, I didn't say you were So-and-so, I said you sounded 
like So-and-so. And then when you threatened to out emptybill, I mentioned that 
this guy So-and-so had been thrown off the forum for outing somebody.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Let me clarify this issue again since even Judy seems to have gotten confused 
here.
 

 I'm using an pseudonym for a reason, to clearly post anonymously. You may 
recognize my energy, my writing style but you are not supposed to reveal my 
first name or any other details.
 

 But this dumb retarded motherfucker emptybill seems to have lot of trouble 
understanding it. He spouts and spews scriptures but lacks the normal maturity 
and intelligence of an adult and I have always given him a free pass in the 
past since I understand his disability. He thinks he can indulge in dishonesty 
like referring me as a troll, telling me that one cannot discuss Amma here, 
that I have been kicked off other forums and some other retarded bullshit.

 On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:08 PM, "authfriend@..."  
wrote:
 
   I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, 
I've jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.
 

 As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.
 

 So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 Feste wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 Feste wrote: 
 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend

Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread Share Long
Judy claims she wasn't paying attention to indiff's exchange with emptybill. 
Yet see post #363507 excerpted below. So much for Judy's continuing claim to 
honesty.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


For the record, indiff, I didn't say you were So-and-so, I said you sounded 
like So-and-so. And then when you threatened to out emptybill, I mentioned 
that this guy So-and-so had been thrown off the forum for outing 
somebody.



---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>Let me clarify this issue again since even Judy seems to have gotten confused 
>here.
>
>
>I'm using an pseudonym for a reason, to clearly post anonymously. You may 
recognize my energy, my writing style but you are not supposed to reveal my 
first name or any other details.
>
>
>But this dumb retarded motherfucker emptybill seems to have lot of trouble 
understanding it. He spouts and spews scriptures but lacks the normal 
maturity and intelligence of an adult and I have always given him a free pass 
in the past since I understand his disability. He thinks he can 
indulge in dishonesty like referring me as a troll, telling me that one 
cannot discuss Amma here, that I have been kicked off other forums and 
some other retarded bullshit.



On Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:08 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, I've 
jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.

As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.

So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 


IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 


My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
>let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
>constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
>
>
>
>
>
>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
>>It's got nothing to do with fear. 
>>
>>
>>
>>You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
>>abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
>>you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
>>mouth and I think you should tone it down. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
>>>not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because 
>>>I'd say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both 
>>>my and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take 
>>>Share's line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and 
>>>therefore I don't consider anything you have to say about this to be 
>>>worthwhile.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. 
>>>In the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. 
>>>I'm guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never 
>>>done to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this 
>>>forum anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll 
>>>spoke to indiff, for that matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my 
friend and I do not criticize my friends. 



You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse 
has been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you 
with a warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. 
Then if you did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is 
already a precedent for that with the poster who was recently banned. 




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>You know, I don't choose my wo

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread authfriend
I wasn't paying any attention to his exchange with emptybill..As you know, I've 
jumped on him other times when I thought he was out of line.
 

 As to my opinion of you, as you also know, that was formed well before you 
disgraced yourself with Robin.
 

 So you can take your dishonest, nasty, mean, hypocritical little thoughts and 
shove them where the sun don't shine.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread sharelong60
So Judy, were you being disloyal recently when you didn't let indiff know that 
he was messing up badly? Or you didn't think he was messing up badly? 

 

 IMO the disparity between how you treated him and how you treated me clearly 
indicates that you are prejudiced against me and not the upholder of truth and 
reality that you continually present yourself as. 

 

 My guess is you are still against me because of the situation between me and 
RWC that began Sept 2012.
 That's your choice. But when I think you are being prejudicial, I will say so.

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won'

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread authfriend
We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me disloyal to not 
let a friend know when you feel they've messed up badly. (I'm not suggesting 
constant niggling criticism about little stuff, idiosyncrasies and so on.)
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" 

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread feste37
Loyalty toward friends seems to me a better approach than criticizing them. 
It's got nothing to do with fear. 

 

 You are probably right about the recent banning of that poster. You are not 
abusive in the way that he was. You do it in your own style. I actually like 
you, authfriend, but your vendetta against Share leaves a bad taste in the 
mouth and I think you should tone it down. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Sha

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread authfriend
You don't criticize your friends? Even if they deserve it? Interesting. Why 
not? Are you afraid if you do, they'll no longer be your friends? Because I'd 
say it's not much of a friendship that can't survive honest criticism.
 

 I'm not going to go into a long defense, but your description below of both my 
and Share's behavior is significantly inaccurate. (If I were to take Share's 
line, I'd point out that as a friend of Share, you're biased, and therefore I 
don't consider anything you have to say about this to be worthwhile.)
 

 Also, the banning of indifferent_netizen is not a precedent for banning me. In 
the first place, we don't know why he was banned; Rick didn't tell us. I'm 
guessing it was for threatening to out emptybill, something I have never done 
to anyone. In the second place, I have never spoken to anyone on this forum 
anything like the way indiff spoke to emptybill--or the way emptybilll spoke to 
indiff, for that matter.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 









RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread feste37
To be honest, I didn't care for that post of Share's, but Share is my friend 
and I do not criticize my friends. 

 

 You have been pursuing a vendetta against Share for more than a year now, I 
would guess. She has dealt with you mostly in a civil fashion and has even 
tried to engage you in friendly conversation. But your hostility and abuse has 
been relentless. Were I the moderator of this forum, I would issue you with a 
warning to stop the repeated abuse of one member or face expulsion. Then if you 
did not comply I would remove you from this forum. There is already a precedent 
for that with the poster who was recently banned. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 







RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread emilymaenot
Well,  I must admit, I've been quite impressed by Judy's one word accurate 
descriptions of the tone of Share's posts.  Judy has the maturity to take 
responsibility for her language; Share doesn't.  Simple.  Can you imagine how 
poor Share would have behaved if someone went after her appearance and 
particularly if it was Judy, Ann or me?  It's a cowardly thing to do and she 
can spin it any way she wants; she's a bullshit artist.  And, that's all from 
me today.   
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 





RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread authfriend
You know, I don't choose my words at random. I never said my description 
applied to all my posts; I never said none of my posts were nasty or vicious. I 
stand by what I did say, however.
 

 I've never pretended to be saintly, but I do not, in fact, "love to be mean, 
nasty, and vicious." I do find it very hard not to be when dealing with an 
individual like Share. 
 

 Just out of curiosity, what do you think about Share's attack on Ann, 
comparing her to a Nazi and disparaging her appearance because Ann wrote a 
funny parody of one of Share's posts? Let's see how honest you are.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 
 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 





RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread feste37

 Yep, here's authfriend taking the "nasty/vicious quotient of [her] opponent's 
posts down a level":

 

 Share snarled:
 Share pleaded:
 Share babbled:
 Share spewed:
 Share blubbered:
 Share bleated:
 

 All from recent posts. Why can't you be honest about what you do, authfriend? 
You are always babbling/spewing/blubbering/snarling about how honest you are 
and how dishonest your opponents are, but why can't you just admit that you 
love to be mean, nasty, and vicious? You get pleasure out of it, which is why 
you do it on this forum day after day, week after week, month after month, year 
after year. It satisfies something inside you, although what that might be, 
only you know.  

 

 

  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 













 



RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread authfriend
I think in the heat of battle, as it were, the other guy--and/or his or her 
supporters--often experiences my posts to be much more "nasty and vicious" than 
they actually are. I'm frequently surprised when I reread my own posts from 
some epic argument to realize how restrained they were and how I instinctively 
took the nasty/vicious quotient of my opponent's posts down a level with each 
response rather than escalating it.
 

 I think the perception of "nasty and vicious" is directly proportional to how 
accurate my criticisms are. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's why I say 
you'd have a hard time backing up your accusation. You're remembering your 
emotional response rather than the tone of my posts themselves.
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 















RE: RE: RE: RE: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on Fairfield Life.

2013-11-21 Thread feste37
Of course you think that, because you seem unaware of how you come across on 
this forum. 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I think you'd have a real hard time backing that up in my case, feste. But a 
no-brainer that Barry would be at the top of the list.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 With all this recent talk about "vicious" and "nasty" posts, if one were to 
take a year's worth of FFL posts and list by poster all the posts that might 
reasonably be considered either vicious or nasty, there would be two posters at 
the top of the list, way ahead of any others. These would of course be 
authfriend and turquoise b. Share would be well down on the list. 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

  
 From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of dhamiltony2k5@...
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 12:28 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Vivid and Present Threat of Hooliganism on 
Fairfield Life.


  
   
 Rick, Keep a close watch out on the mean-girls club too. They could take us 
all down in unkindness.
 -Buck 
 I don’t have time to keep a close watch out on anything on FFL, but if someone 
gets too outrageous and someone brings it to my attention, I usually say to 
wait and see if they simmer down, and if they don’t, I do something about it.