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