RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Well, I couldn't figure out my question either. Let me rephrase: Share, do you agree that Judy *did* include qualifiers, including the one you specifically mention (sounds like) in the section of said post below that I have copied to this one? Share, this is a yes/no question. I won't take it any further, I promise. I'm paying attention to the feedback I'm getting on how I have been unfairly critiquing you, and even worse, I am doing this as a non-TM'er! It is true. I am, in fact, the only person posting here currently who has no affiliation with TM, past or present. I am checking the akashic records to make sure that past really means past. I will consult with a fortune teller to determine whether this may be part of my future. In the meantime, I am filling out an application for resident alien status and I will get my jyotish astrological chart read to glean the most fortuitous time to submit it. Why would I go to all this trouble? Well, there is a reason. I think God may have something to do with it, but I will do a little prayer and meditation on the whole affair before I get back to Bhairitu and Emptybill on their very astute questions; I have been here for between 2-3 years now. I *have* been thinking about it, but I'm not that impressed with my mind, honestly. The answer will come and it must be more than I have a right to be here. Judy presented: But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Emily, if you'll forgive me, I can't figure out what this question means; I wouldn't blame Share if she couldn't either: Emily wrote: Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
It grows on trees, too! Thanks! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Emily, I empathize with Share -- For example, let's take that first sentence: What, exactly, do you mean, by, Share, is it raining in Fairfield??? I'm not tracking this, either...its a little out there, frankly. Do you mean actual rain, like rain-rain, composed of water, wet, droplets, and all?? Or something else? What did Amma say about water? And is it, in, as in *actually* *in* Fairfield, where the rain would be occurring? What if it comes out of the sky, *above* Fairfield? Is that considered the same thing?? Or blows in as part of a storm, moving south? Seriously. Also, would that be Fairfield, Iowa, Connecticut, Texas, California, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, or Alabama? My intellect is overwhelmed by your lack of precision. I ask rhetorically, again, Share is it raining in Fairfield?, as if *anyone* could reply in a straightforward manner, to such an inquiry, with its loose definitions, and subtly twisted shades of meaning. Share, is it raining in Fairfield?, indeed! I am on to you now, Emily. Doc, you just reminded me why I love you so much. If this is enlightenment I'll take half a pound and wrap it up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrWMBB7DdXo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrWMBB7DdXo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Ah ha ha ha ha ha. My kid thinks I am crazy as a loon, given all this laughing at my computer screen. Yes, Doctor, you have me figured out. I was pulling a fast one on Share, but I am sure that she will exercise those traits that Feste mentionedacceptance, forgiveness, letting goand let me have this one. Wait, she called me bonkers! Well, I've been called worse so that's O.K. too. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Emily, I empathize with Share -- For example, let's take that first sentence: What, exactly, do you mean, by, Share, is it raining in Fairfield??? I'm not tracking this, either...its a little out there, frankly. Do you mean actual rain, like rain-rain, composed of water, wet, droplets, and all?? Or something else? What did Amma say about water? And is it, in, as in *actually* *in* Fairfield, where the rain would be occurring? What if it comes out of the sky, *above* Fairfield? Is that considered the same thing?? Or blows in as part of a storm, moving south? Seriously. Also, would that be Fairfield, Iowa, Connecticut, Texas, California, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, or Alabama? My intellect is overwhelmed by your lack of precision. I ask rhetorically, again, Share is it raining in Fairfield?, as if *anyone* could reply in a straightforward manner, to such an inquiry, with its loose definitions, and subtly twisted shades of meaning. Share, is it raining in Fairfield?, indeed! I am on to you now, Emily. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Emily, thanks for making it simple for me. Since I'm with my family I don't have as much time as usual to read and respond on FFL. Yes, I think Judy used qualifiers in the example she gave. What I mainly remember is how she initially responded and how she continues to write to and about me. All that outweighs that example she posted. I don't think we are ever going to agree about all this. In that light, I think it's more beneficial for everyone to simply move on to more interesting topics and let all that go. I also recognize that Judy doesn't intend to do this and I'll deal with that as best as I can from day to day. IT'S JUST A CHAT ROOM! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Well, I couldn't figure out my question either. Let me rephrase: Share, do you agree that Judy *did* include qualifiers, including the one you specifically mention (sounds like) in the section of said post below that I have copied to this one? Share, this is a yes/no question. I won't take it any further, I promise. I'm paying attention to the feedback I'm getting on how I have been unfairly critiquing you, and even worse, I am doing this as a non-TM'er! It is true. I am, in fact, the only person posting here currently who has no affiliation with TM, past or present. I am checking the akashic records to make sure that past really means past. I will consult with a fortune teller to determine whether this may be part of my future. In the meantime, I am filling out an application for resident alien status and I will get my jyotish astrological chart read to glean the most fortuitous time to submit it. Why would I go to all this trouble? Well, there is a reason. I think God may have something to do with it, but I will do a little prayer and meditation on the whole affair before I get back to Bhairitu and Emptybill on their very astute questions; I have been here for between 2-3 years now. I *have* been thinking about it, but I'm not that impressed with my mind, honestly. The answer will come and it must be more than I have a right to be here. Judy presented: But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Emily, if you'll forgive me, I can't figure out what this question means; I wouldn't blame Share if she couldn't either: Emily wrote: Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, thanks for making it simple for me. Since I'm with my family I don't have as much time as usual to read and respond on FFL. Yes, I think Judy used qualifiers in the example she gave. What I mainly remember is how she initially responded and how she continues to write to and about me. All that outweighs that example she posted. I don't think we are ever going to agree about all this. In that light, I think it's more beneficial for everyone to simply move on to more interesting topics and let all that go. I also recognize that Judy doesn't intend to do this and I'll deal with that as best as I can from day to day. IT'S JUST A CHAT ROOM! Good point. On that note, I am currently enjoying a bowl of Cheerios and granola with pear and apple cut up on top. I had some Earl Grey tea earlier which I thoroughly enjoy in the mornings. I will probably try and stop in at Alexander's to grab a chai tea latte before I have to rush to work after riding. I hope your visit with your family is a pleasant one, Share. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Well, I couldn't figure out my question either. Let me rephrase: Share, do you agree that Judy *did* include qualifiers, including the one you specifically mention (sounds like) in the section of said post below that I have copied to this one? Share, this is a yes/no question. I won't take it any further, I promise. I'm paying attention to the feedback I'm getting on how I have been unfairly critiquing you, and even worse, I am doing this as a non-TM'er! It is true. I am, in fact, the only person posting here currently who has no affiliation with TM, past or present. I am checking the akashic records to make sure that past really means past. I will consult with a fortune teller to determine whether this may be part of my future. In the meantime, I am filling out an application for resident alien status and I will get my jyotish astrological chart read to glean the most fortuitous time to submit it. Why would I go to all this trouble? Well, there is a reason. I think God may have something to do with it, but I will do a little prayer and meditation on the whole affair before I get back to Bhairitu and Emptybill on their very astute questions; I have been here for between 2-3 years now. I *have* been thinking about it, but I'm not that impressed with my mind, honestly. The answer will come and it must be more than I have a right to be here. Judy presented: But this is what I want to discuss with you today, since you didn't respond to what I told you yesterday. You wrote: She said that I did such and such in my post to RWC. She did not qualify with in my opinion or it sounds like or even I think. In fact, I said: After all the lovely conversations you'd had with him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had decided you were going to suspend communications altogether because of a single remark sure sounded like you had felt seriously insulted. AND: Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* misunderstanding and apologized at length. Then you wrote: Of course she didn't ask me if I was doing such and such. She just declared that I did such and such as if she could see inside my head and know, without error, what I had been thinking and feeling. In fact, I said: And now you seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's left you a public apology. AND: I couldn't figure out either what your problem was with what he had said. AND: For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so snarky. Now, let's see if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that what you claimed yesterday about my September 9 post was not true. (Let's just look at what you said about it yesterday, and not try to avoid that issue by shifting attention to the merits of the arguments back then, OK?) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Emily, if you'll forgive me, I can't figure out what this question means; I wouldn't blame Share if she couldn't either: Emily wrote: Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Share tries her hardest to create confusion: Emily, thanks for making it simple for me. Since I'm with my family I don't have as much time as usual to read and respond on FFL. Yes, I think Judy used qualifiers in the example she gave. No, I gave no example, Share. Rather, I quoted a post of mine that you had said false things about, for the purpose of showing that they were false. And there is no I think about whether I used qualifiers in that post. I did use qualifiers in that post (not example), contrary to your claims in your post on Sunday about that post of mine. Emily quoted my post quoting your Sunday post, and the post of mine your Sunday post was about, below if you need to refresh your memory, but it couldn't have been clearer. What I mainly remember is how she initially responded and how she continues to write to and about me. All that outweighs that example she posted. No, no, Share. You are obfuscating. The post of mine I quoted from September 9, 2012, was the one you were referring to in your own post on Sunday. That post of yours from Sunday said things that were not true about that post of mine. The post of mine that you referred to and said false things about was my initial response to your own post of September 9, 2012, about your kerfuffle with Robin. You claimed in your post Sunday that my September 9, 2012, post was the first time I had run [my] game on you. It isn't true that that was the first time we clashed, but I'm not going into that for now. The issue of concern to me is the false things you said about that post on Sunday, and your refusal to take responsibility for doing so, including your attempt to obfuscate the whole business in your post that I'm responding to now. The notion that there was some example post is a deliberate obfuscation; so is your apparent claim that there was some initial post different from the one you said false things about. We are talking about one single post of mine, not three or more. I don't think we are ever going to agree about all this. There is no issue of agreement, only of facts as reflected in the FFL archives. You said things that were not true about a post of mine; I proved they were not true. It isn't a matter of anybody's opinion. Each of us created the respective posts in question by typing the words we wanted to say in them with our own fingers on our own keyboards. In that light, I think it's more beneficial for everyone to simply move on to more interesting topics and let all that go. Here's how we do that, Share: You admit that you said things that were false--factually false--about that post of mine of September 9. (It would be nice if you'd also apologize for saying those false things, but I don't believe you're capable of it.) Once you've taken responsibility for your own words, we can let all that go. I also recognize that Judy doesn't intend to do this and I'll deal with that as best as I can from day to day. There's no need for you to deal with it from day to day. You only have to deal with it once, as I just outlined. Whatever may go on from day to day will be a function of your not having dealt with it. IT'S JUST A CHAT ROOM! False and derogatory things said about other people in chat rooms are just as false, and just as morally and ethically reprehensible, as false and derogatory things said about other people anywhere else. We don't get excused from the responsibility to speak the truth just because we're in a chat room. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Well, I couldn't figure out my question either. Let me rephrase: Share, do you agree that Judy *did* include qualifiers, including the one you specifically mention (sounds like) in the section of said post below that I have copied to this one? Share, this is a yes/no question. I won't take it any further, I promise. I'm paying attention to the feedback I'm getting on how I have been unfairly critiquing you, and even worse, I am doing this as a non-TM'er! It is true. I am, in fact, the only person posting here currently who has no affiliation with TM, past or present. I am checking the akashic records to make sure that past really means past. I will consult with a fortune teller to determine whether this may be part of my future. In the meantime, I am filling out an application for resident alien status and I will get my jyotish astrological chart read to glean the most fortuitous time to submit it. Why would I go to all this trouble? Well, there is a reason. I think God may have something to do with it, but I will do a little prayer and meditation on the whole affair before I get back to Bhairitu and Emptybill on their very astute questions; I have been here for between 2-3 years now. I *have* been thinking about it, but I'm not that impressed with my mind, honestly. The
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
As demonstrated on this forum, at least, Share's makeup prevents her from taking personal accountability for her words or actions. This isn't a criticism, it is simply a fact based on hundreds of examples she has provided in black and white. To ask her to do that is a waste of time. It has *never* happened; doesn't matter if the proof is right in front of her. I do believe that if Share said It is raining and I said Did you say it was raining, Share?, she wouldn't be able to answer with yes. Don't worry Share, I won't ask. I will stop interacting with you, as I understand how you perceive me. I am responsible for asking you to be accountable and giving you feedback on that front. Maybe we define the word differently. How do you define it? Wait, there I go again, criticizing you. My bad. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I remind Share before she falls for it how pissing contests tend to end?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Feste sputtered: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. Is this you trying to write as if you were me? If by say exactly what you think they ought to say you mean try their best to be honest and accurate, you're quite correct. I gather you don't agree that folks ought to strive to be be honest and accurate, right? You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? You know, in all the other groups I've ever been a part of (not just on the Web but in real life as well), it was taken as a given that people should be as honest and accurate as they could be. I guess if I'm really kind of nuts, all those people have been as well. Imagine anyone holding honesty as a value! Just insane. Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. I'm involved in the situation, and I thought Ann put it perfectly. In fact, I think Ann gave Share an idea of how she could manage to worm her way out of the very bad spot she'd gotten herself in. She's not quite there yet, but she's taken (I think) a first step in that direction. It was a very compassionate comment on Ann's part. At any rate, I sure was correct in my prediction below, wasn't I? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Correction: To ask her to do that is a waste of my time currently. Maybe later. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: As demonstrated on this forum, at least, Share's makeup prevents her from taking personal accountability for her words or actions. This isn't a criticism, it is simply a fact based on hundreds of examples she has provided in black and white. To ask her to do that is a waste of time. It has *never* happened; doesn't matter if the proof is right in front of her. I do believe that if Share said It is raining and I said Did you say it was raining, Share?, she wouldn't be able to answer with yes. Don't worry Share, I won't ask. I will stop interacting with you, as I understand how you perceive me. I am responsible for asking you to be accountable and giving you feedback on that front. Maybe we define the word differently. How do you define it? Wait, there I go again, criticizing you. My bad. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although goodness knows, she doesn't need any help doing that.) And good grief, I've let lie far more than I've ever taken up on this forum, as Barry well knows. I'm not going to let this one lie, though. Share can either acknowledge her (Barry-inspired, gratuitous, thoroughly mean) untruthfulness now, or continue to be confronted with it over and over until she does. Note to Barry: This is about the misrepresentation of facts. Nothing to do with opinions per se, sorry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Ah. Demonstrating once again that she can't let *anything* lie, and feels compelled to start it back up again and try to turn it into one of her endless tarbaby arguments, Judy challenges Share to a pissing contest. Might I
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
You misunderstand. I meant that Ann is not involved in the situation, not you. By kind of nuts, I mean your relentless obsession with small, unimportant details, your inability to let go of anything in the way that a normal person would. Quite frankly, you often sound like a patient in a mental hospital -- a kind of maniac who lacks a proper sense of balance in her interactions with others and who therefore stands out in a crowd as, well, kind of nuts. I'm sorry I can't deliver a kinder verdict because, as I have said before, I actually like you, although I'm glad I am not married to you. That would be hard. Have a wonderful day, auth, and remember, it's only a chat forum. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Feste sputtered: Oh, auth, you want to control everyone's responses so they say exactly what you think they ought to say. You seem to demand it as a kind of self-validation: you are right and everyone must acknowledge how right you are and how wrong your dishonest opponents are. They are disreputable human beings and must be denounced by the entire community. Is this you trying to write as if you were me? If by say exactly what you think they ought to say you mean try their best to be honest and accurate, you're quite correct. I gather you don't agree that folks ought to strive to be be honest and accurate, right? You're kind of nuts, really. Has anyone ever pointed that out to you? You know, in all the other groups I've ever been a part of (not just on the Web but in real life as well), it was taken as a given that people should be as honest and accurate as they could be. I guess if I'm really kind of nuts, all those people have been as well. Imagine anyone holding honesty as a value! Just insane. Regarding Ann's post, I gave it the reply it deserved. It's very easy to smugly decide what you think others should say when you are not yourself involved in the situation. I'm involved in the situation, and I thought Ann put it perfectly. In fact, I think Ann gave Share an idea of how she could manage to worm her way out of the very bad spot she'd gotten herself in. She's not quite there yet, but she's taken (I think) a first step in that direction. It was a very compassionate comment on Ann's part. At any rate, I sure was correct in my prediction below, wasn't I? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You know, Feste, Share just loved it when you said a few days back that you hadn't been happy with her attack on Ann. She told you so herself; remember? Today you have a chance to give Share an even bigger thrill by making it clear you don't approve of the way she's trying to wiggle out of all the errors of fact she made yesterday about my September 9 post of last year. I have the sneaking suspicion you're going to say anything you can think of to avoid doing that, though. Saving face (yours and Share's) is much more important to you (and her) than being truthful and taking responsibility. So you dumped on Ann instead. But it's still early; maybe you'll prove me wrong yet. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: That's a great idea, Ann! Why don't we all write as if we are someone else -- then we can show how much wiser and better we are in every respect than the individual we are impersonating! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, we remember it differently. That's all there is to it imo. I read this and, just as an experiment, I thought about what I would write if I were you (but really me) in this situation. Here is what, to the best of my ability putting myself in this situation, I would have written, as Ann: Judy, I obviously remembered this differently which is an interesting fact in and of itself since I would have to question myself why that would/could be. However, putting that aside for the moment and based on your clear documentation of exactly how our conversation went down back in September I would have to say that I was wrong in accusing you of what I did. Now, when reading that post that you dissected above I was able to see that, in fact, you did account for the fact that you were postulating and wondering, not, in fact, passing a big judgment on me. You were seeming to explore the situation and wondering about it. I mean, it is written right there in front of me so I would have to ask myself why I did not remember it that way. Figuring that out could take more time. I'm sorry if (and it appears I did) misrepresent the interaction we had back then. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 9:47 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Barry, of course, is actually encouraging a pissing contest by advising Share to refrain from acknowledging reality. (Although
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
I am glad you enjoyed those Share. Curtis has been gone a long time now though, although I am curious about what he thinks of Robbie Robertson. Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: For example, Emily, you used to have some interesting exchanges with Curtis, I think about music. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:45 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Emily, if you'll forgive me, I can't figure out what this question means; I wouldn't blame Share if she couldn't either: Emily wrote: Here is a second question for you: How to you remember the posts that Judy wrote differently than she wrote them? No, this is not a setup. I am genuinely curious and will take what you say at face value.
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: For example, Emily, you used to have some interesting exchanges with Curtis, I think about music. Amazing what a simple comma placement can accomplish. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:45 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: O.K. Share, let's try one more time. Re: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts... Share: What posts of mine did you used to find interesting? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Jeez! Now Emily has gone bonkers too! On Sunday, December 1, 2013 2:33 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Oh, I'd forgotten about this one. Barry ordered: STOP be a codependent in all of this. YOU can stop it all by just cutting them out of your life. Ann commented: Says Barry in an attempt to fan the flames. Oh, how fun is this Barry? Just up your particular alley. You are such a hypocrite, oh wise sage. Yes, and cutting us out of his life has worked so well for Barry, hasn't it? He never mentions us, and we never mention him. snicker
RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
Ah ha ha ha ha ha. My kid thinks I am crazy as a loon, given all this laughing at my computer screen. Yes, Doctor, you have me figured out. I was pulling a fast one on Share, but I am sure that she will exercise those traits that Feste mentionedacceptance, forgiveness, letting goand let me have this one. Wait, she called me bonkers! Well, I've been called worse so that's O.K. too. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Emily, I empathize with Share -- For example, let's take that first sentence: What, exactly, do you mean, by, Share, is it raining in Fairfield??? I'm not tracking this, either...its a little out there, frankly. Do you mean actual rain, like rain-rain, composed of water, wet, droplets, and all?? Or something else? What did Amma say about water? And is it, in, as in *actually* *in* Fairfield, where the rain would be occurring? What if it comes out of the sky, *above* Fairfield? Is that considered the same thing?? Or blows in as part of a storm, moving south? Seriously. Also, would that be Fairfield, Iowa, Connecticut, Texas, California, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, or Alabama? My intellect is overwhelmed by your lack of precision. I ask rhetorically, again, Share is it raining in Fairfield?, as if *anyone* could reply in a straightforward manner, to such an inquiry, with its loose definitions, and subtly twisted shades of meaning. Share, is it raining in Fairfield?, indeed! I am on to you now, Emily. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
RE: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Why FFL isn#39;t more interesting, in one graphic
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Emily, I empathize with Share -- For example, let's take that first sentence: What, exactly, do you mean, by, Share, is it raining in Fairfield??? I'm not tracking this, either...its a little out there, frankly. Do you mean actual rain, like rain-rain, composed of water, wet, droplets, and all?? Or something else? What did Amma say about water? And is it, in, as in *actually* *in* Fairfield, where the rain would be occurring? What if it comes out of the sky, *above* Fairfield? Is that considered the same thing?? Or blows in as part of a storm, moving south? Seriously. Also, would that be Fairfield, Iowa, Connecticut, Texas, California, Illinois, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, or Alabama? My intellect is overwhelmed by your lack of precision. I ask rhetorically, again, Share is it raining in Fairfield?, as if *anyone* could reply in a straightforward manner, to such an inquiry, with its loose definitions, and subtly twisted shades of meaning. Share, is it raining in Fairfield?, indeed! I am on to you now, Emily. Doc, you just reminded me why I love you so much. If this is enlightenment I'll take half a pound and wrap it up. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote: Conversation between Share and Emily: Share: It's raining in Iowa. Emily: Share, is it raining in Fairfield? Share: Emily, I heard it on the news today that it's raining. Emily: Share, is it raining outside your door? Share: Emily, the Farmer's Almanac says that it will be raining this winter. Emily: Share, I'm asking you if it is raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Barry: Share, Emily is one of Ravi's minions so disregard her, and btw, STFU, you are causing all this. Emily: Share, does it upset you that Barry just told you to STFU? Share: Emily, Barry is like a half-brother to me. Also, Jon Grayweather, who is an expert on what women want out of sex, says that having sex in the rain is good for pitta types. Emily: Share, are you a pitta type? Bhairitu: Share, have you tried juicing grass? It's very good for pitta types. Richard: Share, I went to Whole Foods today and bought spinach. Share: Richard, there is a Whole Foods in Iowa and I will be going next week. Emily: Share, is it raining in Iowa today? Share: Emily, you are honing in on my conversation with Richard in a mean and spiteful way. Emily: Share, *you* said it was raining in Iowa today, I just wanted to know if it was raining in Fairfield and specifically outside your door. Share: Emily, you are being repetitive and vicious and critical and negative and I am only responding in-kind. You are one of Judy's minions and I hate her so I hate you too. I will stand up for myself. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: What's unfortunate is that Emily used to wrote some interesting posts but once she got on Judy's bandwagon she's become imo sort of repetitive. On Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:22 AM, anartaxius@... anartaxius@... wrote: Authfriend's modus operandi: A falsis principiis proficisci. (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
