RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Judy, what do you mean by: taken severely to task and strong community disapproval? Those parts weren't clear yet imo they are what drives you. As best as I can I've read all the posts on this topic. I agree with another poster in that I think people are basically honest. I think they have faulty memories, etc. That's all that happened with regards to my recent post. When you don't like someone, you turn even their spelling mistakes into indications of a deep seated character flaw! Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: On other forums I've been on, dishonest posts were criticized and the dishonest posters taken severely to task by the rest of the group. (On moderated forums, repeat offenders were warned once or twice, then thrown off the forum if the bad behavior continued. I don't recommend that for FFL; I think strong community disapproval would greatly reduce the dishonesty quotient. I mention banning only to point out that many folks consider dishonesty to be utterly unacceptable.) Is that clear enough for you? This is a supposedly spiritually oriented forum. It seems to me that if spirituality is about anything, it's about being truthful. If honesty isn't held as a value, what can it possibly mean to be spiritual? I note that you have not commented on the exposure of the dishonesty in your recent post quoted below. Should I assume this means you think it was perfectly OK to describe it knowingly inaccurately? Share wondered: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. 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. 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. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Re: Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! No Share, not at all. You assume that you know my intentions with that question and you are completely in error as to why I asked the question. I was getting to a curiosity about how you think and feel about the word half-sister. At this point in your relationship, is defining her as a half-sister relevant to how you view your relationship with her? What is a half-sister really, in terms of relationship, and by that I don't mean how she is related to you. For example, I refer to the children my father had with his second wife as my sister and brother; I don't consider them half in terms of my relationship with them. The word gratuitous is defined as uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted. I wasn't criticizing you; I was asking you a question. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, what do you mean by: taken severely to task and strong community disapproval? Those parts weren't clear yet imo they are what drives you. As best as I can I've read all the posts on this topic. I agree with another poster in that I think people are basically honest. I think they have faulty memories, etc. That's all that happened with regards to my recent post. When you don't like someone, you turn even their spelling mistakes into indications of a deep seated character flaw! Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: On other forums I've been on, dishonest posts were criticized and the dishonest posters taken severely to task by the rest of the group. (On moderated forums, repeat offenders were warned once or twice, then thrown off the forum if the bad behavior continued. I don't recommend that for FFL; I think strong community disapproval would greatly reduce the dishonesty quotient. I mention banning only to point out that many folks consider dishonesty to be utterly unacceptable.) Is that clear enough for you? This is a supposedly spiritually oriented forum. It seems to me that if spirituality is about anything, it's about being truthful. If honesty isn't held as a value, what can it possibly mean to be spiritual? I note that you have not commented on the exposure of the dishonesty in your recent post quoted below. Should I assume this means you think it was perfectly OK to describe it knowingly inaccurately? Share wondered: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. 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. 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. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Share wanted to know: Judy, what do you mean by: taken severely to task and strong community disapproval? Those parts weren't clear Share, you're a college graduate, right? Which words did you not understand? (Anybody else out there who read this, did you find it unclear?) yet imo they are what drives you. I have no idea what the hell this means. I've said these things are what I'd like to see happen. It's my goal, of course it drives me. Why would you call it your opinion? As best as I can I've read all the posts on this topic. I agree with another poster in that I think people are basically honest. Yes, I've said the same exact thing. Maybe I'm the other poster you're thinking of. I think they have faulty memories, etc. That's all that happened with regards to my recent post. This sounds promising, but I need you to elaborate on it a little bit. Are you acknowledging that when you made those gratuitous, nasty, false comments yesterday to Barry about my September 9 post, you weren't remembering correctly? And if so, is there something else you need to say to me about it? When you don't like someone, you turn even their spelling mistakes into indications of a deep seated character flaw! Now even Emily is so eager to be negative towards me that she criticized my using the term half sister to refer to the woman with whom I have the same father but a different mother! If that isn't gratuitous criticism, I don't know what is! Neither of these two statements is factually accurate, Share. Bad sign. IMO, given how poor your memory is, especially for things people you don't like have said, if I were you I'd always check the archives to make sure you're representing them accurately. I believe I've made this suggestion to you before. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: On other forums I've been on, dishonest posts were criticized and the dishonest posters taken severely to task by the rest of the group. (On moderated forums, repeat offenders were warned once or twice, then thrown off the forum if the bad behavior continued. I don't recommend that for FFL; I think strong community disapproval would greatly reduce the dishonesty quotient. I mention banning only to point out that many folks consider dishonesty to be utterly unacceptable.) Is that clear enough for you? This is a supposedly spiritually oriented forum. It seems to me that if spirituality is about anything, it's about being truthful. If honesty isn't held as a value, what can it possibly mean to be spiritual? I note that you have not commented on the exposure of the dishonesty in your recent post quoted below. Should I assume this means you think it was perfectly OK to describe it knowingly inaccurately? Share wondered: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. 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. 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. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. 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. 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. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. 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. 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. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
On other forums I've been on, dishonest posts were criticized and the dishonest posters taken severely to task by the rest of the group. (On moderated forums, repeat offenders were warned once or twice, then thrown off the forum if the bad behavior continued. I don't recommend that for FFL; I think strong community disapproval would greatly reduce the dishonesty quotient. I mention banning only to point out that many folks consider dishonesty to be utterly unacceptable.) Is that clear enough for you? This is a supposedly spiritually oriented forum. It seems to me that if spirituality is about anything, it's about being truthful. If honesty isn't held as a value, what can it possibly mean to be spiritual? I note that you have not commented on the exposure of the dishonesty in your recent post quoted below. Should I assume this means you think it was perfectly OK to describe it knowingly inaccurately? Share wondered: Judy, what's the action step? What is it that you'd like to see happen? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: See, this is what happens when a group tolerates dishonesty. When there are no sanctions against it, not even disapproval, even the weaker members start using dishonesty to justify themselves, as Share does here. The more people who feel safe being dishonest, the more a mythical, false story about the group and its members and interactions takes shape and displaces the real one. History, as they say, is written by the winners, so those who care about having an accurate history need to ensure the liars don't win. Here's the post in question; decide for yourselves whether Share's description of it below is truthful (note the many qualifying phrases that Share flatly denies it contained--including, ironically, it sounds like, which she specifically mentions below): http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/319521 Plus which, as I've pointed out before, Share had gotten on my bad side well before this. Share lied: Judy first ran her number on me on Sept 9, 2012. 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. 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. I had never experienced someone communicating like that. It was like a foreign language and as such, I didn't even know how to respond. I've come to think that no matter what anyone says, Judy will not change. In fact, I've come to think that she likes it when she has to fight with everyone.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] Judy Stein#39;s Definition Of What Constitutes A LIE
Bhairitu wrote: Some people on FFL forget it's just a chat group. People express opinions and not dissertations. Some people also lie about all kinds of things, including other participants. I suspect in some families of academics heads were patted if the children did exhaustive research before discussing anything. Funny, not in my family. Patting on the head too much might have resulted in some brain damage. That's the well actually syndrome that you and I observe with some obnoxious techies.
