--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > And whether they go out of their way to actively > > *create* suffering in others. To wit, the claim > > recently by one poster that she's "highly empathetic," > > balanced against her often-stated desire to make > > other posters feel bad. She literally *revels* in > > the supposed pain and anguish she "causes" her debate > > opponents to feel. If she were really empathetic, > > wouldn't making them feel bad make *her* feel bad > > as well? > > Turq, the interesting things you have to say from time to > time are diluted by your need to tease Judy.
I understand that. It's just that she's SO teasable. She has her samskaras -- she's RIGHT about everything, and anyone who disagrees is REEEEEEALY REEEEEEALY STOOOOOOOPID and she's smart -- and I have mine. One of mine is deriving joy from puncturing the pompous. Mea culpa. I'm not sure it's gonna change. What I say above IS true. She *does* revel in the idea (the fictional and deluded idea) that her posts cause the people she is debating PAIN. She posts quite often about the anguish and distress that her barbs have caused others. She wraps herself in that distress as if it has "made her day." She has gone so far in the past (on a.m.t., if not FFL) as to say that that's the primary reason she posts; that is *why* she posts. She *gets off* on causing pain and distress in her debate opponents. So when someone like that claims to be "overly empathetic," I'm sorry but for me that's a big, red balloon full of gas that needs to have the nature of its fragility and pretense demonstrated. See the Subject title.
