Respect? That would be novel given your penchant for dissing anyone who picks on poor you. I'm honored to be at the top of your shit list. Now stamp your foot and run along.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dude, with all due respect, you're just pissed off > that you aren't interesting enough to have made > either list. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I can't say exactly why Barry or anyone else comes on > > > > FFL, but for me it's a way of relaxing, getting in a few > > > > jokes, making a few sage (as opposed to, say, parsley > > > > or rosemary) observations. I imagine the same *might* > > > > be true for Barry and many others here. > > > > > > Just might. > > > > > > > So, in that spirit, new, if you don't like or agree with > > > > someone or their posting style to the degree that > > > > you appear not to, why not just skip those posts? > > > > > > Two lists of people. First list (not meant > > > to be comprehensive, just a few names that > > > pop to mind): > > > * Rick > > > * Curtis > > > * Sal > > > * Hugo/Richard > > > * Alex > > > * bhairitu > > > * boo_lives > > > * gullible fool > > > * do.rflex > > > * Vaj > > > * Ruth > > > * Dr. Pete > > > * Tom T. > > > * geezerfreak > > > > > > Second list: > > > * raunchydog > > > * Judy > > > * Willytex > > > * Shemp > > > * new.morning > > > > > > First list -- tend to just speak their mind and > > > then let it drop. Rarely get involved in "defending" > > > what they say. Rarely "demand" that people respond > > > to them or "take them seriously." Take themselves > > > lightly. Energy givers. > > > > > > Second list -- speak their minds and wait for, nay, > > > *demand* a response. Get angry if no one responds. > > > Once angry, demand that the people who ignored > > > the profound or provocative things they said before > > > do so now. If someone bites, attempt to steer the > > > conversation to what *they* want to talk about, and > > > call any tangent or variation that the other person > > > wants to talk about a "non-sequitur," as if the other > > > person is somehow supposed to follow *them*, and if > > > they don't, that "doesn't follow." Energy vampires. > > > > > > Where should I spend my time and my energy on this > > > forum, eh? Talking to the people on the first list, > > > or on the second list? > > > > > > Well, duh. > > > > > > > Its not like you ever qualify for inclusion in the second group, > > right Unc? > > > > > > Looking pointedly at how you have divided the group into 2 types > > of people and implicitly criticizing the second group by listing the > > qualities that you feel make them qualify for inclusion while implying > > that you are not a member of the second group merely by raising such > > a topic in the first place. > > > > Everyone (including me) who responds to this thread is > > merely feeding into your own need to qualify for the second > > group while pretending that you are not part of that group you are > > implicitly denouncing. > > > > Are you aware of your own hypocrisy here, I wonder? If you are, then > you are > > even more nasty than you appear to be on the surface. You're playing > games > > with the people in the second group by playing an "us vs them" card > (while > > smirkingly knowing that you yourself are in that second group) and > with the > > people you listed in the first group (the "good guys") AND with > people you left > > out of either group. > > > > Manipulation by division. How sweet of you. > > > > Lawson > > >
