--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > I should point out that this is the third gratuitous, > unprovoked "Get Barry" post of the week *so far* from > THE CORRECTOR.
Guess what? Barry's lying. So far this week, I have made: --One post Sunday morning *in response to* an attack from Barry, so neither gratuitous nor unprovoked. --One post Sunday afternoon in response to Tartbrain's comments on that post that amounted to a couple of mild quips referring back to Barry's attack, so again neither gratuitous nor unprovoked. --The one Barry quotes here, which is obviously only minimally "Get Barry," twitting him about a miswritten phrase, and then providing some info to counter a *general* misimpression about the volcano "cloud," the main reason for my post, which had virtually nothing to do with Barry. So only one post, not three, that could even *vaguely* be counted as gratuitously "Get Barry." The attack of Barry's that I was responding to in the first post made this "prediction": "Watch closely over the next week, and note how many times she feels it necessary to fire off a "Get Barry" post. Then do the same with me with regard to mentions of her." He made that post Friday afternoon. It was the last of a series of *five* posts from him viciously and gratuitously attacking me that began on Thursday. I consider the issue of whether she is > stalking me for no other reason than because she's > obsessed by me closed, and proven. So much for Barry's ability to "consider," "close," and "prove" what he claimed and predicted. He can only do it by lying, and even then he has to drastically shorten the original period his "prediction" covered, from a week to two days (not to mention the five gratuitous and unprovoked attacks of his in the two days before that). Then there's his indirect reference to me as a "stalker" this morning in a post responding to Edg. In fact, so far this week, the score on the "gratuitous and unprovoked" side of the ledger is *two-for-one Barry*. And that's only if he considers himself "gotten" by my tiny dig about his miswritten phrase. I suspect what's going on here is that Barry knew he'd never make it to the end of the week without a bunch of unprovoked attacks on me, so he had to end his "prediction week" prematurely. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Animation of ash cloud over Europe from Iceland's volcano: > > > > http://www2.dmu.dk/atmosphericenvironment/Vulkansky/dreameu_ani.gif > > > > > > Notice in this animation the one country not covered > > > by the cloud. Some have suggested that this is because > > > of the powerful Woo Woo emanating from Sitges. But I > > > think it's because Penelope Cruz was seen sunbathing > > > nude near here recently and no god in his right mind > > > is going to let clouds force *her* to cover up. > > > > (How would clouds "force her to cover up"? Don't you > > mean "to let clouds cover her up"?) > > > > FWIW, as scary as it looks in the animations and on radar, > > the "cloud" is virtually invisible from the ground over > > Europe; it's very high up, and the particles are too tiny > > and too widely dispersed to be seen as a cloud--but they're > > still a serious threat to aircraft. (And they may well > > result in some spectacular sunsets.) > > > > This has been an advisory from: > > > > --THE CORRECTOR--
