--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > Impeccable timeline, Judy. How *do* you do it?
Well, when Yahoo Advanced Search is working, it isn't that difficult. Sure couldn't do it just from memory. Does take a bit of back and forth, and it does require familiarity with the search options. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > In fact, you should know, that Ravi takes clues from you > > > > > whom to abuse, and whom to spare. As long as you had > > > > > backed me up, he never mentioned me in an abusive way. > > > > > The moment you started to become critical at me, and > > > > > switched to your 'get-Barry' mode,(which actually > > > > > started first in our off-board exchange after two posts), > > > > > he started abusing me > > > > > > > > Yes, this is the Troika's party line whenever someone > > > > other than me begins to criticize any of them; we've > > > > seen it many, many times. I believe Barry originated > > > > it some time ago. How nice to see you've picked up on > > > > as well. I'm sure you'll get a lot of use out of it. > > > > > > > > Implicit in it is the premise that nobody would *ever* > > > > come independently to any negative conclusions about > > > > any of the Troika and their allies; it wouldn't ever > > > > even occur to anybody that there was anything to be > > > > criticized about them if I hadn't spoken up. > > > > > > > > In this case, Ravi could *never* have read your > > > > exchange with Barry speculating about Robin's mental > > > > health and thought ill of you for it unless he'd > > > > gotten it from me. > > > > > > > > Right? > > > > > > Yes, right. It's a simple observation, Judy can't help it. > > > My accusations to masked zebra where much before, Ravi only > > > started when you gave the signal. > > > > Ravi had been here only intermittently and didn't > > necessarily plow through all the posts when he *was* > > here, so he may well not have seen whatever you're > > referring to. > > > > In any case, if he had really just been taking cues > > from others, he might well have taken his anti-zarzari > > cue from *Emily's* post. > > > > Oh, but Emily took her cue from me, right? > > > > Ooops, no, wait. My first response to your exchange > > with Barry was very mild, hardly denunciatory. It > > wasn't until Robin took after you big-time that I used > > the term "slimy" to refer to your post to Barry. And > > by that time Emily had already given the two of you a > > very thorough tongue-lashing, completely of her own > > accord. > > > > And Ravi didn't start going after you until you'd > > come back after your little vacation. That was *after* > > you'd already made several posts attacking me, but > > before I'd had a chance to respond. > > > > So I'm afraid your theory just doesn't fit the timeline. > > Too bad. > > > > > No clues > > > > The term you want here is "cues," not "clues." > > > > > to take from Barry here. This is a a again your insidious > > > insinuation. > > > > It's a reasonable assumption, given how many times Barry's > > used it (you responded "Bingo" to one such post); and > > Curtis has also used it quite recently. > > >
