Hey, Emily, Judy, Raunchy, It appears all the dudes have gone away this evening. hahaha Look, no post from dudes. See? Check the time and lets count. We rule! We own them! God loves us! Yay for Venus transiting Aquarius! Yay! We won! Let's meet for tea sometime soon, okay? Oh, yeah, Susan too.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Great rules! Maybe if these go across the board, everything will be alright! > > I once had the pissing submarines! You put them in the toilet and sink them. > Potty target. Good link. > Could work. > For some reason, I think we need some adult diapers here too. Ultra > protection. > Us women stay out of it ; ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > Obbajeeba, you're quite right. Indiscriminate pissing on FFLife needs to be > > more accurate. Let's give the dudes something to aim for. How about a > > pissing contest? > > > > Pissing contest rules: > > 1. Dudes only. > > 2. Submit qualifying scores: time, distance, marksmanship. > > 3. Unacceptable targets: women and children. > > 4. Acceptable targets: trees, fire hydrants and each other. > > > > Training equipment: > > http://pottytarget.com/products/ > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > She is awesome even if she does not like Ron Paul. ; ) > > > That does not stop me from seeing her value and reason and respect. > > > : ) > > > Raunchy too. : ) > > > Not like some dudes on this forum who piss the spot with complete teeth > > > grinding bark, protection for their red fire hydrant in multiple layers > > > of consciousness available if only to break through their awareness as > > > something more that tangible, all muddled together 75 foot lead wall with > > > dancing football cheerleaders in cowboy lingerie. > > > Nabby not included. He has some morals about morals. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Impeccable timeline, Judy. How *do* you do it? > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
