--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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. >
Well, I do it from memory. I will naturally notice more my inclusion in any of his lists then others here, and Ravi was also absent (overposting) for more than a week. AFAIK he started being degaratory to me only when putting my video in the subject line. And that was long, long time after Emily had posted her rant. > > > --- 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? Well, that's not what I said, you are making it up now. > > > Ooops, no, wait. My first response to your exchange > > > with Barry was very mild, hardly denunciatory. Correct. > > > 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. At the time I had to take an announced break, but the basis of this was your very unfortunate snipping of my original post, you know the one, where you started to lash out after my two word 'of course' with the rest of the quote being Barry's, and being entirely out of context, and also being misinterpreted by you and consequently by Emily, and which resulted into a series of mis-attributions of quotes by Barry. > > > 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. Well, I am not aware of those attacks, but I may have missed them. The ones I remember, where after you had gone ballistic. But, anyway he is gone, he also took cues from you in his whole line of argumentation, like you saying, that enlightened ones can't be judged by their behavior, a very unwholesome argument for him to use. > > > 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. > > > > > >
