--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
That's right. But *before* I'd responded to any of your attacks on me that you made after your break. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > > 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. That's why I said, "Right?" I was anticipating, sarcastically, that that's what you'd say. What I was doing in this post was eliminating every possibility that Ravi had attacked you because he was taking cues from me. The timeline of the posts just doesn't support that notion. > > > > 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. Emily didn't misinterpret, and that's not why Robin misattributed the quotes. Plus which, you just agreed that that post of mine was very mild. If it was "lashing out," it was very restrained in that regard. You misunderstood the basis for my response to your "Of course." I tried to explain it to you when you emailed me privately to object, but you didn't get it. I was calling your attention to the absurdity of *Barry's* statement, of its logical structure, not the content. Then I addressed the content by pointing out that his premise was inaccurate as well. Emily was responding to both you and Barry, and what she was objecting to was your *labeling*, whether with NPD or BPD. She used NPD--which Barry had used-- as an example, but she found both labels unacceptable. It was the fact of the labeling, not the specific label, that she was objecting to. The part I snipped from your post would not have made any difference to her objection (or to mine). Again, I tried to explain this to you privately, but you didn't understand. > > > > 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. Which attacks? Ravi's? You just cited them above, the ones about your video. And obviously you didn't miss your own attacks on me. So you aren't making any sense here. > The ones I remember, where after you had gone ballistic. I went ballistic in our *private exchange*, so obviously that couldn't have influenced Ravi. I didn't go after you in public until *after* Ravi did, after your break, in response to the attacks you'd made on me. The single harsh post I made about you before your break was my post to Robin correcting his attributions, the one in which I called what you'd said in your exchange with Barry "slimy." And that was *after* Emily had posted her rant. > 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, He had been making that point all along by contrasting his behavior with what he claimed about his inner state. It didn't come from me. > a very unwholesome argument for him to use. Maybe, maybe not. We have no way of knowing whether it was "unwholesome." In any case, it's idiotic for you to blame it on me. You just made the point *yourself* in another post that MMY had said enlightenment can't be determined from behavior, so why are you even objecting to it? You know, you express yourself in English quite well considering it isn't your native language. But more and more I have the sense that your understanding of what you read isn't adequate to follow what's said in the kinds of conversations that take place here. That's not really your fault; the structure and semantics and implications and nuances of what's said in the discussions are in a sort of specialized style that isn't easy for a nonnative speaker to interpret, unless the speaker is extremely fluent and has a lot of experience reading it. E.g., with my sarcastic question above, "But Emily took her cue from me, right?" a native English speaker wouldn't have responded as you did, because they'd have picked up on the sarcasm. No response was called for, because I went on to answer my own question: No, Emily couldn't have been taking her cue from me. At most they might have responded with something like, "No, that isn't what I was thinking." So I suspect you may be missing more than you realize. It might be a good idea for you not to be so quick to jump to conclusions about what people are saying. When something someone says strikes you as wrong or peculiar, you might try asking, "You said such-and-such. Did you mean [insert your interpretation], or have I misunderstood?"
