Oh you are too kind, Mr. Ravi but evidence shows that I wear pink and as we know any woman over age of 6 who wears pink should be avoided like the plague. According to Mr. Wright but I am not taking the time to locate that post. See, another reason to exclude me from auspicious grouping.
PS I remember you from other funny forum, Buddha At Gas Pump aka Batgap aka Bat. Seems so long ago... ________________________________ From: Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.r...@gmail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Verification of the Claims made by Lord Knows May be get Kurt Warner back :-) - what's a little put down between friends huh? Anyway be good - stay away from those three women, I tell ya. Perhaps stick to Emily, Share and Obba? - no offense, not meant in any condescending way, Emily, Share and Obba - more like Kali vs Durga perhaps? - you know what I mean :-) On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM, seventhray1 <steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >Hey Ravi, >Thanks for the friendly tone, even if it's just a pretty big put down. No >worries. I just read a post of Robin's that puts things in a little different >perspective for me. And I made some apologies. No, I don't really do Fantasy >Football. Our football team is pretty lackluster. Maybe that's why we've >(the family) have become more hockey fans. Well that and the free tickets. >You're right Rav, I'm tired and I need to go to bed. >Your kind thoughts will help in that regard. Love ya Brother. > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> >wrote: >> >> Steve - look I hate it as well that Olympics have ended as well. >> Considering I bought an Oakley Team USA Sunglasses with a coupon that >> equates to number of gold medals won by Team USA which I hoped would get me >> a good discount off the Rayban I have been eyeing - anyway it's 46. >> >> So yeah - look you are just tired and you don't even seem to realize that >> you have actually accused Judy of slander - OMG - hilarious this. You just >> need to go to bed my friend. Let me tell me you - these gals - Judy, Ann >> and Raunchy - whew - I guess the term you wanted to use in your earlier >> mail was loser right? You feel like a loser along with iranitea and others? >> I feel for ya man. >> >> Anyway football season is starting soon - Yaay !!! The scores should be >> interesting - do you play fantasy football - hey I can join you if are in >> any one of these fantasy leagues. >> >> Anyway as a friend I had to watch out for you. >> >> Good night. >> >> Love ya >> >> Ravi. >> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM, seventhray1 steve.sundur@...wrote: >> >> > ** > >> > >> > >> > Raunch, I may have many faults. And I do hold loyalty to my friends to be >> > a most important virtue as you demonstrate to Judy. But I would hope that >> > if I slandered someone inadvertently, and it was pointed out to me, I would >> > have the integrity and courtesy to apologize to that person either directly >> > or in absentia. >> > >> > But that's just me. And when I observe that such a person does not have >> > that integrity, it sort lowers the esteem I have for them, even though they >> > may have many other admirable traits. >> > > >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" raunchydog@ wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ >> > > > wrote: >> > > > snip >> > > > >> > > > > God, you're dishonest. Nobody is asking or expecting to be >> > > > > granted omniscience. Common sense is all that's needed in >> > > > > this case. You obviously don't have it. >> > > > I think this is the reason you are 10,000 and 0 in terms of winning >> > > > arguments on the various forums in which you participate. When all else >> > > > fails, you are able to tell the person you are jousting with, what they >> > > > are actually feeling and what they actually mean to say. That, and the >> > > > fact that you are indefatigable in carrying arguments to absurd >> > lenghts. >> > > >> > > Jousting? What jousting, Steve? You fell off the horse first post out of >> > the gate on this thread. You're tilting at windmills, Don Quixote. I >> > suppose I should let Judy answer for herself, and to be kind I shouldn't >> > take advantage the disadvantaged, but alas, it's hard to resist poking fun >> > at someone who won't stay down for the count. >> > > >> > > > > > don't subscribe to this abilit >> > > > > > > > Most people I know change in the course of 30 years. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > But at any rate, the fact remains that Robin's claim that Vaj >> > > > > > > > never attended Robin's seminars, or met Robin has been proven >> > > > > > > > wrong. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > No, it hasn't been. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Explain this to me Judy. >> > > > > >> > > > > Try reading Robin's posts, Steve. >> > > > I don't blame you for not trying to answer this Judy. Kudos to you for >> > > > that >> > > >> > > Disingenuous. Judy is asking you to do your homework so she can have an >> > intelligent discussion with you. If you had simply said, "The dog ate my >> > homework," it would have been a more honest response. >> > > >> > > > > > Again you and Robin seem to maintain >> > > > > > that it has not been proven that Vaj has attended Robin's >> > > > > > seminars, but yet Robin accepts that word of his lawyer friend >> > > > > > who vouches that Vaj did attend the seminars. Or are you saying >> > > > > > that Vaj attended in person, but not in spirit? I think this is >> > > > > > what Robin is implying, but I'm not sure. Maybe this is the >> > > > > > angle you are taking as well. I would appreciate hearing what >> > > > > > you have to say on this >> > > > > >> > > > > Nobody is taking this angle. >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > If you now wish to change the assertion from, "there is no way >> > > > > > > > Vaj attended my seminars", to "well, okay, Vaj attended my >> > > > > > > > seminars, but he didn't get anything out of them else he would >> > > > > > > > still be showing some emotional residue from that time", be my >> > > > > > > > guest. But I call it back pedaling. But hey, it's one way of >> > > > > > > > saving face, or at least trying to. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Steve, you can't even keep track of who you're addressing >> > > > > > > in this post. You were responding to Ravi's post, and you >> > > > > > > addressed him in your first paragraph; but in the paragraph >> > > > > > > immediately above, you've switched to addressing Robin-- >> > > > > > > without realizing what you were doing. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Judy, this is one of your specialties. I was well aware that >> > > > > > I was, as addressing Robin, when the post was directed to Ravi. >> > > > > > It's called taking a little license. >> > > > > >> > > > > It's called making a really dumb mistake and not being willing >> > > > > to admit it. >> > > > Judy, your omniscience is showing. >> > > >> > > Doubling down on dumb, isn't a smart move. >> > > >> > > > > But if it intrudes with some need to mock on >> > > > > > your part, then please go ahead. >> > > > > > > That lack of attention is representative of how you involve >> > > > > > > yourself in any controversy here. You simply do not pay >> > > > > > > attention to what's being said. Not that you have to agree >> > > > > > > with it, but you at least have to show that you've taken it >> > > > > > > in and incorporated it into your argument. It's as if you >> > > > > > > read every fifth word and base your conclusions on what you >> > > > > > > get from that. It's just unimaginably shallow and superficial. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I am sorry Judy that this little inconsistency is what you >> > > > > > choose to base you argument on. What is it someone said - >> > > > > > shallow and superficial? >> > > > > >> > > > > Yeah, if you weren't so shallow and artificial you'd know >> > > > > that wasn't what I was basing my argument on. I'm just >> > > > > citing it as one obvious symptom of your lack of attention. >> > > > Seems like you keep bringing it up. >> > > > > > > Are you even aware that what you call "back pedaling" and >> > > > > > > "saving face" in the paragraph above refers to what you >> > > > > > > imagine Robin might say rather than anything he actually >> > > > > > > said? Do you even know you're putting words in his mouth? >> > > > > > > I think by the time you had written those words, you >> > > > > > > forgot they were *your* words and not his, written for >> > > > > > > your purposes of attributing negative motivations to Robin. >> > > > > > > They demonstrate *your* motivations, not Robin's. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Judy, you are in high mocking mode. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm not mocking. I'm dead serious. I notice you were not >> > > > > able to say anything substantive in response to my >> > > > > critique. >> > > > Judy, you are the high arbiter of what is substantive and what is >> > > > trivial. And your word is final and unerring. I am happy to let the >> > > > queen bee sit atop her throne. >> > > >> > > When you're in a hole Steve, stop digging. >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > And I cede that to you. >> > > > > > > Without knowing what you were doing, you've put together >> > > > > > > a fantasy scenario that has almost nothing to do with >> > > > > > > what's been going on in posts that you've supposedly read. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > And besides that, you thought you were speaking to Robin >> > > > > > > when you were actually responding to Ravi! >> > > > > > Ah, Judy. You feel you've really nailed me on this. If only you had >> > > > > > been able to choose something substantial rather than this fantasy >> > > > of >> > > > > > yours. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >
