--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@> > wrote: > > At great risk of being accused of saying this because you > have stroked my "ego" by being supportive, thanks Steve.
Just for the record, until Ann used the phrase this morning (incorrectly, as I've noted), the notion of people taking a particular perspective in a post because they wanted their egos stroked was the exclusive property of the Curtis-Barry axis. > The need to fabricate comes from a lack of anything newsworthy. > Just like characterizing my POV on the email as lying because > it didn't match Judy's. As Curtis knows, I did not characterize what he said about Sal's email as lying. I said it was *dishonest*, because it attempted to portray the email as no big deal when he knew it was scarily vicious. > It all would have played out a little less silly if Emily had > played ball Played ball with whom, Curtis? > and played her role as the "brutally" aggrieved > party. But instead we exchanged posts and made our points > clear without attacking each other personally. Imagine that > options on FFL? Wait. Is this exchange of posts what Curtis was referring to as him and Emily being "cool"? If so, does he think nobody *read* Emily's post?? Here it is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320148 > Not much to work with there right? That is what has made the > machinations of the ill-will machine so intriguing. Raunchy's > buy-in was no surprise, but I have to admit that Ann's was. > > Your noticing the "WTF?" quality to these accusations makes me > feel a bit of sanity in an otherwise weird morning. Translation: "At least there's one person left on FFL who still hasn't seen through me."
