-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote:
> You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge
> for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or
> not it was a fair fight. >
<(without the benefit of feedback from a public forum)>
M: Another keyboard thrashed with Sumatran coffee with whole milk ejected from
my nose.
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote:
> >
> > Judy's attributing words to me that I did not write or even think is Judy's
> > "alternate approach to supplying subtext"?! Oh, wait, I think I get it.Â
> > You're making a joke. Please tell me you're making a joke. And not
> > twisting into a pretzel to avoid criticizing Judy. Â
> >
>
> It was clear to me from the get go that Judy wasn't quoting anything you
> actually said. That part of my statement still stands. However, Judy
> corrected me: "What I normally do is put "Translation:" before the proposed
> subtext. In this case I was *adding* something to what Share had said
> ("Especially when...") rather than supplying subtext for what she had said,
> so "Translation:" didn't apply. But I knew nobody would think it was
> something she herself had said, so I just left it in quotes."
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320866
>
> Apparently, Judy was fairly confident that nobody would think it was
> something you had *actually* said. IMO your objection to "attributing words"
> to you is a ruse to avoid the larger issue of having "mistakes and
> falsehoods" called to your attention.
>
> >
> > Raunchy, do you really think that the only parameter of fair fighting is
> > keeping discussions out in the open?! I disagree. I think there are
> > others that are at least equally important.
> >
>
> You can fight fairly in private emails as much as you like and you can judge
> for yourself (without the benefit of feedback from a public forum) whether or
> not it was a fair fight. My point is that an open discussion on a public
> forum requires courage and integrity to be truthful with oneself and others.
> Openness keeps people honest, there's no place to hide. It's just you and the
> variety of mirrors of consciousness on the forum reflecting you back to you.
>
> >
> > I notice how you put all of this on me and none of it on Judy, totally
> > ignoring how she responded to my apology. Of course that's what she did
> > with the me and Robin kafufel. Perhaps a requirement to belong to her
> > clique?Â
> >
>
> Judy's response to you is between you and Judy. The "clique requirement" slam
> is wholly gratuitous and also untrue, since I don't know anything about your
> Robin kerfuffle, nor do I care.
>
> > I would say rather if we can't be honest with ourselves, how can we be
> > honest with others. Discerning respected others have told me that I am
> > honest with myself about my shortcomings to a very good degree. Perhaps
> > my memory is not as good as Judy's nor my ability to deal with the sheer
> > volume of posts and archives. But my intention about and devotion to big
> > and little truths is at least as strong as hers, if not stronger. Â Â
> > Â Â
> >
>
> rēs ipsa loquitur
>
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: raunchydog <raunchydog@>
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:56 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to everyone -- writing for the Church of
> > $cientology
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Supplying some mental floss for this exchange and just in case Judy's use
> > > of quotation marks is obfuscating, I'm sure it's not me she is quoting as
> > > I did not write those words.ÃÂ Or even think them.ÃÂ Maybe
> > > herself?ÃÂ Or someone from another decade?ÃÂ
> > >
> > >
> > > PSÃÂ I'd rather be a supposed "pompous, reality-avoiding dormouse" than
> > > a rageful, reality-obfuscating dirty fighter.ÃÂ BTW, The previous
> > > sentence shows the clean fighting way of using quotation marks as the
> > > words enclosed therein were actually written by a FFL poster. ÃÂ ÃÂ
> > >
> >
> > You've got a pretty strong charge going on there, Share. Maybe it's
> > something to reflect upon. It's quite clear to me Judy wasn't quoting
> > anything you actually said. Her alternate approach to supplying subtext,
> > that I've seen her use with Barry, might have been: Says Share, especially
> > disliking the negativity of having her mistakes and falsehoods called to
> > her attention. She really hates that.
> >
> > Seems to me fighting fairly means keeping the discussion out in the open.
> > Private emails, or even the gist of them that leak into the public
> > discussion, Sal's for example, is more likely to engender
> > reality-obfuscating as well as mistrust and room to stretch or avoid the
> > truth.
> >
> > "I don't see how anybody can ever hope to get anywhere near the larger
> > Truth if they have no concern for the smaller truths of everyday life,
> > including on this forum. If we can't be honest with each other, how can we
> > ever be honest with ourselves?" ~J. Stein
> >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: authfriend <authfriend@>
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:10 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:to Judy & everyone -- writing for the Church
> > > of $cientology
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My apologies to everyone including Judy for my part in
> > > > this disagreement.ÃÂ If anyone has questions or concerns
> > > > about my part in it or in the one with Robin, again my
> > > > request is that you email me directly for sake of
> > > > sparing the forum any further negativity.
> > >
> > > "Especially the negativity of having my mistakes and
> > > falsehoods called to my attention. I really hate that."
> > >
> >
>
