--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@...> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" > lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- 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. 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. > > > > > > Such noble words, but applied so selectively to only people you deem > > > deserving a fair hearing. > > > > > > > Is that a fact? Prove it. > > > Raunch, > You have on at least on one occasion slandered someone, and when it was > pointed out that you made an entirely inaccurate statement about this > person you refused to back down or issue an apology. > So when you talk about how we must be honest with ourselves and others, > I find this to be empty rhetoric on your part. >
If you going to slander me, back it up with a specific instance or apologize. Fact: I made a case for honesty. Your opinion: It was empty rhetoric. Fact: You confuse fact with opinion and conflate the two in the same sentence. Evidence? Read what you just wrote. That's enough therapy for one day, Steve. Session over. Five cents, please.
