--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Hey Judy how about acknowledging that you got a detail wrong > when you said I had replied to 2 questions and I had actually > replied to 3?
Hey, Share, how about acknowledging all those mistakes (not trivial ones) you made in that exchange we had a couple of weeks ago? Let me suggest to you that demanding that others acknowledge things in your posts is not your best approach, given your own habits of response. It looks too much like inadvertent irony. (Also, if you're going to comment on many posts in one post, please at least have the courtesy to identify the posts by post number or URL so they can be looked up easily.) I did acknowledge your third question. Take another look at my post. I also pointed out that you didn't answer one of Ann's about whether what was taking place was a feud, or something else. You excused yourself from answering her four other questions by claiming she was asking them of herself, which didn't make much sense since she had directed all her questions at you; but you couldn't even use that excuse for the one about whether there was a feud. No response from you here. How about acknowledging that? > Another detail you got wrong is about the Hatfields and McCoys. > It was I not Ann who introduced this reference. You are correct on that one. > I asked you for the wiki url as a joke. Yes, a little sarcasm on my part. > And thirdly, I said that I didn't understand Robin and > that is what I meant. > > It's also true that I would understand him less as the > amount of his words increased. You didn't say that. You said he was "less understanding to me as the number of words increases." That was a non sequitur in context, both because we were talking about your understanding him, not him being understanding to you; and because what you hadn't understood was a pretty short paragraph. > Replying to other posts from Mon; all times noted are Central time: > > Mon 5:04 pm > I've never felt Curtis trying to make me compliant. Oh, I believe you. Of course, I never said he was. > AND disagreeing with Robin does not equal being compliant > with Curtis. It does if what Curtis wants is for you to disagree with Robin. > Mon 6:43 pm > > Everyone here, including you does what you accuse Curtis > of. Defending friends and criticizing enemies. Of course they do. Now see if you can figure out what my point was. You may need to actually read what I wrote. > And actually I've not seen you criticize friends, as you > purport to do You may well not have. Can you think of a reason why that might not be very good evidence that I haven't? > , not even those who can be over the top sometimes. Obviously that's a meaningless claim without specific examples that everyone would agree were "over the top" and thus deserving of criticism. > Mon 8:33 pm > IF the statement I made about psychological rape says > everything about me, THEN I'd say the following statement, > especially the "needed to be stepped on" part, says > everything about you: "Sal is small potatoes, just a nasty, > unpleasant, not-too-bright little person who needed to be > stepped on from time to time when she got above herself." Sorry, Share, that doesn't fly. Those two statements are not even remotely equivalent. > Mon 9:11 AND 9:35 pm > You accuse Curtis of exactly what you did! Butt in when > Robin and I were trying to work out something delicate. > Very delicate interpersonal negotiations is how you describe > it the 9:35 post. > > Where was that understanding when it was really needed > during the Russian flash mob upset?! BIG difference, Share. Curtis was trying to disrupt those negotiations and turn you against Robin; I was trying to get you to be more understanding of Robin. Which do you think would be more likely to help bring about a resolution between you? Yet you've objected to *my* butting in but not to Curtis butting in. You're as bad a hypocrite as he is. > Tuesday 12:52 am > I did not discuss psychological rape with anyone before I > wrote it. Neither friends nor family nor counselor nor poster. Well, I can't prove otherwise. > Everything that I said about my state at the time of Russian > flash mob post was true. I.e.: (1) that you were just grumpy from eating sugar (2) that you hadn't been hurt or insulted (3) that you didn't consider Robin to have been cruel or hurtful (4) that he psychologically raped you All four are true, that's what you're saying? Share, I'm sorry, but that just isn't sane. > What has altered my perception of Robin over time is how he > handled the upset between us. He handled it like the kind, honest, straightforward, and loving man that he is. All the twisting and hatred has occurred on your side. Just as with Lord Knows, the real psychological rapist here is not Robin but YOU. > And I'm not talking about lack of communication skills here. > I'm talking about continuing to complicate matters in more > ways than one. And continuing to ignore what I actually say, > especially in terms of reconciliation. Well, that's final proof that Share is living in La-la Land. Share, it was you who ignored what Robin actually said. Over and over and OVER again, you completely disregarded what he was telling you. You never engaged with it. If you had, it would never have become so complicated. That is the "habit of response" I referred to in the parenthetical at the top. You tend not to engage with anything the tiniest bit challenging. You did it with Robin, you've done it with me, you did it with Ann and with others. > TO RAUNCHY > I don't understand Spanish either. Portuguese. > TO XENO > I don't mind Robin saying that reality is asking something > and there is a should involved. What I mind is his saying > that he is the one who has THE accurate take on that. He doesn't say that, Share. Shame on you.
