--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing of > attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then presenting her > ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. > >
Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to you that you did not have. Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says or what you have written. Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your "triggers" and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting point of your defense is based on fantasy. > Concerning making amends: though I continue to do the forgiveness prayers > every day, > til now I've dropped mentioning it since wts also loves to diss on that > so much. > > BTW FFLers I have done my best to spare you all from all the piling on. But > some accusations had to be answered IMO. > > > Concerning my alleged lashing out: of course it's possible that I've been > triggered to the point > of wanting to hurt someone's feelings! Duh! After all I'm not a saint. > Though wts likes to accuse me of either being such or thinking I'm such. > But you know, also accusing me of actually not being such. Isn't it fun > how wts attempts to cover all the bases in this regard?   > > > Anyway, I know I've done my best to state what I believe in a reasonable non > hurtful way. About the latter can you say the same Judy? > > Probably wts will make fun of me for what I'm about to say. But hey > everybody has to have a hobby: > > > For any of my serious accusations, I've agonized over the possibility of > hurting Robin's feelings. My wise others here know this. An example is > the so called stalking issue. I never intended to divulge the information I > did. But Raunchy was giving her so called opinion about my alleged crush on > Robin and stalking behavior. I said what I said not to hurt Robin but to > shed light on her speculations. And the only reason I brought up my crush > on merudanda was to indicate to FFL how off Raunchy's speculations are in > this matter. > > > Anyway, can't resist ending by saying that maybe Judy said EEEK because she > saw PRADi > pompous reality avoiding doormouse inc (-: > > > ________________________________ > From: Alex Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:43 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > wrote: > > > Share has demonstrated very effectively that the last two > > > sentences are bullshit. Either that, or her "best" is > > > appallingly inadequate. When she's under any kind of > > > pressure, and sometimes even when she's just feeling punk, > > > she lashes out repeatedly with the intent to hurt people. > > > She has *no* inhibitions whatsoever about attempting to > > > hurt people, nor has she the slightest interest in making > > > genuine amends. And she writes far nastier snark than > > > Stupid Sal ever did. > > > > This, by the grace of God, was Judy's last post of the week. Oops, I > > guess she's got one more. I wonder what she can do to top this one? > > > > This evening's post count put her at 45, and the post you're commenting on > here was her third after the post count. 45 + 3 = 48. Her post beginning with > "EEEEK!" was number 49. I guess we can add basic arithmetic to your list of > not so strong points. >
