--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and Judy? (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the rest of her post? Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and Judy an example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and others have referred. > 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. Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, then follow the "post trail" beginning with the post Share mentions at the top. And you're going to have to put a little work into this...don't expect Share to do your homework for you. > 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. Does "context" count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long ago, you tried to revive the "milk and cookie" debacle by posting the *one* comment taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst possible light. > 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. > > Of course, I realize that I've just "butted in" on a post from RD to Share but I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate from simplicity to complexity then gets completely out of hand when all sides start jumping in. Could that be the intent of the "butter-inners" all along? Couldn't be, because then that would make them very bad people, and we just don't have any bad people on FFL. <snip>
