Judy, I *almost* wrote a fragment-by-fragment response to your fragment-by-fragment counter arguments to everything I'd offered (in what I called the "right spirit") in response to RD's questions. I say *almost* because I caught myself before getting hopelessly lost in the blackhole, then I cancelled the beginnings of my counters to your counters ad nauseum infinitum. The reason I did this is because the two of us can go no further in this particular discussion because you just cannot (or will not) "hear" what I'm "saying". For someone who prides herself in her editing skills (and I'm sure you're very good at what you do), it is your *comprehension* skills that are lacking. It's like a "wall of Judy truth" exists, and unlike the Berlin Wall, just won't come down. Did anything I wrote make any sense whatsoever to you? There is nothing further to be gained by me in this discussion so I'm bowing out in what I hope is a graceful manner, but not before getting a few digs in. And BTW, I *do* think things through, and I *do* use my brain. You might not believe it, but I put alot of thought and time into most of my responses and they really come from a good place inside me (well, that is, until I post something stupid like "When did the word 'bitch' get to be a bad thing?").
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > > wrote: > <snip> > > > > > Is wts Share's fantasy? > > > > I'm thinking one might refer to FFL having *similarities* > > to WTS (hence lowercase letters used) particularly if that > > person feels like she's being "confronted" on an internet > > forum very much like what happened in the WTS cult. > > That isn't what she means by it. See here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/325721 > > People are "confronted" all the time on Internet forums. > FFL is no different than most others in that regard. > > <snip> > > And I'm probably right in saying that the *relentlessness* of > > the questions and opinions coming from *many* directions within > > hours, if not minutes, of each other are two similarities that > > might make any intelligent person feel that way. > > That's absurd. "Timing" is not significant on that small > a scale. It's not the case that we are all sitting in front > of our computers reading and responding on FFL 24 hours a > day. People have different schedules and pop in at > different times. Posts closely adjacent to one another in > time are almost always a matter of coincidence. > > Plus which, of course, the same thing happens on many if > not most other Internet forums; FFL is by no means unique > in that regard. > > You really are not thinking things through here, laughinggull. > > It's simply not the case that because a significant number > of FFL members have nearly identical negative opinions of > her, it must be because Robin is trying to create a cult > for himself on FFL. > > <snip> > > > > > Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? > > > > At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671 > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327671>, > > she writes: "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..." > > For the record, Share does *exactly the same things*. > > > Notice she goes on to define what psychological rape means to > > her therefore if what Judy is doing falls within that > > definition, then to Share, Judy is "doing the psychological > > rape thing." > > So let's see, if I define terrorism as calling someone a > jerk, and you call me a jerk, does that mean it's reasonable > for me to call you a terrorist? > > JESUS, laughinggull, USE YOUR BRAIN. "Psychological rape" is > a term that, like "wts," Share uses to insult people she > doesn't like. The terms have no validity of their own. > > > I like Xeno's take on this at the end of > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694> > > when he writes: "When someone talks of psychological rape, > > this does not necessarily mean they have a victim mentality, > > they might only mean they feel the attempt has been made. > > Share seems to be taking the stance that she is not going to > > put up with it, even if the attempt is made." > > You will probably eventually learn that Xeno's version of > what people have said on FFL is often not accurate. Here is > Share's first use of the term: > > "Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset > initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post. Being > psychologically raped didn't feel good then just as it > doesn't feel good now." > > So not just an "attempt" at psychological rape. She is > claiming she *was* psychologically raped. > > BTW, she did not get "so upset initially with Robin about the > Russian flash mob post." Initially she attributed her > misunderstanding of what Robin had said to "grumpiness" and > the fact that she had eaten some sugar the day before, and > she apologized for taking it out on him. > > It was only several days later that she "suspended > communications" with him over her misunderstanding. He had > previously explained what he had meant and apologized to > her for having been "ambiguous" (except that he hadn't been > at all ambiguous; he was bending over backward to avoid > making her feel bad about her misunderstanding). > > But she insisted at the time that she had never been upset > or hurt by what he had said. It was a month later that she > came out with the "psychological rape" accusation, and she > has insisted since then what she had earlier denied, that > she had been terribly upset initially. > > That's the kind of thing those of us who have been paying > attention are concerned about with Share. Here are two > detailed posts I wrote about all this, with links to other > relevant posts: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321880 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/325657 > > > > > > Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings > > > > > to her without explicitly saying how or what they were? > > > > Probably, but then again, Judy does that to most of her > > "opponents" in order to "fluff" her argument. > > Au contraire, Pierre. I am almost always explicit about > why I attribute "thoughts and feelings" to others. > > > Again, I'll defer to Xeno again at > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327694 > > And again, you'll be wrong, because Xeno is not a reliable > resource where FFL happenings are concerned. > > <snip> > > Judy is very heavy on characterising her opposition's arguments > > and states of mind in a way that I interpret is to demean them, > > without supporting fact. (Then he lists several examples.) These > > are all characterisations attributing motives, with strong > > emotional flavours, to others. > > Actually only three of that list attribute motives: > > 'intent to hurt people' #327646 > 'terrified of being irrelevant' #324343 > 'is so terrified of strong women' #306217 > > The first one is about Share, and she's already admitted > she sometimes intends to hurt people, so that's no big > whoop. > > The last two are about Barry, and I'm sorry, anyone who > tries to criticize me for attributing motives to Barry > without also criticizing Barry for attributing motives > to all the people he dislikes--much more often and much > less reasonably than I do--just has nothing sensible to > contribute to a discussion. > > <snip> > > As far as "explicitly saying how or what they were", I've > > seen Judy write that she's not going to do anyone's homework > > for them when an "opponent" demands that she state examples > > to support her accusations. > > No, actually you have not seen this. If you think you have, > find posts of mine in which I do this. > > <snip> > > As far as private email communications, why they were cut off, > > etc. etc., what makes you think that Robin's understanding of > > the sequence of events isn't the *mis*understanding? > > Pay attention, please. Raunchy is talking about *public posts* concerning the > cutoff of private communications. > > <snip> > > And if I may be so bold to opine: RD, your prejudices are > > really showing in your assumptions in the above question. > > And I'll be so bold as to opine that you have done a very > sloppy job of this, laughinggull. You've gotten stuff > factually wrong, and you've come to ridiculous conclusions > because you haven't thought them through properly. You're > much too sure of your grasp of the issues involved. >
