Share, You got yourself a bogey at six o'clock, and I don't think it's ever going to go away. There is no tactic or maneuver you will be able engage to get this bogey off your ass. I'm sorry.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > As for caring what someone thinks of me, there are many > > posters on FFL whose opinion, including of me, I care > > about. This is also why I reply, especially to Judy's > > accusations. > > Note that Share has not replied to my rebuttal of her > accusations against me. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:08 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy > > > > > > Â > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and have > > > > > continued to do so up to the present. > > > > > > > No, no, Share, generalizations are not acceptable. They're one > > > > of your many ways of avoiding accountability for what you say. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > There are those who see forests and those who see trees. Share > > > seems to be a generalist, a caretaker of forests. You are far > > > more specific, taking care of individual trees. I do not think > > > you two will ever connect. There is something to say for each > > > of these views, but such a divergence between them will never > > > line up as an argument. Your thinking styles are simply not > > > compatible. She cannot understand you, and you cannot understand > > > her, though I suspect you feel you have Share pegged, and she > > > feels she has you pegged. This is an opinion, not a fact. If > > > it were a fact, it would be hopeless to continue, unless > > > bickering is the gold standard for social congress. > > > > That's a compassionate way of seeing things, but I see > > them a little differently. For one thing, I think that > > Share and Judy (and the rest of the pile-on persecutors > > of her) are remarkably ALIKE, in that they all 1) have > > large egos that constantly require stroking, 2) have a > > near-constant need to attract attention, and 3) have > > a near-desperate compulsion to "get in the last word" > > or "win" arguments that don't matter to anyone else in > > the world *but* their large egos. > > > > The fact that Share CARES what any of these bitches > > think of her makes her a perfect victim for their > > assaults, and from her side SHE keeps restarting the > > arguments and thus *making* herself the victim every > > time it dies down, because that gets her attention. > > > > I think it's all a little tacky, and too much like a > > bitchy high school girl clique ( and I include both > > Robin and Ravi as "girls" :-) to watch any of it. It's > > all too predictable at this point, and too Drama Queens > > On Parade to bother with. > > > > Share could stop it at any point by just *letting* the > > cliquebitches have the last word and moving on to more > > sane topics. Then when they tried to restart it again, > > just ignore them again. But she doesn't, because IMO > > 1) she's hungry to be the focus of attention and have > > everything be "all about her," and 2) SHE'S JUST > > LIKE THE WOMEN PILING ONTO HER. > > > > All I can say is that by now my "Next" finger is almost > > worn out from zipping past anything that ANY of them say, > > and I suspect other people's are, too. I just wish the > > whole lot of them would grow up. > > >
