Your opinions are completely irrelevant on this topic, Barry and not any different from anything we've already heard from you a thousand times.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > Share, Emily's frustration with you isn't it isn't about > > labels, it's about lies and your lack of courage to have > > an intelligent discussion with her that would allow her > > an opportunity to defend herself against your allegations. > > I would like to thank Raunchydog for this definition > of what, in her opinion, constitutes an "intelligent > discussion." It's when someone agrees to argue with > your self so that it can defend things said about its > self that it doesn't agree with. > > In other words, "intelligent discussion" is All About > Ego. > > Someone gets their button pushed by someone else on > the forum. They demand "satisfaction," in the form of > an argument they believe they can "win," and thus > "defend themselves against your allegations." > > When you come right down to it, isn't this a pretty > pissy way to spend one's time? Feeling that one has > to draw other people into confrontations so that you > can "defend" that which does not even exist -- your > self, and your puny attachment to what you think that > self is, and how it should be perceived? > > My feeling is that if someone says something about me, > that's pretty much their business. It does not affect > me unless I allow it to. Seems to me that if you allow > what people say or think about you to affect you so > much that you feel a need to argue about it, that's > your problem, not the problem of the people who blow > you off. >