--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Hey Saly.. > > Thanks for you analysis. But, like Barry, you know little and almost nothing > about me or the situation. > > If you bothered to read before throwing out your analysis, maybe you could > state some criticism that is factual and holds some weight. I'm not out to > get anyone on my side. Regardless, as I stated to Barry, your impression is > noted. > > As far as Knapp not being around to defend himself, he can come here and > defend himself if he so desires; it's a public board. > > All that said, the Knapp discussion is pretty much dead at this > point...except that you bring it up here. > > Combining yours and Barry's labels toward me, I am a creepy loon. Loons fly, > they don't creep. > > Happy 2013... > > **************
Sarcasm doesn't become you. You can get as arch as you want about being called creepy, unless you're saying you *didn't* turn up here just to slag off someone who doesn't even post here just to get your grudge viewed far and wide by anyone who might have had contact with J Knapp. The fact you aren't talking about that any more is irrelevant to my or anyone's opinion of your motives in your first posts, you understand yes? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Since I'm obviously one of the people Barry is libeling with > > > the term "cyberstalker," > > > > I can remember when you used to work out what time Barry made > > his first post of the day, you'd then triumphantly post this fact > > as though it proved some point. Dead creepy behaviour, kind of worrying you > > don't have the self-awareness to realise it. Maybe > > Carol shouldn't take your analyses at face value? > > > > But Carol is a bit creepy too, she turns up here simply to rubbish > > someone who isn't around to defend themselves to a bunch of > > people with - what? a presumed shared dislike of TM? Is that what > > this is about, TM gets criticised here and J Knapp does some criticising > > too so therefore there must be something deficient with > > TM critics? Or does she assume we are all good mates and is trying > > to drive a presumed wedge between anyone who might have TM-free > > sympathies? > > > > Whatever it is, it doesn't come across as a public service announcement, > > more like some revenge fantasy. The only thing that's obvious is that she > > needs more therapy to work out why she behaves > > in this peculiar way. I fear that getting Judy on her side will > > only entrench it, you don't find healthy closure from someone who > > has to work out what time her "enemies" get out of bed in the morning when > > they live on the other side of the atlantic. > > >
