--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > > > > No, I haven't read Life Divine. > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going by your description > > > > > > > of it, which, for anyone who understands Robin's POV, > > > > > > > rules out any possible interest on Robin's part. > > > > > > > > > > > > Translation: I have nothing constructive to contribute, > > > > > > > > > > Translation: Letting navashok know he's wrong about something > > > > > is not anything he considers constructive. > > > > > > > > So how exactly would you know he is wrong, not having read > > > > the book? > > > > > > I already told you how. Go back and read what I wrote again, > > > see if you can find it. > > > > You are not saying anything constructive. If you want, why > > don't you just try again? > > First you show me you were able to find where I told you > how I knew you were wrong.
Look at your own contorted sentence. It says really all about you. I am not wrong in the first place. Second, you don't even know why I would suggest the reading to him, because you don't know the book. End of story. Read the article about cyberstalking Barry just posted, it applies to you exactly, and this thread is testimony of it. All you intend is to get me somehow, engage me with your insane tactics, to chase me off the forum, you even admitted this tactic once. This is just so love and perverted. > > > > Navashok thinks that this book, or one of the other books by > > > > Aurobindo, could be useful/interesting to Robin. Why not let > > > > Robin decide, if he follows this suggestion or not? > > > > > > What makes you think I can somehow keep him from deciding > > > whether he wants to read it? > > > > Didn't say this, did I? > > You sure did. "Why not let Robin decide?" Not the same sentence. Yours is twisted (of course) > > > > I haven't been addressing him, > > > I've been addressing you. Robin reads what he wants to > > > read. > > > > Exactly, you are not even in the picture. > > (guffaw) Non sequitur. Yep, it relates, as you said I started a fight with you. > > > > > Since you don't even know about what the book is. > > > > > > See above. > > > > Non sequitur > > Not. Lack of reading comprehension on your part. > > > > > Almost none of your posts is constructive. Because you are > > > > always so guarded to not actually say something concrete, > > > > so you always have a back-door and can twist it later, to > > > > 'win' your arguments. > > > > > > That's a bullshit excuse for your inability to "win" the > > > arguments you start with me. Don't blame me for your > > > problems comprehending English. > > > > > I think you are a little out of sync. This post wasn't addressed > > to you at all, it was to Share, > > (Who hasn't a clue whether Robin would have an interest in > reading Aurobindo.) No need to int interrupt the sentence here. I can very well address something to Share, and something else to somebody else in the same post. Judy, it's exactly this kind of arguing, which makes you so silly. What you try to imply is not said by me in any way. You just deceive and create a smokescreen. I am obviously not the first one to state this here. It doesn't help you, it doesn't help anyone, you just post out early, that's all. > > and mentioned Robin. You weren't > > in the picture at all. So how exactly would I have started an > > argument with you? > > I told you Robin wouldn't be interested, and you started > arguing with me--obviously. So you are now his spokeswoman? He can't talk and decide for himself anymore? You know what? I even believe you. But out of very different reasons than yourself - out of reasons that I have stated much earlier.
