--- 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.
You are wrong, and my sentence isn't particularly elegant,
but it isn't "contorted." Your reading comprehension is
so poor you have no idea what I wrote telling you how I
knew you were wrong, but you can't bring yourself to
admit it.
> Second, you don't even
> know why I would suggest the reading to him, because you don't
> know the book. End of story.
Too funny. You've forgotten that you explained why you
suggested the book to him.
> Read the article about cyberstalking Barry just posted, it
> applies to you exactly, and this thread is testimony of it.
You have lost your marbles, navashok. Either that, or
you didn't read the article yourself.
> 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.
I don't believe I ever "admitted" to such a "tactic." I may
have said I'd prefer that you weren't on the forum. You
have repeatedly gone after me when I haven't said a word to
you. You posted that excerpt from Robin's old book and
pretended it still represented his thinking when he wasn't
around to deny it. If anyone is a "stalker" here, it's you
(and Barry, of course).
You did not have to respond to what I told you. It was your
choice to start an argument.
> This is just so love and perverted.
("Low"--he corrected himself.)
> > > > > 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)
Please take some lessons in English. "Why not let Robin
decide?" implies (semantically) that Robin can decide
only if I let him.
> > > > 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.
English lessons. Take some English lessons.
> > > > > 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.
Of course you can, and you did: your remark in that post
about Aurobindo was addressed to Robin (although he isn't
here)--but above you say the post was addressed to Share.
You are *incoherent*, navashok.
> 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.
Nobody who has said this, including you, was being honest.
> It doesn't help you, it doesn't help anyone, you just post
> out early, that's all.
Or not, as the case may be.
> > 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?
(Says navashok, evading the point.)
Don't be ridiculous.
> He can't talk and decide for himself anymore?
Don't be ridiculous.
> You know what? I even believe you.
That he wouldn't be interested? Then why have you been
arguing with me?
> But out of very different reasons than yourself
You have no idea what my reasons are.
> - out of reasons that I have stated much
> earlier.
(snicker) Now who's being "guarded"?
Navashok, you simply don't have the chops for this. Your
English isn't good enough (reading or writing), and you
are a very unclear thinker as well. Plus which, you lack
integrity. You get into big messes when you try to argue,
and then you try to wiggle out of them dishonestly.
