I am going to reply to this just because you got so many things skewed and you misinterpreted so much of what I wrote and what I meant. It is for the record not, evidently, for you per se as you clearly do not want to interact and you seem to miss what I am about approximately 90% of the time. You were correct, you don't 'get' me. Probably through no fault of your own.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Ann, these examples of mine below have nothing to do with our disagreeing > with each other. I don't think I said they were. > They were all instances where I was exchanging with SOME OTHER FFL POSTER >and you responded, leading with a negative attitude towards me. In your opinion. I am not actually negative in my feelings towards you, at least my interior experience is not one of negativity. It could be described more as trying to order what appears to me a disordered way of expressing oneself or thinking. Again, not your problem, merely my perception of you. > For example, your assuming I'd call my ex ex if it bothered him. What??! How did you come up with THAT conclusion? Now THAT is a projection on me. I asked if he minded being called an "ex" because to me that is so impersonal and does not indicate in any way feelings of fondness or closeness to that person. I never indicated that you must be calling him your "ex" because you knew he disliked it. > You also seem desperate to be negative about me when you leap on something >casual I say, like you did with what I said about Norman churches in FF. Not "desperate" and not "leap(ing)". I don't get up in the morning salivating for your blood Share. You are not my reason for posting here and I don't look for ways to jump on you. "Norman" churches for me don't exist in North America just like Tudor houses don't. There are mock tudors and Norman style churches as far as I am concerned but maybe because I grew up in Europe it is a bias I have. There they have the real thing, built in the Norman times; so for me those are the real deal. Judy was correct in clarifying the architectural style as existing in North America but for me Norman is like Jacobean or Regency styles. If they aren't made in that era from materials that originated from that time for me they are faux or mock or neo. Technically I am probably wrong but there you have it. > Even Judy responded to you about that. Twice. That's when I realized >how desperate you are to see me in a negative way and that is why I have >avoided you. I'm not interested in dealing with your prejudices about me. Again, hardly "desperate". It is not always about you Share, you just happen to be the recipient of some of my posts and thoughts that result from reading what you write. You seem to think that if someone expresses doubt or disagrees about what you think or write that it is negative. It is not. It is a chance to question your own beliefs and to see how it feels to consider other viewpoints. So far, I only see you feeling put upon when others don't congratulate you on or agree with your world view. > > Even today, you made fun of Mr. Leed for missing the humor of my post to Buck > this morning. Actually, I read it that mr leed was ragging on me for making jokes about sidhas. I didn't read it as him addressing your post at all. He was actually seriously annoyed that I was making jokes about sidhas not being able to get around in the snow. > But you missed it too, didn't you? Sure did, still do. > When you said: wouldn't a true sidha be able to walk to the Dome, etc. >Again, this is just you seeing me and writing about me in a negative way. My God woman, these were not serious statements. This is where you possess a complete lack of an ability to laugh at yourself, at the world, at how I was joking about (and here I'll spell it out) how ironic that those who practice the siddhis can supposedly change the world, bring about great coherence and world peace but can't walk a mile in the snow or shovel out their car. > > By the way, I noticed you didn't criticize Steve for taking up for you > recently in Jan. I don't even remember what you are referring to. > No making fun of him for being a knight on a white horse coming to the aid >of a damsel in distress. Was I a damsel in distress? You could cite the post to jog (get it?) my memory because I am at a complete loss here. > Which is what you used to do when he came to my defense. Remember? So >it's ok when he comes to your defense but not when he comes to mine? Why is >that? Again WHAT?! This is what I mean by disordered thinking. I just don't understand how your mind works, how you jump all around to all sorts of conclusions. I sort of watch you leaping about, quite excited and agitated and all I can do is follow you back and forth like watching some demented tennis match. > > I've accepted that we're not > compatible and I'm happy to not interact with you. And you don't seem to > enjoy what I have to say, even when it's to other posters. So I wonder why > you have kept trying to start an interaction with me this year. You could chalk it up to something Emily said today to you. It goes something like this: " Remember however, I reserve the right to comment on anything that moves me." > Especially since it seems you've already come to a negative conclusion >about me and or what's in my post. Which is your right of course. But >generally I won't be participating in such. There are more enjoyable and or >enriching exchanges to be had on FFL. Well, it just so happens these kinds of places are a free for all, up to a point. That makes it interesting but also gives everyone the right to their opinion and the way things are set up one can respond to anyone by simply hitting 'reply'. I won't expect any of those from you but just remember, you are not seeing me clearly. I am much more beneficent than you could ever imagine.     > > > to Judy: when I said Steve recently supported Ann, I was including January > 2013. > I'm pretty sure I did not reply to Ann before your reply to feste. In any > case, I didn't BLAME her for not getting me. That's your spin on it. > I skimmed Steve's post to Ravi and missed the bit about Ravi Yogi whose name > I wouldn't have recognized anyway. > I was talking about turq being ganged up on, not me. > > I'm not willing to be vulnerable with people who are prejudiced and or > holding a grudge against me. > > You are of course entitled to your opinions about me and my posts. > > to Ravi: I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote my reply to Steve. Nor did > I at that time even know who Ravi Yogi is. Actually I skimmed Steve's > post so didn't register his reference to Ravi Yogi at all. You are of > course entitled to your opinions about me and what I post. However, as long > as it sounds to me as if you're still prejudiced against me and or > carrying a grudge, I will more than likely not reply to your posts. But I > wish you and your family all the best in everything. > > ________________________________ > From: Ann <awoelflebater@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:05 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: (Ouch...) Alex--this is spam! to Ann > > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > > > boy, Obbadohbba, did you ever!àGet that wrong I mean.àAnywho Annie > > I think you and I are working off our karma with each other very nicely > > I don't think I have any karma to 'work off with you' but we may be creating > some. > > .àTo celebrate I'm gonna reply to all your attempts to start > confrontations, er I mean conversations so far with me here in 2013: > > I get the impression that if I don't agree with you about something or ask > you a question you take it as a confrontation. Am I confronting you now? > Oops, and now because I just asked you a question? Oops and now? Oh dear, > this could turn into an endless loop of quest, er, I mean confrontations. > > > > My ex does not mind my calling him ex.àHe laughed when I asked him and > > said that it sounded like I had pushed one of your buttons. > > Well, since I am no one's 'ex' I don't have a button there to push. > > > > Of course I know women can be competitive.àI played sports in grade > > school and high school.àAnd I'm here on FFL (-: > > Oh, because your comment stated otherwise. Take a look at it again. Not > trying to say that you're wrong just that it looked like you were saying you > were glad you were a woman because it meant you didn't have to worry about > competing or being competitive. > > > > > > Judy thoroughly answered your confront, er comment about Norman churches in > > FF, thank you. > > I like the word "thoroughly" you used here to express what you felt was a > positive for you and a negative for me. > > > > John perfectly answered your confront, er comment about the resigning Pope, > > responsibility and planets, thank you. > > And "perfectly" here is an interesting observation. I will have to look at > that post again because I don't remember it. Have YOU ever answered me > thoroughly or perfectly do you think? > > > > Concerning my NVC comment about contributing to someone's emotion vs > > causing it, I'll refer you to their website since I know how much you enjoy > > visiting such. > > You don't need to, you already told me the juiciest part. > > àBut beware, if you post it here, turq might call you spammish.àIs it > my imagination or is EVERYBODY confusing us for each other?!àFirst turq, > then Obbadohbba.àWho's next?!àNabby?! > > Yes, interesting. Probably because we are so much alike. > > > > > > Concerning my comment to Xeno about malignant diagnosis:àI bet you > > don't understand the Vulcan mind meld either!àà> > If it might indicate there is some sort of brain tumour in evidence in > someone then no, I am not familiar with it and it might scare me half to > death anyway. On the other hand, if it relates to some 60's TV show then I > could maybe do some research on the Vulcan mind meld and report back. > > > > PSàI LOVE the little spam reference in Subject line.àNature > > organizes best (-: > > Is nature in charge of FFL post titles? Would this qualify as support of > nature? >
