--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote:
> >
> > > Er, Steve, you seem to be getting a tad defensive here and it
seems it
> > is because you have this need to run to somehow divert what you
perceive
> > as some sort of attack aimed at Share. I think you should give Share
> > some respect/credibility and the chance to reply and figure out her
own
> > dynamics with Carol here. By jumping in like this it makes you look
like
> > you don't think Share is capable of a one on one dialogue with
someone
> > exploring possibilities of a subject. You have a very hair trigger
> > protective mechanism. Check it out, what are you afraid of?
> >
> >
> > I do feel slighted that I was not breast fed, and that my mother
> > probably smoked during her entire pregnancy with me, and likely my
> > three sisters. That's what coming to mind right now.
>
> "Slighted"? Oh, you mean because your mother didn't "protect" you in
the womb you are more likely to "protect" others now?! Did you feel like
you craved a Marlborough when you emerged?
That would have been a Kent and vodka martini.
> >
> > As for Carol, I detect a selective bias on her part, and I am just
> > voicing it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I have attempted to hi-light
in
> > a previous post. Maybe I am wrong about it
>
> I think you have an innate protective tendency towards those you feel
might be being singled out and challenged. Okay, I do get riled up when
I see something akin to bullying*** Not that we are seeing bullying
here, but as a tendency on my part, yes I acknowledge that.
*** 1970's definition in force here.Not a terrible character flaw but in
this case a grown woman like Share can probably handle whatever Carol is
likely to bring up in conversation.Uh, really has nothing to do with
Share fighting her own battles. She doesn't need my help in that
regard. I thought Share brought up a salient point that Carol chose not
to include in here reasons why the eminent Dr. Oz would choose to
embrace TM.
I hardly see Carol as some malevolent, unreasonable poster here. Nor do
I. But as I said, I thought she chose to selectively consider
possibilities, choosing not include perhaps the most reasonable
explanation. As these things go, I would call it a small infraction,
but I chose to comment on it anyway. And I accept that people might
feel I am full of sh*t about it.
Share will probably say otherwise, but I think you should have a little
more confidence in her ability to respond/deal with interactions here,
especially with someone as reasonable as Carol.
You will have to take that up with Share. I think she weighs the
cost/reward ratio of who she interacts with.
Personally, I greatly enjoy your contributions here.
>
