https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adyjwFgXRNY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adyjwFgXRNY>
Chill, dude. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > That's were you got your timeline wrong, and you prove another > > > > > time, that you always disguise facts, by simply creating a > > > > > diversion. Distract, point in a different direction to create > > > > > a smokescreen, and ultimately make your audience tired. And > > > > > it#s simply lame of you to not be able to admit obvious mistakes. > > > > > > > > No, no, toots, this was your mistake. It isn't a "diversion" > > > > or a "disguising of fact" or a "distraction" or a "smokescreen" > > > > to explain to you where you went wrong--quite the opposite, in > > > > fact. I'm so sorry it tires you out to have to deal with your > > > > errors, but them's the breaks. > > > > > > > > It should have been obvious when I referred to Robin's > > > > "courteous response" which post I had in mind > > > > > > LOL only in your mind. I'm not into mind-reading, > > > > Oh, you most certainly are. You're *heavily* into it. > > Where? When? Take your time if you need to think something up.. > > > like > > > yourself. If you are referring to something, why don't > > > you just spell it out, which post you mean, so that we > > > know, what you are talking about. > > > > As I already said, if you weren't sure what post I was > > referring to, *you could have asked*. But you didn't, > > you just made a quick assumption without thinking because > > you were so eager to "get" me. > > I could have asked, had I known you had some specific posts in mind, not related at all to the posts we were actually discussing. To do this is called distraction. > > > > > (since that was > > > > the *only* courteous response he addressed to you before he > > > > left), > > > > > > I don't know what you mean by 'courteous'. that's totally your > > > value system, you live in a world, a bubble of your own. > > > > Gettin' a little tired, are ya? > > > > Dictionaries are good if you don't know what a word means. > > And most cultures value courtesy. It isn't some crazy > > American idea, or crazy FFL idea, or crazy Judy idea. It's > > pretty much universal. > > Universal in your mind only. Judy, to be honest with you, this is your main problem: That you take your value system, your feelings about people and their reactions for granted, and never question your own impression. Very often, you are simply wrong. > > > > > > but you were so anxious to "get" me that you didn't > > > > pay any attention to what I'd said and got the whole thing > > > > bassackwards (not for the first time, either). > > > > > > Yes?? Because I didn't know what you had in mind?? Get real! > > > > Yes!! Because you didn't *ask*!! > > Oh yes I should anticipate to ask for something I don't know that it exists? LOL > > > > Oh, yeah, you won, because I didn't know what you had in mind, > > > right? So silly. > > > > Well, I don't think anybody "wins" these silly arguments. > > But a person can *lose* by just, you know, being > > REEEEEEEEELY REEEEEEEEELY STOOOOOOOOPID. > > > > You *lost* because you were in such a hurry to accuse me > > of getting the timeline wrong that you didn't stop to > > think whether that made any sense. > > No, you still didn't get it: your distraction is still on. I was referring to your claim Robin 'had seen through me' and that either of these two letters consists proof for it. Now your call. >
