In other words, she's saying, "Yes, I LIED, and yes, I'm insane." :-)
Judy tries to bullshit herself out of the trap she set for herself: > > See what I mean? Once he's been shown to have hoisted himself > on his own petard in an attempt to "get" me, what does he do? > He tries to save face by hoisting himself even higher on that petard. > > Xeno, I'm guessing, will shortly join Barry for his own second hoist. > > The biggest problem both of them have is overestimating their > intelligence and underestimating that of their readership. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: At 11:53pm yesterday (my time) Judy wrote to Xeno: > > Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything > with you until you've documented your accusations, or > withdrawn them. At 5:38am today (my time) Xeno made it clear that he was not going to do either, and thus expected Judy to keep her word and cease all attempts to have discussions with him: > > I did notice that you did not document a number of comments > you made here. But this response simplifies things immensely > because if this is true, anything I write to you here on > FFL in the absence of my documentation here with regard to > these points or my withdrawing my comments here and earlier > in the thread, by your own words must stop you from responding > if you do not wish to go back on your word. Very Robinish! At 2:28 today (my time), Judy broke her word and wrote to Xeno *directly*, after claiming she wouldn't, addressing him directly and calling him "either very dishonest or very stupid." In other words, having realized the bind she'd placed herself in, she backpedalled like crazy and claimed that she'd never said she wouldn't "comment" on things he posted. She's NOT "commenting" in this later reply, she's addressing Xeno *directly*, and thus attempting to have a discussion with him, the very thing she said she'd not do unless he did what she wanted. In other words, Judy LIED. In "Judyworld," addressing a person directly, calling them names, and attempting anything she can possibly think of to lure them back into an argument is NOT "discussing" things with them. Doing this with someone who had made it clear that he was *happy* that she will no longer be attempting to discuss things with him is -- in her mind -- NOT "discussing" things with him. It's something else. Insanity, maybe? :-) :-) :-) Xeno wrote: I did notice that you did not document a number of comments you made here. But this response simplifies things immensely because if this is true, anything I write to you here on FFL in the absence of my documentation here with regard to these points or my withdrawing my comments here and earlier in the thread, by your own words must stop you from responding if you do not wish to go back on your word. Very Robinish! You are either very dishonest or very stupid. You made accusations which, if they were true, you would be able to document. I made no such accusations. I don't think you're so stupid as not to have realized this. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of "philosophy or science or music" or any other neutral topic. And that's not even a tiny bit "Robinish," nor are you so stupid as to think it is.
