Dear Share, I object strenuously to the word "ridicule" - if you were able to
*hear* my tone of voice instead of assuming such a thing, you might be able to
realize differently, although, honestly, I believe you would still label me as
"ridiculing" you as you have defined me in negative terms and it is unlikely
you will allow a different context to permeate your belief in your
righteousness on this point. Once you decide something, you never reconsider.
If you did, you might have to admit that you were "wrong" and that would mean
that you might have to question your solid belief in your ability to detect
things like "tone." It is a very rigid and inflexible way of being - this
always assuming you *know*.....I believe wholeheartedly in the philosophy that
one should be able to laugh at oneself - helps to keep the ego in line for one,
helps to promote personal growth for another. I have teased almost everyone on
this forum at one time or another, including those now departed (Bob, Ravi,
Robin). You are the only one I am aware of (except maybe Curtis and I'll give
him the benefit of the doubt) that has internalized something I've said as a
true personal slight and then filed it away in your resentment file. I've
always said I give it and I can take it. I give you license to practice on me.
In my opinion, your inability to laugh at yourself indicates the level of
attachment you have to your self-definition. One that needs to be recognized
no doubt, but what you don't realize is that there is a huge gap between how
you view yourself and how you behave. Posting is a good way to see this, if
you could do it. I am human also Share. You hurt my feelings when you
dismissed my question and refused to give me even a yes or no answer. It's
rude because you did it on purpose. I figured it meant that you were truly
afraid of me and I am sorry for that.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Emily, it's possible that you're sincere when you initially ask a question.
But later you use my answers to ridicule, for example: tap tap tap. Then when I
defend myself as positively as I can, the double standard of the gang kicks in
saying that I'm being nasty but you all are just being playful. I rarely find
it worthwhile to engage in such circumstances.
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:03 PM, "emilymaenot@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Share, do you think Ann was doing all these things when she sincerely asked
you why you found Empty's information useful *to you?* Do you think I was also
doing all these things when I sincerely asked you if you had done the Sedona
Method. You ultimately avoided my question by telling Richard that you don't
respond to posts that have a "tone" that you interpret as trying to start a
fight - way to avoid Share. You also avoided Xeno's post and honest question to
you. Ah ha ha ha, Share. This "avoidance technique" is your specialty; I've
never seen anyone do it as well as you, except one person. (This is why it is
so easy for me to piss you off; I have had a lot of practice with those who
avoid themselves). You have helped me to forgive this person and I thank you
for that. Sincerely, Emily
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Judy, I agree with your strategy and that's what I do. Meaning, I read just
about everyone's posts. But if I detect an nitpicking or baiting or hyper
negative tone, then I stop reading.
I am avoiding Fleetwood's point because I don't agree with his assessment of
me.
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:14 AM, "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Non sequitur, Share. You're avoiding fleetwood's point.
In answer to your question, though, as fleetwood made clear ("when you can"),
not all your posts have this passive-aggressive, "quietly nasty" quality. Some
may want to read the posts of yours that aren't nasty.
Also, many here don't have a problem reading posts that express honest
negative emotion. They may even think there is value in knowing what someone
really feels.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Fleetwood, again, if someone doesn't enjoy my posts, for whatever reason, then
why are they even reading them?!
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:37 AM, "fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Oh, I strongly disagree, Share - You definitely express negative emotions on
here, plenty of them. Just not in a straightforward way. Passive aggressively.
Repression, or rationalization, doesn't work with that shit. Invariably, the
negativity leaks out, and like many who have been admonished for expressing
such things, it can be quite an internal battle.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Fleetwood, I don't see the value of expressing negative emotions here. If that
means others think I'm dishonest and avoid me, that's their choice.
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:33 AM, "fleetwood_macncheese@... [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
No she doesn't! How the heck would she name herself Oprah, in tribute to
Harpo, when it is on her birth certificate? I think you are getting confused by
the name of her production company, Harpo, which is Oprah, backwards.
I know you avoid confrontation on here, and would rather reveal your emotions
in a passive aggressive way, but your spitefulness comes through, anyway. So
the question is, Share, would you rather be known as someone who is honest with
her feelings, or represses them and then gets quietly nasty, when she can?
Looks like you have opted for the second option. Too bad.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Fleetwood, she calls herself Oprah as a tribute to Harpo Marx. I guess you
were barfing, and in color, when that was revealed.
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:24 AM, "fleetwood_macncheese@...
[FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
So, Steve, it looks like they've legalized weed in Missouri... :-)
No normal person is ever going to understand what you just wrote - like
flipping to the middle of a badly written manual on how to pull an engine - way
too involved, no context, and no understanding of the terms flung about. Em
ain't a TM fool like you and me.
Also it is a misnomer to call it Brahman Consciousness. Depending on the
perspective of the person yakking about it, Brahman incorporates, or
supercedes, consciousness. It is just referred to as Brahman. Why? No fucking
clue; why does she call herself, "Oprah"?
