Oh, I still stand by what I said. Not sure where you got the idea I'd dropped it.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : I do not see why it would be necessary to understand you because that never seems possible anyway. Nice to see you have dropped the 'I stand by what I said' approach. Relying on what one has said in the past has issues. For example, it is possible we are smarter now than in the past and need to revise our thinking. Or maybe, less smart. I do have an hypothesis about your recent posting: that you think Barry's posting will be controlled in some way now, though it remains to be seen just how that will work out, as you two in the past seemed to be the primary polar opposites on FFL. Barry's method, it seems to me, was similar to the way one would handle dealing with ISIS effectively. I am all for ISIS being neutralised. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : I don't think I need to explain anything to you. I think if you reread what I wrote, carefully this time--several times if necessary--you'll see why your question was based on a misunderstanding. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : 'You are holding...' was a question. Note the question mark at the end of sentence. It was some sort of figurative language, but the sentence began with the word 'you'. Already giving commands? I am under no obligation to reread anything here. Note that rereading something does not necessarily result in the understanding someone else desires one to have. If that is what you desire, then the best method is to explain what you wanted them to understand in some other way, and keep doing that until they do understand. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Does the "You are holding..." refer to me? If it refers to me, you didn't understand the post. Read it again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : No. But you may explain to me why you think I did not. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Are you having some trouble understanding my post, Xeno? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : It would appear <authfriend> can correctly spell 'cognitive dissonance'. You are holding two or more contradictory beliefs and thinking everything is OK? From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Moderating The Peep Show In the olden days of FFL, prior to Neo, identities were handled differently. People's real names appeared in the headers of their posts, along with their handles, unless they had specified when registering for Yahoo! that only their handles be used. I did not so specify, and my real name appeared in my posts' headers. Obviously I have no objection to my real name being used. That would be pretty silly after all this time. But, this brings up an interesting subject. From what I've read, <authfriend> has never used her real name on FFL, so I guess that everyone that ever used her real name should be banned from the group. That would include almost everyone currently posting. Can anyone spell cognitive dissonance?
