--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ah, Judy's back from another long, relaxing, > > > > rejuvenating weekend away :-), firing off nine > > > > posts in a row, each distinguished by...uh, wait > > > > for it...I know it'll come as a surprise...her > > > > "correcting" someone on this forum and "setting > > > > them straight" about how the world "really" is > > > > and what the "truth" about things "really" is. :-) > > > > > > > > Me, I just "think out loud." > > > > > > > > They're just thoughts. Opinions. > > > > > > > > And, as I've said *many times* here, I DON'T > > > > KNOW THE TRUTH. I don't even *believe* in > > > > such a thing as "TRUTH." > > > > > > Which is, it seems, why you make stuff up all > > > the time. > > > > > > Such as, for example, putting in quotes, as if > > > they were words I had used, "setting them > > > straight." You made that up entirely out of > > > your own head. > > > > Someday, Judy, *as* someone who corrects other > > people's writing for a living, you might figure > > out that a very common usage of quotation marks, > > in the absence of italics, is *as* italics, as > > a way of highlighting words and phrases. > > Bull, and you know it. Quote marks are *not* a > common or even an accepted substitute for italics. > > What you and many others use is asterisks, as you > just did above.
No, I use asterisks as a substitute for bolding. > > Only the truly paranoid would see them as an > > attempt to quote *them* every time they're used. :-) > > Nope. You've been using quote marks around your > own words in an attempt to imply they're someone > else's as long as I've known you. It's just one > of your many dishonest tricks. Now let me get this straight. :-) Let's present my version of things here, and then yours, and allow people on this forum to decide for themselves what's goin' down, Ok? My version is that I used quote marks similarly to the way the Mark Myers holds up two fingers of each hand and makes quote marks in the air as he's playing Dr. Evil, saying something he obviously wants to emphasize in a silly way. So I would have made quote marks in the air and put them around "setting them straight" to point out how *ludicrous* that idea was, the idea that you actually *could* "set people straight." See, I did the quote marks thing again. *Your* version is that I put quotes around the phrase "setting them straight" as part of an evil, horrible plot to convince people here on FFL that you had actually used that phrase. Did I get that right? I'm just checkin' to make sure, because last I checked the use of that phrase wasn't considered either illegal or, for that matter, terribly embarrassing. So which is it, Jude -- my version or your version? I can psychically hear a few people in the Fairfield Life audience just panting to hear which you think is more believable. :-) > > <snip to> > > > > If you're lookin' for a philosophy and a lifestyle > > > > to adopt, and someone else's path to follow, rather > > > > than mine, I'd suggest that you go with Judy's. She > > > > seems to enjoy presenting it here, as if it's RIGHT, > > > > and it may well be just the ticket to help you > > > > become as happy and as fulfilled as she is. I mean, > > > > look at what it's done for her... > > > > > > Editorial comment: If you're going to drop your > > > g's in an attempt to make yourself seem folksy > > > and down to earth, you'd do a lot better to be > > > consistent about it, at least within a paragraph > > > (preferably within the entire post). > > > > Have you ever noticed that, when I say something > > that gets your goat and flusters you, you always > > drop into "editor mode" and try to criticize my > > writing? > > In fact, as you know, I criticize your writing very > rarely. And it's your fantasy that you get my goat > and fluster me. Only someone for whom I have respect > could do that. Uh-huh. That's why you said that I intentionally tried to slander and defame you by claiming that I tried to convince people here that you said the horrible phrase "setting them straight." *That* claim is certainly indicative of someone who's not the *least* bit not-goat-gotten. :-) Judy, I wait with 'bated breath for your reply. I just can't *wait* for you to stick to your story and claim that me putting "setting them straight" inside quotes was part of my evil, twisted, lying plot to slander you and discredit you here on FFL. If a smart person wanted to convince people here that their goat hadn't been gotten, they'd find a saner story. But you won't will you? The way I see it, you either stick to your claim and look crazy as a loon, or you admit that you kinda overreacted in a paranoid fashion, and write it off to something I said that got your goat. There's no shame in the latter, Judy, and from my point of view it lessens your credibility here a lot less than being a paranoid schizophrenic.
