Non sequitur. I didn't say you had to discuss anything with anybody. I'm
pointing out what you did not, in fact, discuss; and that you miswrote in your
previous post when you said there was only one person raising points.
<< Judy, I'm willing to discuss Seraphita's points with her and your poi
Judy, I'm willing to discuss Seraphita's points with her and your points with
you and Susan's points with her.
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:39 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
There were two participants who were raising points, Share, not just one. Isn't
that funny, you forgot all
As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken
seriously.
> ...it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear
> but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy
> and I simply think differently.
>
Judy sometimes gets confused, I think, before s
On 1/5/2014 5:26 PM, feste37 wrote:
> Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread.
>
Judy does not take kindly to being taken to the cleaners. Why Judy even
started this is debate beyond me. I've never seen an argument about the
sanctity of life ever getting resolved in an internet d
As Richard himself admitted in post #368186, nothing he says is to be taken
seriously.
> From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume
> that you are against abortion?
So far as I can tell, Judy is pro-choice, Share. So her ramblings about
the sanctity of life rings kind of hollow for
Better read the rest of the thread before you sound off, Richard.
> given that the principle in question is that life
> is inherently and unconditionally sacred.
>
If life is sacred, you'd probably be anti-abortion.
On 1/5/2014 4:58 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> My Lord Judy, you didn't see it coming did you? You just
> got your clock cleaned! Just gracefully move off the stage
> and regroup. It's okay. Really.
>
Judy got waxed by Share real good in this thread. Now Judy is going to
just be mean
On 1/5/2014 4:06 PM, Share Long wrote:
> ...it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear
> but her response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy
> and I simply think differently.
>
Judy sometimes gets confused, I think, before she stops to think about
what she is posting. She oft
On 1/5/2014 4:05 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It doesn't even matter, Share. Stevie would declare you the
> "winner" whatever you or I said. And he ain't gonna quote
> because he doesn't want to look STOOOPID. Haven't you
> ever noticed how often he refuses to back up his claims?
>
L
On 1/5/2014 3:47 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Check
>
Check Mate. This is some really good work by Share!
On 1/5/2014 11:25 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
> No, I'm not against abortion.
>
We are going to have to look this up. But, they do sound sort of like
weasel words to me. How can you recognize the sanctity of life not be
against abortion? I thought everyone on this list was pro-choice. Go f
I was referring to *your* participation, dear boy.
On 1/5/2014 10:39 AM, Share Long wrote:
> From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume
> that you are against abortion?
>
So far as I can tell, Judy is pro-choice, Share. So her ramblings about
the sanctity of life rings kind of hollow for me. It kind of looks like
Judy is trying to start
On 1/5/2014 10:31 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
> given that the principle in question is that life
> is inherently and unconditionally sacred.
>
If life is sacred, you'd probably be anti-abortion.
As far as tongues are concerned, though, yours is more like a whole tree with
the branches all tangled up. That does create a "barrier to finding the truth."
oh yea? Well yours is like a whole tree with all the branches tangled up,
which just got some fertilizer dumped on it, and then, then,
well, she did, but...you are nothing... if not persistent!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Oh, I thought Share had already done that, according to you and Feste.
Ooopsie...
Somebody take Judy's shovel away from her, Please!
And if I'd simply declared that you didn't believe Feste, you'd have expressed
even more faux outrage about that. At least I allowed for two possibilities.
(Interesting that you haven't said which is the case.)
No, it doesn't create a "barrier to finding the truth," nor is it a matter of
a
Oh, I thought Share had already done that, according to you and Feste.
Ooopsie...
Somebody take Judy's shovel away from her, Please!
Somebody take Judy's shovel away from her, Please!
Peep show?! I think you've got full exhibition going on there sometimes. (-:
There were two participants who were raising points, Share, not just one. Isn't
that funny, you forgot all about Susan, whose views I was defending. That's OK,
Stevie and Feste did as well. How convenient.
Just for giggles, let's have a look at Susan's point (her first of two), which
you had
Judy, imo this is one of the strategies you use in an argument that creates a
barrier to finding the truth. To say what I don't believe and then to negate
your statement may be a clever debating tactic. But it brings to my mind the
idea of forked tongues!
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 8:12 PM,
"Share, you should share more of these tidbits on Batgap. Can you imagine how
they would have said the same thing!!"
Yep, we put on a good peep-show, over there, Steve!
Judy, in any post, I engage with the parts that I'm interested in or
knowledgeable about or just opinionated about. I don't try to cover all the
points, especially when I'm replying to a long post. And it's my opinion that
in a discussion, the actual points and issues it raises are determined by
Feste, all I can say is I hope your fantasies keep you warm at night. Not even
Share believes what you just said.
Or, I don't know, maybe she does. I just don't think she could possibly be
that out of it.
<< Is that worse than being a "lying jackass," auth, because that's what you
wer
Is that worse than being a "lying jackass," auth, because that's what you were
calling me a couple of weeks ago. I know that following your failure to get the
better of Share, who is far too nimble for you ever to lay a glove on, you need
to find someone to beat up. Be my guest, if it makes you
Leave go Judy, leave go. It's all good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrLAgi_mBY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrLAgi_mBY
Translation: I really don't approve of the dude's hunger strike, but I can't
possibly express an opinion contrary to Share's, or I'd look very, very silly.
Like Stevie, Feste, your worst flaw is your moral cowardice.
<< Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you
Oh, and by the way, I've been defending wayback's position. That may put you
and Stevie in a little bit of a bind, because, I suspect, she is one of the
Good Guys in your alleged minds.
<< Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't
tell the difference between
Nice try, auth, but I am not taking the bait. I think it's best if you just
accept your defeat and move on. Tomorrow is another day.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't
tell the difference between a good
Was wondering when you'd barge in, Feste. But like Stevie, either you can't
tell the difference between a good argument and a bad one, or you feel you have
to support Share and oppose me just on general principles even when she's
wrong. And like Stevie, you're incapable of actually participating
As I told Share, Stevie-poo, you can't tell the difference between good
arguments and bad ones. The only distinction you're capable of making is whose
argument it is: If it's Share's, it's Good; if it's Judy's, it's Bad.
If you had any clue other than that, you'd be able to actually participa
Yep, Share really took auth to the cleaners in this thread. Auth flails around
hopelessly but Share is always one step ahead. And of course, auth hates
losing.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't
see
Share, you should share more of these tidbits on Batgap. Can you imagine how
they would have said the same thing!!
Share, if you don't mind me saying, you had her tied up loops like we haven't
seen a while. Really, you feel kind of bad for her. Or at least I do.
My Lord Judy, you didn't see it coming did you? You just got your clock
cleaned! Just gracefully move off the stage and regroup. It's okay. Really.
It's not so much that you aren't being clear as that you aren't engaging with
what's on the road, with the actual issue and the points it raises. You go off
on all these side trips in order to distract from what you can't deal with. You
did this from the very first post Susan made.
And poor
Judy, actually I think human life is always about having it both ways. Meaning
that we humans are matter and spirit, each informing the other, and sometimes
not jiving with each other.
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 1:25 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
No, now you're going way off the r
It doesn't even matter, Share. Stevie would declare you the "winner" whatever
you or I said. And he ain't gonna quote because he doesn't want to look
STOOOPID. Haven't you ever noticed how often he refuses to back up his
claims?
<< Steve, your posts don't contain the previous post so I'm
Thanks, Steve, it's hard for me to tell. I think I'm being very clear but her
response often indicates otherwise. I think Judy and I simply think differently.
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:55 PM, "steve.sun...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
I think you checkmated Judy.
I think you checkmated Judy.
Steve, your posts don't contain the previous post so I'm not sure what you're
replying to. For example, what did you mean when you said I was 2 steps away?
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:47 PM, "steve.sun...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
Check
and Mate.
Check
Share, you are about two steps away.
No, now you're going way off the road and using "sacred" to mean whatever you
want it to mean (in this case, "more valuable to me" is probably closer), not
what it means in the context of the principle in question.
<< The family member shooting the robber is by action saying that the lives of
The family member shooting the robber is by action saying that the lives of
family members are more sacred in those circumstances and the legal system
would in essence be upholding that opinion.
I think the guy starving himself to death is saying that his belief about gay
marriage is more sacre
The legal system would exonerate the shooter, but not because the robber's life
was considered "less sacred" than the lives of the shooter and his or her
family.
<< Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, >>
(As if you didn't know. As I said, lame.)
<< I think preserving
Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, I think preserving life and
preserving the sacredness of life are two different issues because though life
is inherently and unconditionally sacred in principle, there are degrees of
perceived sacredness in actuality. For example, if a robber w
Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say
so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame.
<< Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see
where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? >>
On Sunda
Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where
you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat?
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the
pr
I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the
principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep
the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked.
<< From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against
Depends on the stunt in question and what cause it's promoting. I don't think a
hunger strike is the most effective of stunts, though, even for a good cause.
<< Judy, usually the phrase *publicity stunt* is used pejoratively. Is that
how you mean it? >>
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:25
>From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion?
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is
a different issue from preserving life, given that the pri
Judy, usually the phrase *publicity stunt* is used pejoratively. Is that how
you mean it?
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:25 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
Anyone who genuinely has the intention of starving themselves to death is
likely mentally disturbed, i.e., suicidal. Typically,
Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is
a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is
that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred.
<< Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness
of
Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of
life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a
different issue imo.
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
Um, Share, what it takes for the sacrednes
Anyone who genuinely has the intention of starving themselves to death is
likely mentally disturbed, i.e., suicidal. Typically, though, it's a publicity
stunt meant to call attention to the cause.
<< Judy, do you think that suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when jailed
for their protest
Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a
matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by
your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life.
You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As
Judy, do you think that suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when jailed for
their protests were also "likely mentally disturbed?"
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:59 AM, Share Long wrote:
Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may
have very different
Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may
have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness,
what is necessary for it to be preserved.
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
Non sequitur.
<< But w
Non sequitur.
<< But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a
bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons!
Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another.
>>
The point is that suicide (in this
But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a
bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons!
Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another.
Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that h
Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does
not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many
many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death
over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or
turq, though I disagree with this man's beliefs, I admire that he's willing to
go to such lengths to express them. And in the process, to pursue an action
that does not physically harm others.
On Sunday, January 5, 2014 5:08 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
I think that *everyone* who feels that
I think that *everyone* who feels that gay marriage is wrong should do
exactly what this Utah man is doing, and go on hunger fasts to the death
to stand up for their beliefs. This would actually solve much of the
problem, and leave the world a better place without them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.c
66 matches
Mail list logo
