"(lordknows) sends private email to anyone he notices disagreeing with Robin viz Curtis, Share - pretty diseased no?
My ex did that in August/September, a very slanderous email full of lies and distortion - luckily sent it to Judy and was brought to my attention. Sickening, disgusting, diseased behavior similar to lordknows guy here. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ravi Chivukula <[email protected]>wrote: > > LOL..this is interesting, "Status: Deceased" or is it diseased? > > This guy doesn't do anything, no discussion, just drive-by's, wild > accusations, just lurks around in the shadows and send private email to > anyone he notices disagreeing with Robin viz Curtis, Share - pretty > diseased no? > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM, raunchydog <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> http://simpsonswiki.net/wiki/Lord_Nose >> >> >> --- In [email protected], Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> >> wrote: >> > >> > "Boy, Lordnose, you sure aren't doing a very good job of upholding the >> > integrity of the Anti-Robinites." >> > >> > Love it - excellent post dear Judy :-). What the fuck would happen to >> > truth, objectivity, reason without you. >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:17 PM, authfriend <authfriend@...> wrote: >> > >> > > ** >> >> > > >> > > >> > > --- In [email protected], "lordknows888" <lordknows888@> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Robin, >> > > > >> > > > I made in my post one simple solitary point, which was that >> > > > Ann found the book "Cult" essentially truthful in its portrayal >> > > > of you and the cult experience when she read it a few years ago. >> > > > I did not make any comment about how she would characterize you >> > > > today, >> > > >> > > I guess you forgot to delete what you had written: >> > > >> > > >> > > "She did not object to his essential portrayal of the cult >> > > experience in the book at that time,and *she can not very well >> > > >> > > go back on what she stated then and now state, so many years >> > > later, that the book is essentially false*. Even more >> > > personally, I can not imagine that Ann *could look William or >> > > >> > > myself in the eye and tell us that this book is a lie, that it >> > > does not represent our very real essential experience of the >> > > cult*." [emphases added] >> > > >> > > >> > > > you have purposefully conflated these two things in order to >> > > > confuse and misdirect the readers attention away from my one >> > > > simple point. >> > > >> > > Says LK, continuing his cheating ways. >> > > >> > > >> > > > The question I have for Ann is simple and straightforward >> > > >> > > You haven't asked Ann a question. Rather, you have fatuously >> > > and disingenuously accused Robin of putting Ann "in a very >> > > difficult position" when you knew that was an absurd >> > > contention. >> > > >> > > <snip> >> > > >> > > > PS. I think it is quite significant that you reveal for the >> > > > first time that you have had private correspondence with Ann >> > > > going back to January 2012 shortly after Ann first posted on >> > > > FFL. Many people, Curtis being one, have been puzzled, how >> > > > it was Ann became so sympathetic to her former abusive cult >> > > > leader. This private correspondence suggests an answer to >> > > > this puzzle. >> > > >> > > You certainly have a tendency to entertain unlikely >> > > suggestions. Ann was clearly already sympathetic to >> > > Robin in her very first post here, before any private >> > > correspondence had taken place. Just in case you were >> > > hoping everyone had forgotten: >> > > >> > > "Hey<I was there and it was the most disturbing, exciting, >> > > mysterious experience I ever had. And what fun MZ is having >> > > with the internet, if only that all existed back in the WTS >> > > days what far greater reach and influence he could have had. >> > > Now, it all comes back to Fairfield Iowa. Amazing. But I >> > > don't regret a thing. I loved every minute of it. My life >> > > is richer for the people I met and the experiences I had. >> > > I'm not really thanking you RWC just knowing it all made >> > > me who I am today." >> > > >> > > Boy, Lordnose, you sure aren't doing a very good job >> > > of upholding the integrity of the Anti-Robinites. >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@ >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Ann went to the newspaper to expose me as a cult leader. She >> wrote a >> > > stinging letter to me after I had attempted (1991) to apologize for my >> > > behaviour--I wrote to each person within the cult (as Bill Howell >> comments >> > > upon in his book). She thought me to be lying in my sincerity. >> > > > > >> > > > > She has said things to you personally, and on this website which >> would >> > > indicate her perspective on Robin Carlsen has altered over time. She >> has >> > > even commented on the book before deciding to reread it. >> > > > > >> > > > > The point is not what you would have it, Lord Knows: the point >> is: is >> > > Ann Woelfle Bater's point of view on Robin Carlsen at this time valid, >> > > existentially honest, true--and at least as meaningful to her as the >> point >> > > of view she had when she was exiled as an "evil being" and spilled her >> > > story to the newspaper in Victoria? >> > > > > >> > > > > She opposed me, despised me as much as anyone has--at a particular >> > > point in her life; and she sent that personal letter to me (which I >> still >> > > have somewhere) dismissing my sincerity in those letters--she was >> adamant >> > > about refusing to grant me any good faith in my actions at that time. >> > > > > >> > > > > She learned during a funeral in Victoria that I was posting on >> FFL. >> > > She posted. I wrote her a personal letter of thanks, since what she >> said >> > > there, although not contradicting in the main any of her actions >> against me >> > > in the past, exhibited a kind of sophistication and mercifulness that >> had >> > > allowed her to view me with more of a mixture of feelings. >> > > > > >> > > > > In our correspondence she proved to me that she knew me as the >> person >> > > Robin quite independently of the mask of the enlightened man--and she >> made >> > > comments to this effect, proving, to my surprise, that she had not >> entirely >> > > lost sight of something about me which remained true for her despite >> the >> > > grave actions she had taken in her attempt to shut down the cult. >> > > > > >> > > > > It is not a question of simple moral calculus here, Lord Knows. >> What >> > > you and Bill Howell have to take on is the person Anne Woelfe Bater >> as she >> > > lives her life at this time--and to determine whether in modifying her >> > > position regarding Robin Carlsen she has in effect betrayed a level of >> > > truthfulness for which she felt accountable when she endorsed Bill's >> book. >> > > > > >> > > > > The point, Lord Knows, is that you have already learned of Ann's >> > > position vis-a-vis Robin Carlsen. Bill making this book available >> does not >> > > change anything on the ground in your relationship with her. If in >> > > principle she was expressing sentiments which you deemed morally and >> > > psychologically inconsistent with her testimony in the past, you >> surely >> > > would have raised this with her in your many conversations with her >> before >> > > now. >> > > > > >> > > > > The availability of Bill's book does not alter things simply on >> the >> > > basis of what it says about me, nor that Ann in the past actually >> > > contributed to and concurred with what was said in that book. >> > > > > >> > > > > If you truly sense that Ann has traduced herself--or that she is >> > > somehow being deceitful or hypocritical in what she has already said >> about >> > > that book, or what she may say about that book, then it is your own >> > > responsibility to raise this matter with her. >> > > > > >> > > > > You would make Ann a liar then with the dissemination of this >> book? >> > > > > >> > > > > Ann is fearless and honest and she will tell the truth. As she >> > > experiences it as deeply as she can at this point in her life. She >> will not >> > > flinch in her remembrance of all that was so terribly wrong in the >> > > past--nor the wounds that remain. But for you to make her behaviour >> in the >> > > past (and what it implied about her judgment of me) invalidate the >> veracity >> > > of her present judgment of Robin Carlsen--that is something which >> can't >> > > work here, Lord Knows. >> > > > > >> > > > > I have not attempted to challenge the facts or incidents Bill >> Howell >> > > describes in his book--not that my memory agrees with his narration; I >> > > doubt Ann will do this either. But the whole point here, Lord Knows >> is: >> > > Does Bill's book capture the person Robin Carlsen in some definitive >> way >> > > that would make his portrait there an objective judgment of the >> person he >> > > is now--or even the person he was then. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am confident that Ann, should she read the book, will come to >> her >> > > own autonomous conclusions in regard to both of these questions. I am >> not >> > > expecting her to adhere to my own point of view as she once adhered to >> > > Bill's point of view. But I think she must be given the freedom to >> express >> > > her judgment of the book's relevance to 1. the truth of what actually >> was >> > > going on in those three years in some fundamental sense, and 2.the >> truth of >> > > Bill's portrayal of the cult leader as he existed 26 years ago, and >> as he >> > > exists now in November of 2012. >> > > > > >> > > > > Ii do not fear her judgment of those years, nor her judgment of >> me. >> > > She is extremely thoughtful and even profound in her judgments about >> > > people, about is true for her, about what life means for her. I am >> sure she >> > > will make an honest and searching judgment of the book as she finds >> its >> > > application to both her experience at that time, her experience now, >> and >> > > her perspective on her experiences then--from the vantage point of the >> > > person she presently is. >> > > > > >> > > > > She has already done this numerous times on FFL. >> > > > > >> > > > > Her judgment will not affect my own judgment of the book, however. >> > > > > >> > > > > Let us just see what she does, and then you can determine whether >> she >> > > is being true to her conscience, her past history, and her sense of >> what >> > > counts for her now. >> > > > > >> > > > > I don't think Ann could countenance any falsification of either >> her >> > > experience or her beliefs. >> > > > > >> > > > > Are you warning her that she faces some kind of tribunal of >> justice >> > > here? >> > > > > >> > > > > She can say and write whatever she wants to say or write. You will >> > > know that in the example of her you have something which does not go >> to >> > > proving the case that Bill Howell has made in his book--Else you must >> call >> > > her a liar--and her characterization of her past with me during the >> time >> > > described in that book (as viewed in the present) a deliberate and >> culpable >> > > act of treason--to herself, to Bill, to all of her friends whom she >> loves >> > > so deeply. >> > > > > >> > > > > You want a public lynching, Lord Knows. But what is at stake here >> is >> > > something much more important: What is the final truth of those Ten >> > > Years--and what is the way that time should be viewed in the present? >> And >> > > is Robin Carlsen who Bill Howell would say he always will be even in >> this >> > > moment? Let's just see what Ann ways--if indeed she says anything >> beyond >> > > what she has already said here on FFL. Where it is apparent she looks >> upon >> > > me in quite a different light than Bill Howell does, than you do, and >> than >> > > the book CULT would have me be. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am not, by the way, the person depicted in that book. >> > > > > >> > > > > Ann will do what she does heedless of anything but her own >> conscience, >> > > Lord Knows. >> > > > > >> > > > > And you already know this. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > --- In [email protected], "lordknows888" >> <lordknows888@> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Robin, >> > > > > > You have put Ann in a very difficult position; she can not >> possibly >> > > > > > truthfully agree with your judgement on the book "Cult" as being >> > > > > > essentially false. She read the book years ago and added >> whatever >> > > > > > comments and/or corrections to William at that time. She did not >> > > object >> > > > > > to his essential portrayal of the cult experience in the book >> at that >> > > > > > time,and she can not very well go back on what she stated then >> and >> > > now >> > > > > > state, so many years later, that the book is essentially false. >> Even >> > > > > > more personally, I can not imagine that Ann could look William >> or >> > > myself >> > > > > > in the eye and tell us that this book is a lie, that it does not >> > > > > > represent our very real essential experience of the cult. >> > > > > > Lord Knows >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > >
