--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > http://simpsonswiki.net/wiki/Lord_Nose >
Dear FFL Moderators, Stop. Ranchydog just committed a serious FFL felony right there revealing the actual identity of some one [Lord_Nose] who was trying to post undercover anonymously on FFL. It is in the FFL guidelines that people can post openly here in a safety of anonymity. Please enforce the rights to privacy of this list with some strong and appropriate sanctions on Ranchy's rights to post here. At least the 3 minute penalty in the doghouse. The yellow card. Throw the damned the red foul flag. There should be zero tolerance for such a low uncivilized uncultured stinkin' behavioral a thing as revealing someone's identity on FFL. Be swift. -Buck > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
