--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > >
<snip> > > > --Lord Knows, Howell and his disgusting wife, > > > > A little harsh there, don't ya think Judy? You got all that > > from the one comment she's made here in support of her > > husband's book? > > Oh, I see you haven't read her post. Maybe you should do > that before you ask why I said she was disgusting. > I did read it once, but I'll go back and re-read it. > > How can everyone involved in Robin's cult 25+ years ago (LK, > > Howell and his wife, to name a few) > > Those three and Ann are the only ones we've heard from, so, > you know, not exactly "everyone," eh? > Another unintentional slip in my writing. I wasn't suggesting *everyone*. I guess I should have written *anyone*, huh? > > have it all *wrong* and you've got it all *right*. > > I don't know. Did someone make such a claim? > > > Evidently, there is much *more* that these abused people need > > from their abuser than an admission on a public forum that he > > was wrong (notwithstanding flaws in his character) and is *now* > > a different person. > > Sometimes what we think we need is really just what we > *want*. And we don't always get what we want. (I believe > there was a song about that awhile back.) > > > If we go strictly by what these people are still feeling and > > seeing in what they call his *manipulative* current writings, > > Is what they're "feeling and seeing" really "manipulative," > or is that an accusation designed to extort something from > him? Not an all. I thought I had read that in LK's and Howell's analyses of how RWC writes here at FFL...that he is still being manipulative in his writing. > > it appears that he's offered nothing to them in that regard. > > What's really disgusting is that this is being hashed in > > public rather than making amends privately between the > > parties involved. > > If you read the book, you'll see that he *did* try to make > amends in private, and they weren't accepted. > My bad. I haven't read that far in the book as yet. > > > Barry, and, > > > of course, yourself. (Don't bother protesting your innocence; > > > what on earth would make you think I'd take you seriously? > > > Especially when you write vicious posts like this one.) > > > > <snip> > > > > > Robin can do just fine on his own dealing with the > > > vampire crew. But I like to get my own licks in. Call > > > it a personal crusade against dishonesty. > > > > Your personal crusade against dishonesty is admirable, Judy, > > but there is so much dishonesty in the world that I'm sure > > you see and read about, how can you get any peace or sleep > > knowing that you can't respond to it all? > > You know the story about the little girl and the starfish, > right? I think so...about picking up one of many starfish and throwing it back into the ocean as a beginning? Kind of like "even the longest journey starts with the first step", eh? > > And why not pursue it where it really counts instead of on > > an insignificant public forum such as this one? > > How do you know I'm not? Where *do* you find the time??? > > Is it the > > "big-fish-in-a-small-pond" syndrome? > > > > I think you and many others attribute more power to this forum > > than it deserves. No one's life is going to be ruined by > > anything that's written here, > > Oh, better tell Curtis that. That's a lot different in that people can search for CDB's name in relation to his work with our young people, and it wouldn't be right to find misrepresentations of some statements he's made taken out of context. But I guess then you could make a case for some forum members calling RWC disturbed and having his employers find that through a search. > > and your insults to others take much away from any credibility > > to be found in what you write. It's like when the writer starts > > making insults, then s/he has reached the end of the line and > > we know we've got 'em. > > Well, you'd have to have rebutted everything *substantive* > the writer had said before coming to that conclusion, would > you not? > I've over my head, but I think what I meant was how insults, or maybe I should have said name-calling, adds nothing to the argument, and is a turn-off for me and perhaps others as well. You don't see that in a true debate, do you?
