Opinions and/or possible insights interspersed below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@...> wrote: > > > Hey Share, > > I enjoyed your response here. You realize of course that Judy and > perhaps Robin are going to issue a rebuttal, point by point to > everything you are saying. Well Judy may be running short on posts. > And you realize of course that your points will be thoroughly > discredited, at least in their mind. > > But your response here is the Kali side of Share that I am so impressed > with. Rather mild in this case, but effective nonetheless. > > Here's something I've been thinking about. > > I like Robin. I think he is a gifted writer. But wouldn't you expect > someone who claims to have come off the cult leader persona, and who is > vehement in this claim to come off a little differently?
Perhaps come off differently in his *actions* but perhaps not necessarily in his *writing*...and the only thing we currently have that tell us anything about who he is today are his *words*. > I mean, keep in mind that Robin saw fit to write what was, I believe, a > forty page letter to Curtis, insisting that Curtis address some issues > that Robin deemed to be essential. > > Does that make any sense? I mean Curtis indicated that he didn't really > care to discuss the matter further. And yet Robin pressed on, again and > again. A forty pager, a 20 pager, 10 pagers. It's not really my "cup of tea" which is why I don't generally read what he writes. (But I have occasionally uncovered a gem...well, maybe not a gem but a zirconia...in my in scanning some of his shorter posts.) But that's the "nature of the beast" (i.e. a public forum) in which we have all *chosen* to participate. What anyone writes here can be read and responded to, read and not responded to, or completely ignored (i.e. not read). However, what anyone writes comes with a responsibility of not slandering a person, and the right of anyone to respond in defense. > And this is the pattern with Robin. A pattern of bringing to most every > discussion a template which attempts to discern if one is acting from a > level of truth which is aligned with reality, or with ones' first person > ontology. > > I mean who communicates like this? Does this seem normal? And does > this not resemble the little we know about the WTS? According to at > least three people who were there, Bill, Brahmi, and LK, it does > resemble that time. In his *writing* alone and not necessarily in his *actions*. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear from someone who has actually been around him for a period of time over the last couple of years who could really *see* who he is today? (I'm beginning to understand the aphorism "actions speak louder than words".) There is no doubt that he is one of the more "colorful" characters that I've come across in my life, and I might enjoy sitting down with him more as a "person of interest" but I think I would not want to sit down with him regularly. But then again, I try to keep an open mind about such things. > But evidently Raunchy doesn't see it that way. Nor Judy or Ravi I > assume. I'm beginning to understand where they're coming from. It's in defense of someone who is being unfairly judged but what he *writes* alone and not necessarily his *actions* in real life. > But inspite of this, Robin says he is reformed. That he has spent 25 > years reforming himself. but all we have to go, is his word, because > his actions don't indicate this, at least to me. "... but all we have to go (on), is his word..." That exactly right, his *word* (i.e. his writing). "...his actions don't indicate this..." What actions? We can't see his *actions* unless we're in his presence for a significant period of time. I was hung up on the same thing until someone pointed out to me that writing style can remain the same even though a person may be different inside. I, for one, am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt until he proves otherwise (i.e. does some *actions* that would impact me in a negative way). > Perhaps he is the cult leader version of a dry drunk. He still > demonstrates some of the behaviors of a cult leader, but at his core, he > is not. > > But like I said, I like him quite a lot, and I enjoy his participation > here. > > That's my take <snip>
