> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > We could have avoided the LK posts, the Cult book and the > > > actually posting on FFL (really not their thing I would have to > > > conjecture). > > Regardless of that, I for one am glad that all these parties > > posted and I'm glad I read "Cult" if for nothing else to allow > > me to form an INFORMED OPINION (tip of the hat to RD) on such > > matters. > You are making the assumption here that the book and the > posts from Lord Knows and the Howells are entirely reliable > and complete accounts of what went on during Robin's 10 > years leading his group (or at least the last three years, > where Howell's book begins). If they aren't reliable and > complete, of course, you will not have been able to form an > INFORMED OPINION. I have no reason not to believe that everything Bill wrote in "Cult" happened just as he described it. Most of the time, his style appeared to be simply and objectively reporting what went on (like from a tape recorder) and he also mentioned that he was always writing in his notebook and had a hard time keeping up with everything going on because things were happening so fast. Since he was still very much a part of the inner circle at the time he took the notes, I think we can safely assume that his reporting was unbiased and accurate...if anything, perhaps skewed more in favor of Robin. Also, at moments, his warmth and generosity of spirit shone through which made him even more believable. Finally, just call it intuition on my part, but I just felt that he was writing the truth. I don't think anyone here has challenged Bill's take on the situation back then and the harm that Robin as a cult leader did. My take on the controversy here on FFL is that the Robin defenders are outraged that the Robin detractors are portraying him as the same Robin he was back then as if it was an insult. Well, duh, if you didn't think Robin was a bad person back then, then it wouldn't be such an insult if his detractors compared him to those days, would it now? From the book and from things Robin and his defenders have said, I have no reason not to assume that Robin was a bad person then, and it's still to be seen the person Robin is today. I'm sorry, but I can't yet trust him because I have understood much coming from him. I could come to a more accurate conclusion more quickly if Robin would simply stand alone and tell all his defenders to just STFU so that *his* voice can be heard...and then they would actually STFU and give him that chance. > > As some will remember (and some won't WANT to remember), but > > that was the primary "beef" against Vaj's posts, that is, > > that we had no one who was actually there to validate his > > insinuations and claims about Robin way back when. Whoopee, > > now we have four > > One of whom (in addition to Robin) has rather strenuously > disgreed with Vaj's insinuations. Also, Vaj claimed he was > with the group some years before the period covered by > Howell's book, so the latter cannot be said to constitute > a validation of Vaj's insinuations. > > > AND a tell-all book. I'm so happy...not! Why, because both > > sides are using and continue to use this information unjustly > > to support each side. > > "Unjustly"? Thing is, those on Robin's side have been > explicit as to why they object to what's been said by the > other side, but you will find very little in the way of > specific rebuttal from the other side of what the folks > supporting Robin have said, just lots of vague accusations > (including the absurd contention in the post I was > responding to above that Robin's supporters are jealous > of Share). Unfair Judy. You know that was a response to RD's wild speculations of Share's unrequitted love and was offered as something just as ridiculous as those speculations. Just so I'm clear on this, Robin's side (so there ARE sides... interesting) object to the "other side" because they have maligned Robin's character and are dishonest in accusing him of being exactly as he was 25+ years ago? And the other side hasn't refuted what Robin's supporters have said in support of him? Am I right on this? Judy, I fear you are so involved in defending Robin and other forms of dishonesty on this forum that you completely miss any attempts of discussion from the other side, and eventually they just give up because they don't have the time for the effort that is required. > > It's all a matter of one's interpretation, and a no-win > > situation. > > As Robin might ask, how much truth, how much reality, has > gotten into what each of the sides has said? If you have > read it all closely, you ought to be able to form an > impression of which side has made more of an attempt to > clarify and to be accurate and precise. Sorry to say Judy, but your side is losing by a long shot. Are you truly serious in thinking you've made more of an attempt to clarify and be accurate and precise? In simple terms, how so, if I may be so bold to ask? (And please, no insults and no blow-offs...I really want to know.) > > > Share has managed to, single-handedly, marshall a whole > > > slew of enablers who feel it necessary to run to her rescue > > > when in reality, all she had to do was be honest. But now > > > this has become some major incident and I wonder if truth > > > will out. > > > > I'm sorry to say this, but I think this was the intention all > > along so that the truth is so hopelessly buried that it can > > never been found. > > If you mean it was Share's intention, I would agree with you. > It certainly was not the intention of the Robin faction--to > the contrary. You *ought* to have been able to tell the > difference, IMO. Just for one thing, how many of Share's > "enablers" have actually addressed what has been said about > her in response to her posts? > > <snip> >From my viewpoint, it happens in both factions, but perhaps more in Robin's >faction because it gets lost in the lengthy discourses that can't be >understood by the majority and the lengthy research required of you to >disprove some of the claims made. As far as that last question, I believe you >might have asked it in another post and I answered it there. This is it for today...my, my, my what a busy day it's been. And I can't guarantee this will continue.
