--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > P.S. (post 48)  Steve, even if Share defers to her perception that > > > "psychological rape"  occurred during her off-line exchange with Robin, > > >  individually, Robin recently proposed, agreed, and offered to make > > > those exchanges public here.  Because they were private, he asked Share > > > for her permission.  Share ultimately, deferred to a meeting with her > > > pastoral counselor that she was going to have to supposedly get feedback. > > >  She came back here and posted something about "bringing more positivity > > > to FFL...."  What?  She never said:  "I discussed it and decided > > > against it."  She didn't address it at all.  Her response was > > > completely insulting and completely dismissive of everyone here who was > > > following the conversation and participating in it.  Excuuuusssseee Me! > > >  > > > > > > So, Share gets to retain her condemnation of Robin, and Robin, who was > > > willing to make the entire exchange public, is cut off at the knees. > > >  You see why Judy said that, in her opinion, if the allegations are > > > malicious, for example, the privacy issue doesn't apply.  It I were > > > being accused of such a thing, I would go ahead and post the exchanges, > > > if I thought it would be of service to me.  I learned my lesson in the > > > much less important post that Sal posted to me privately that I held > > > private and asked Judy and Curtis to do the same with, as I actually > > > didn't hold it quite private, did I?  In the future, for me, if it's an > > > FFL conversation or should be one, than it goes to FFL - period. > > >  Particularly if it's a controversial  one.  I want the extended > > > feedback for those that want to chime in.  I value it, I believe in it, > > > I always consider it.  Always.  Share's behavior here has been to act > > > out and create the kind of drama that shows that what's > > > inside the orange isn't necessarily orange juice.  Too bad she is > > > unwilling to take responsibility or accountability for anything she says. > > >  I am glad she has created a life for her that works in a community that > > > supports her.  I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and > > > open and generous person.  All I'm saying is that she has a shadow side, > > > and she is demonstrating many aspects of that here.  She can pretend > > > she's all love and light all she likes, but the proof is in the words she > > > puts down here, as far as I'm concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit. > > >  None of us are all love and light all the time; I don't know why she is > > > so scared to acknowledge her negative qualities.  > > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you Emily? > > Emily gets it, laughinggull. So do Ann, raunchy, Robin, > Alex, and I, and probably others who haven't spoken up. >
Then again, just as likely as probably *not* others who haven't spoken up. > Share on FFL is bullshit: toxic, thoroughly dishonest > and spiteful bullshit. You and Steve and feste have > been conned, but good. > Other names can easily be substituted into the above two sentences and it would have just as much meaning or *rigorous truth* to a few (or perhaps *others*) on this forum. Conned into what Judy? From time to time, I remind myself that FFL is an internet forum where anyone is free to share ideas, opinions, insults (at least according to you), etc. (And why does someone choose to post? That's anyone's guess.) And that *right* of anyone to post their version of the *truth* as they see it is just that, nothing more, and IMO they don't *owe* anyone an explanation (even as relentless as some are) nor does it *have* to stand up to others' version of the *rigorous truth*. Versions of the *truth* change from person to person and are dependent on numerous factors. We all give some people more leeway and are more tolerant of their insults, opinions, truths, etc., then with others, we hold their feet to the fire as they are held to a different (and perhaps higher) standard. To say otherwise would be dishonest with ourselves. Why is this? Totally non-sequitur: My wish is that some posters would clean up their "sailor mouth" because it forms an opinion in my mind of who that person is inside (i.e. angry, speak/write before they think, etc.). And I ask myself, would I use that kind of language around my children, grandchildren, Maharishi, etc., and if not, then why use it at all. Then again, I have to ask myself, what makes certain words unacceptable to me, after all, words are just combinations of letters, aren't they? Hmmm, interesting...
