--- In [email protected], "emilymae.reyn" <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Dear Sharester, I'm having trouble letting go. But, I promise I will after > this post. *Really.* I will demonstrate the letting go action to you - it's > good practice for me. Before I go for now, I will say that I hope you print > out and show the last two posts re: wts that you wrote and I responded to, > that you never got back to me on, to your pastoral counselor. If she tells > you that "yes, you are right, you have maintained your integrity through the > whole conversation and these people challenging you are just bullies and mean > and unfairly abusive," you will know for sure that you are paying her for > nothing. > > First of all, you didn't even give me the time of day to respond, and I put a > lot of energy and effort into those posts to you - recognizing you as a human > being. > > Second, you might think about, in the privacy of your own prayer routine, > thanking Ann, raunchy, Judy, Ravi, Robin, Ravi and I for processing all of > your negative emotions over the last 6 months for you. For my part, I did > this out of love and concern for you Share (yes, that irritating universal > love of you as another human being.) > > This tactic of yours - launching passive attacks and then running away and > asking those you launched spears at to do your dirty work is a good one, > isn't it? Then, you feel better and can skip off to the Dome, presenting > nothing to those you meet on the yellow brick road, but generosity, openness, > and love. I bet you act as a source of knowledge to others', don't you. > > I bet you include a lot of information to them on food and supplements they > should be taking. You outed yourself by mistake when you said you had had > food issues all your life. Are you aware of what that means and how having > issues with this most basic function in life (eating) can through time fully > affect the construct of your thought process, and forever-more create a need > to subconsciously protect yourself so you never have to deal with it and the > self-preservation issues that come with it? I am sorry you've had to deal > with this. It's a survival issue, I know. I don't have it, but in the past, > I have been intimately involved with someone who has. Comes with endless > denial, I'm aware. > > The years of dedication to healing; the living in a healing community; the > collection of people and healers and philosophies support the construct of > denial you have built. You never have to get truly real Share or speak for > yourself - you have learned the healing language and just have to invoke > experts on your behalf over and over again. You can hide forever and act > like an innocent victim, whenever anyone asks to be validated for their own > individual thought process that disagrees with yours - because you are right, > because you have done nothing to apologize or make amends for, because there > is something wrong with them and they need to experience "complete healing." > > I am sorry that you have had to go the this kind of extreme in your life to > self-preserve. It is a testament of our instinct, as humans, to survive. I > am sorry that, in all cases, you twist reality to fit your own worldview and > summarily dismiss and attack anyone and everything that won't conform to your > way of thinking. Too threatening isn't it. You are missing out on so much > Share, but it's beyond me at this point to try and convince you of this. I > do believe you are fully entrenched in your vision of yourself and your own > rock solid storyline - and you have built an enormous safety net of people > who see only what you show them - the bliss bubble of the positive > characteristics you want to be known for. It's sad to watch. > > You placing me in a cult, because you were too afraid to be honest and real, > is predictable; as was your refusal to address it. Easier to just forever > claim you were "right" and relentlessly impose your reality on FFL with no > interest in supporting or discussing it. Another example is continuing to > invoke the term "wishing complete healing" on people and FFL at large without > ever clearly examining what that means - how dare anyone challenge you on > this meaningless term. Right? Also, on ousting Judy, Ann, and raunchy from > your readers' list and I'm guessing me, after this post, if you have the guts > to read it. So many other examples Share of your refusing to actually > interact with anyone who has tried, unless you are sure you can control the > outcome. > > But, you keep reading Barry, although he was a bit hard on you today, don't > you think? Just return to the innocent little girl stance and use a "poo" > extension for him....he did take a large poo today on you didn't he? > > Just throw us all away Share and keep putting us all down - we challenged you > on your reality and you are so shame-based deep down, that it is simply > unacceptable. You must retain your vision of yourself at all costs, right? > I am sorry you are so shame-based. Of course it isn't your fault - you > didn't deserve whatever created this within, but you are responsible for what > you say and do and how you behave now. The only solution, as I said before, > is rigorous honesty. You don't need to exercise that here, but don't forget > that I know what I am talking about in this regard. > > Stop caring about what the other posters think about you. I've given up on > worrying about that myself. It's kind of freeing. I'd be mad at Judy too, > if I were you Share, just fyi. My ego would be upset. But, I would still > try to pay attention to what she was saying. She doesn't run away Share - > she puts herself out there consistently and without regard to the attacks she > might get in return. > > This is my final thought. I am going to let you go Share, in love and with > compassion. But, I will not forget the way that you treated me in FFL-land. > However, I will "leave the door open" for you anytime you feel like > addressing me in any way you want. Keep smiling and throwing darts and > launching spiked spears for as long as it's working for you, even if it's > your whole life. You have another one coming, right? Emily.
I just read this now. It is the most hard hitting and deeply-felt post I have ever read here. If someone just paid you for an hour of your time for this analysis I think you could have charged $100K. I don't know where all of this dwells inside of you Emily but it was formidable, terrifying and potentially transformative. My hat is off to you but I am not sure everyone will feel this way. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > As for caring what someone thinks of me, there are many posters on FFL > > whose opinion, including of me, I care about. This is also why I reply, > > especially to Judy's accusations. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: turquoiseb <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:08 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Judy > > > > > >  > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > You began misinterpreting me on Sept 9 post 319521 and have > > > > > continued to do so up to the present. > > > > > > > No, no, Share, generalizations are not acceptable. They're one > > > > of your many ways of avoiding accountability for what you say. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > There are those who see forests and those who see trees. Share > > > seems to be a generalist, a caretaker of forests. You are far > > > more specific, taking care of individual trees. I do not think > > > you two will ever connect. There is something to say for each > > > of these views, but such a divergence between them will never > > > line up as an argument. Your thinking styles are simply not > > > compatible. She cannot understand you, and you cannot understand > > > her, though I suspect you feel you have Share pegged, and she > > > feels she has you pegged. This is an opinion, not a fact. If > > > it were a fact, it would be hopeless to continue, unless > > > bickering is the gold standard for social congress. > > > > That's a compassionate way of seeing things, but I see > > them a little differently. For one thing, I think that > > Share and Judy (and the rest of the pile-on persecutors > > of her) are remarkably ALIKE, in that they all 1) have > > large egos that constantly require stroking, 2) have a > > near-constant need to attract attention, and 3) have > > a near-desperate compulsion to "get in the last word" > > or "win" arguments that don't matter to anyone else in > > the world *but* their large egos. > > > > The fact that Share CARES what any of these bitches > > think of her makes her a perfect victim for their > > assaults, and from her side SHE keeps restarting the > > arguments and thus *making* herself the victim every > > time it dies down, because that gets her attention. > > > > I think it's all a little tacky, and too much like a > > bitchy high school girl clique ( and I include both > > Robin and Ravi as "girls" :-) to watch any of it. It's > > all too predictable at this point, and too Drama Queens > > On Parade to bother with. > > > > Share could stop it at any point by just *letting* the > > cliquebitches have the last word and moving on to more > > sane topics. Then when they tried to restart it again, > > just ignore them again. But she doesn't, because IMO > > 1) she's hungry to be the focus of attention and have > > everything be "all about her," and 2) SHE'S JUST > > LIKE THE WOMEN PILING ONTO HER. > > > > All I can say is that by now my "Next" finger is almost > > worn out from zipping past anything that ANY of them say, > > and I suspect other people's are, too. I just wish the > > whole lot of them would grow up. > > >
