--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal > > > > > human being. > > > > > > > > To whom? > > > > > > To anyone who is interested, obviously. > > > > > > > Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different > > > > continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. > > > > I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed > > > > up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of > > > > people, crazy and sane. > > > > > > Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin > > > because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no > > > sense whatsoever. > > > > > > > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > > > > > > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, > > > > especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see > > > > where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in > > > > those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how > > > > would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when > > > > they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated > > > > them, because he needed to tell them something 'very > > > > important', and that would be that he has changed? > > > > > > This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an > > > *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. > > > > A challenge. > > > > > > Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? > > > > > > HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. > > > > But not convincingly though. For that there is too much self-defense in it. > > There are too many aspects in the whole thing he still believes in. For > > example the idea that he has a special access to the 1st person ontology of > > people. And that's a very serious one, believe me, not something to joke > > about. > > > > > > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position > > > > > where you need to prove you are good and decent person, > > > > > now changed from 25 years ago? > > > > > > > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so > > > > absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just > > > > be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the > > > > hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in > > > > itself makes him suspicious. > > > > > > This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of > > > looking at this. > > > > You should now feel some compassion toward me :-> > > > > > > > > What else would you have him do? > > > > > > > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > > > > > > He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what > > > he's like now, if they're interested. > > > > Now that 'also offering' is contradicting the first statement. It is > > undermining it directly, and more so as he does so only as a reaction to > > his perceived 'wrong' portrayal in CULT. Now, if he would have evolved in a > > major way, he would be able to accept the way he was perceived. He would > > not try to convince people that he is different. His very wish to INFLUENCE > > people even now is the problem. ACCEPTANCE of the status quo would be the > > solution. Of course IMHO > > > > > > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin > > > > > with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your > > > > > part, IMO. > > > > > > > > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are > > > > interpreting a little too much into this. > > > > > > Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't > > > have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty > > > is not helping you. > > > > > I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut 'diagnosis' at > > all. It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an opinion, > > which I shared. Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very > > carefully, with the intention not to hurt anybody, knowing the likes of > > insensitive people like you would just madly jump at it. > > > > Having now admitted what everyone suspected, that you posted about BPD with > Robin in mind, did it feel good to validate your *opinion* of him so that you > could denigrate him in good conscience? I'd say you were pretty darn > insensitive yourself and slanderously presumptuous, to go balls out BPD on > him, I might add. >
Nope, your are entirely hypocritical here, Raunchy, I had no intention of even mentioning him, neither could I expect him to comment on the video. There was no plan to denigrate him from my side at all.
