Relapse, Salyavin. I thought we talked this through together. Find the ice-cream first.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Emily I think the main cult characteristics are thinking > > > the cult and its leader are almost all positive. AND what > > > I've come to think is an even more telling indicator of > > > cultishness, thinking that those who don't agree with the > > > cult and its leader are almost all negative. So when the > > > writing of a FFL person expresses such extremely polarized > > > thinking, then I think that person is fundamentally aligned > > > with the group I've been calling wts. > > > > There is no such thing as "wts" as you originally defined > > it: "CULT DYNAMICS ARE CURRENTLY HAPPENING ON FFL IN wts. > > What I see here on FFL around Robin is a mini and cyber > > version of WTS, what I think of as wts." > > > > This was and is absolutely the worst kind of bullshit, SICK > > bullshit, PERVERTED bullshit. > > Are you in the same ward as Ravi? > > > Now let's look at some more of your bullshit: > > > > > For example, Judy has labeled me the most toxic person > > > > Liar. I said you were the most toxic person *I* had ever > > encountered. But you deliberately left that part off to > > make it sound more extreme than it was. > > > > > AND labeled Robin's WTS intentions the absolute highest > > > and purest. I think these phrases indicate extremely > > > polarized thinking as expressed by the use of verbal > > > superlatives. > > > > And here's another: This is TOTAL bullshit from you, > > Share. It makes no sense. It isn't even remotely logical. > > Everybody engages in what you're calling "polarized > > thinking"--INCLUDING YOU--when it seems appropriate. If > > it *is* appropriate, there's not a thing wrong with it. > > It's just one of the ways people express themselves. > > > > That I think Robin's intentions were of the highest and > > purest when he was leading WTS (along with the > > intentions of his followers) does not mean I think Robin > > was or is somehow a perfect human being. > > > > But that is the SICK, PERVERTED way you're interpreting > > what I said. THAT is "polarized thinking" that is > > INAPPROPRIATE. > > > > > The problem with such extremely polarized thinking IMO is > > > that it totally misses an essential truth about us human > > > beings, which is that we are all a mix of positive and > > > negative and that most of us are mostly positive with a a > > > glitch or two thrown in to keep us embodied and growing. > > > And some of us have more and or bigger glitches. > > > > Yes, show us where any of those you've accused of being > > cultists have ever thought that we are not all a mix of > > positive and negative. > > > > You can't. You're just mouthing psychobabble you've > > picked up from one of your many, many "healers." It's > > bullshit. And a non sequitur. > > > > > Another essential truth is that we humans are going to make > > > mistakes whether our glitches are big or little, few or many. > > > > DUH. Of course nobody here ever said otherwise. Non sequitur. > > > > > In regards to this I have also noticed that a big feature > > > of extremely polarized thinking is that it does not allow > > > for making mistakes, learning from them and forgiveness. > > > This too I think is very harmful. > > > > This may be, but you haven't seen anything like it here. > > Another non sequitur. > > > > > As far as I'm concerned it's up to you to decide if you're > > > a member of wts. > > > > No, sorry, there's no such thing as "wts" for us to decide > > about. It's a fantasy you created because you had fucked > > up and had to find something to use to beat up on the people > > who had pointed out your fuck-ups to you. > > > > > I'm only weighing in on this because you and others are > > > STILL bringing it up! > > > > It's STILL being brought up because YOU can't bring yourself > > to acknowledge it was bullshit. > > > > > BTW this is another indicator of cultishness IMO because > > > it too has an element of being extreme in its expression. > > > > No, wrong. Being extreme is not some infallible indicator > > of "cultishness." Nor is bringing up your "wts" bullshit > > "extreme in its expression." > > > > > Also BTW I keep saying IMO to indicate that I realize what > > > I'm saying is only my opinion based on my observations. > > > Nothing more. > > > > Except you haven't "observed" what you claim those opinions > > are based on. > > > > > Of all the wts people I think you're pretty fluid in your > > > thinking. But you still are sometimes extreme in the > > > negative direction towards me > > > > WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CULTISHNESS. Claiming that > > it *does* is your attempt to intimidate into silence those > > who have criticisms of you. It's not working, Share. You > > are a person who provokes other people into very negative > > reactions. *That's* what you need to be thinking about. > > > > > and towards other non wts people like Barry. > > > > There are no "wts people," therefore no "non wts people" > > either. > > > > > Often I think your negativity is expressed cleverly and > > > pseudo playfully. Nonetheless the extreme negativity > > > underneath is discernible. And as I say above, this > > > extremely polarized thinking in the negative direction > > > has become for me the clearest indication of someone's > > > being in the group I call wts. > > > > There is no such group--unless you want to change your > > original definition and call it "people who have criticisms > > of Share." > > > > If you had even a shred of integrity, you would realize > > this is what your "wts" is and has always been, from the > > time you first dreamed it up. > > > > > PS A very recent example of your extremely negative thinking > > > about me: I made no judgement about Raunchy's grand daughter. > > > > Emily never said you did, liar. > > > > > I was expressing an opinion about the BENEFICIAL effect I > > > thought John Newton's work would have on Raunchy and the > > > people in her life. > > > > You were expressing an incredibly judgmental opinion about > > what a horrible person raunchy is to deprive her > > granddaughter of the magical healing powers of John Newton. > > > > The most ridiculous post I've ever seen on this forum. And > > that is saying something. > > > > > IMO both you and Raunchy reached a new low with those posts. > > > > No, that would be *your* post about raunchy that reached > > a new low. But you continue to come up with lower and lower > > lows. Share, you are out of control. > > >
