--- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
>
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak!  Too late!  I already replied to RD.  But what the heck 
> stung her about John Newton for God's sake?!  Has she even met the man?!  
> No, I think it's what I say at the end of my reply to her.  She made John 
> Newton wrong to make me wrong.  And we all know why the women want to make 
> me wrong.  So you and them can continue to be right right RIGHT.  
> Pathetic!  What are they so insecure about?   
> 
> 
> And why the heck does he scare you, Robin?  Or are you being ironic?   

 I SAID: "just a LITTLE, Share. And that fear may go soon anyways. Please don't 
misquote me: to say "John scares me" is quite different from saying: John 
scares me JUST A LITTLE. 
 
> BTW, I said it was a NEW low for Emily and Raunchy.  Not so new for Ravi, 
> right?

As far as I am concerned, Ravi is just full of hate--especially for strong and 
loving women. If he likes you (and you are a woman), that means you're weak and 
pathetic. Dr Salyavin has provided us with a nifty diagnostic summation anyhow. 
I agree with him.

Jesus. I hope I am not losing it again. Much love and over and out.

Robin
 
 
 
> ________________________________
>  From: Robin Carlsen <maskedzebra@...>
> To: [email protected] 
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 12:41 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], 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.  
> > > 
> > 
> > A telling indicator of cluelessness is when a whole lot of people agree 
> > with each other about your behavior, you think there's something wrong with 
> > them and not yourself. Then, rather than consider it a gift from the 
> > universe that an entire group of people have given you exactly the same 
> > feedback, you dismiss them as a "cult" (an utterly laughable 
> > rationalization) and then run off to "healers" to validate your 
> > cluelessness. Healing in right in front of your face. Refusing to see it is 
> > what needs healing. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > For example, Judy has labeled me the most toxic person 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.  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Another essential truth is that we humans are going to make mistakes 
> > > whether our glitches are big or little, few or many.  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.
> > > 
> > > As far as I'm
> > >  concerned it's up to you to decide if you're a member of wts.  I'm only 
> > > weighing in on this because you and others are STILL bringing it up!  
> > > BTW this is another indicator of cultishness IMO because it too has an 
> > > element of being 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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 and 
> > > towards other non wts people like Barry.  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. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PS  A very recent example of your extremely negative thinking about 
> > > me:  I made no judgement about Raunchy's grand daughter.  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.  IMO both you and 
> > > Raunchy reached a new low with those posts.  
> > >
> > 
> > Who me, new lows? What about Gopi Boy? "Ravi called Newton "fucking 
> > delusional," but he didn't get a gauntlet (or even a guantlet) thrown at 
> > him either." 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328870
> > 
> > BTW if John Newton, himself hadn't thought the "fainting goat" riff was 
> > humorous, I'd wonder even more than I do about his bona fides.
> 
> Don't bite, Share. She's just trying to get back at you. You stung her. I 
> kinda like that. With Emily, I'd say just FO. You're good, Share. John scares 
> me just a little. And that's fine too.
> >
>


Reply via email to