On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Share Long <[email protected]> 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? > > BTW, I said it was a NEW low for Emily and Raunchy. Not so new for Ravi, > right? > Oh boy - this is bad. Mummy Auntie Share is talking bad about me again. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Robin Carlsen <[email protected]> > *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. > > > > > > >
