--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Raunchy, your comment "keep my family out of this" wherein you address me as > if I'm a serial killer was way out of line IMO. And the sad thing is, you > know it too. You just don't have the guts to admit it. As if your shallow > and cleverly negative comments about John Newton weren't bad enough. > > > I know that I need healing. I have said that over and over. And I follow > through.    > > > Look at the very last sentence of this post of yours, Raunchy which is based > on a theoretical non event with someone you haven't even deigned to meet in > person, tho you could have easily 3 times this year. See how desperate you > are to twist and hide the fact that what I'm saying in the first paragraph > above is true. That you made a mistake. > > > Basically you want to make John Newton wrong because you want to make me > wrong. So you and wts can be right.
OK, I had another very busy day, no time for this FFL stuff. I am catching up slowly and I am working my way up from the morning posts. But I am going to pull rank here and tell you that you need to drop this wts idea you harbour, it would help you out a great deal just to do this one thing. Look, I was there for God's sake, and you just sound ridiculous, like some parrot that was taught a phrase and it has no idea what it means but that parrot just keeps repeating the same thing over and over. Do you even know what WTS stands for? It was only a small portion of time that WTS was even part of what Robin was doing, a couple of years. There is no World Teacher, there is no seminar. It ain't happening. If you think what is going on here at FFL resembles what went on around Robin 26-36 years ago it is like comparing a donkey to Secretariat, MIU to Harvard, Justin Bieber to the Rolling Stones. No one's buying this Share. Let it go, move on, figure it out, surrender your ego, stop looking for backup from those who know as little as you do about all of this. Your first baby step is to resist putting the letters 'w', 't' and 's' in sequence. Now I gotta go, there is more to read, I'm only at about 12 noon.  Thank you for once again proving my point. > > > ________________________________ > From: raunchydog <raunchydog@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 12:03 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking > > >  > > > --- 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. > > > > 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. >
