Dear Share, because I cannot understand a thing you say, I am forced to rely on 
my intuition.  This is what I decided at the beach today.  We don't communicate 
using the same language.  I mean the words are similar, but the language is 
different.  No wonder we don't understand each other.    

When I used the word "Awwwwww", I used it on a number of posts.  I was teasing 
FFL after Emptybill wrote that post on group hugs, etc.  It was nothing 

Let me tell you Share, everything I write is calculated.  Curtis was right 
about that; damn him.  I mean, not really, but I do think as I write.  For 
example, today I sent you an email that said "you bet your sweet little 
backjack".......first I used the word "ass", but then, I thought, "I should 
stop swearing."  So, I thought well, "ass" reminds me of "baby got back" and 
that reminds me of the word "backjack."  Now, this is a new word for I 
thought, "well, I'll use it in a sentence."  The next word I think I'll try and 
use is "equivocate."  Had to look that one up.  I like it.  That's the level of 
calculating I do, Share.  

You and I have very different senses of humor.  I understand totally how you 
could think I am creepy.  I think so too.  Sal thought so.  We are agreed on 
that point.  I have the ability to see it from your perspective.  I can't 
change it, but I understand. 

Did I say something negative about Mr. Newton?  That was tongue in cheek, 
seriously, Share.  I've been to healers, I assure you.  I've seen and 
experienced some amazing shit.  I guess that I see no purpose in your standing 
up for him.  Instead, why don't you share a real experience of the real feeling 
and healing that took place for you.  That would be more interesting for me, 

You have projected an amazing amount of negative since you've been here, IMO.  
I don't how you can be in denial of this.  But, so be it.  You don't see it.  
I'm sorry.  I pray for complete healing for you.  I really do.  

 From: Share Long <>
To: "" <> 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking

Your post just below that begins Awwwww is what I meant by your new low.  That 
bit about my judging Raunchy's granddaughter.  It's from yesterday, the thread 
that begins Yikes!  OTOH today's post is pretty low too.  That bit about how 
dare these people etc.  

What I don't like is people saying negative stuff about someone positive that 
they have had no contact with.  Except a website!  Furthermore, I've told you 
what I think are the main criteria for being in wts.  It has nothing to do with 
people agreeing or disagreeing with me.  At least once you have made a cleverly 
snide comment about how I post and then run off to the Dome.  Last but not 
least, I have replied plenty to you.  The accusation that I haven't will no 
longer work with me.  So my suggestion is to reply only if you want to.  Or 
whatever values you use to decide about such.  

BTW, I do like you mostly.  But not so much when you do your clever and or 
pseudo playful thing.  Others may find it adorable.  I find it kind of creepy.  

Awwwww, that's so real.  Raunchy, Share is in too much fear me.  I am a 
formidable woman, after all.  She will never address any of my 
questions - she has written me off because it's less scary that way.  I 
don't think she likes me very much.  Or, maybe, her latest John Newton 
healing session will have done her some good and soon we will experience the 
benefits here on FFL, subtle as they may be.  Although, given this 
comment about your granddaughter - judgment still reigns supreme in her 

 From: Emily Reyn <>
To: "" <> 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking

No Share, that's *not* what I say or have said.  I have said that you "avoid" - 
I have nothing but multiple concrete examples of this I could show you, if I 
cared enough to spend the time to do so, and I don't.  

Good barb on me "running to the coast" and "walking my dog."  Way to avoid life 
- it's one of my specialties, didn't you know?  I  have many more tricks up my 
sleeve I could tell you that you might benefit from more than whoever the next 
healer is on the circuit through Fairfield catering to those addicted to the 
"health and wellness" industry.  You bet your sweet little backjack, that's 
what I'm doing, and I'll be doing that the rest of the day and loving every 
balmy second of it.  

You *are* ranting.  Yeah!  Be angry Share, be very, very angry.  How dare these 
people say these horrific things about Mr. Newton? And, it isn't just those you 
have cultized, it was other people too.  Does that mean they are now candidates 
for the cult you've created to assign people to who disagree with you?  

From: Share Long <>
To: "" <> 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking

Jesus, Robin!  Can't you answer a question either?!  Ok.  What scares you a 
little about John Newton?  Or scared past tense just in case it's already 
gone.  And btw if you really want to be scared, check out his teacher, the 
originator of the forgiveness prayers, kahuna Howard Wills.

Over and out, I'm off to writing group.  You know, how Emily says I post and 
then go somewhere else.  I guess it's ok that she runs to the coast, walks her 
dog etc.

Great!  Now I'm ranting.  Yeah, yeah, much love to you too.  And what the heck, 
to the whole screwy gang!  

 From: Robin Carlsen <>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking


--- In, 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.


> ________________________________
>  From: Robin Carlsen <maskedzebra@...>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 12:41 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking
> --- In, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In, 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." 
> >
> > 
> > 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