--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant > choice of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of > Robin's assumption that you are not aligned with "reality" > and his writing is going to jolt you into an ability to face > life in a Robin approved more real way.
No, Curtis, that isn't what happened. To start with, this was a minor conflict between Share and Robin--due to a misunderstanding by Share of something quite innocuous that Robin had said--a conflict which *you did your damndest to exacerbate*. Here's what Share said at the time to Robin: "As for what my feelings were, I didn't suffer or feel insulted. Nor did I think you were being hurtful or cruel. I simply did not want to pursue the theme of whether or not I was being the real me. Nor the theme of my alleged hyper positivity. We've been down those rabbit holes plenty." This reflected her *misunderstanding* of what Robin had said. He had practically turned himself inside-out trying to explain to her what he had really meant and apologizing profusely *himself* for not having been clear. But notice that she "didn't suffer or feel insulted." That was when you, Curtis, jumped in and started the process of trying to convince her she had something major to complain about, which ultimately--*a month later*--culminated in her "psychological rape" accusation. *A month later*. Not "when this first came up." It took quite a bit of time to talk her into making that "flamboyant" accusation. This accusation, Curtis, *was your doing*. I believe you had some help from LordKnows as well, behind the scenes, in your project of getting Share to smear Robin for something that she initially hadn't been that bothered by. And now you're doing your best to perpetuate the smear. This is, of course, what you were referring to when you claimed Robin had had an "unfriendly" agenda with Share "from the outset," your disingenuous denials notwithstanding. I wrote two posts documenting in detail Share's amazing progression from not suffering or feeling insulted to believing she had been the victim of "psychological rape." I'll dig them up if necessary. Now read Curtis's version of what happened, bearing in mind the *facts* I outlined above. His dishonesty is appalling: > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this > unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined with the word > flooding it is quite unpleasant. > > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way > that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it. > > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he had > crossed... > > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way. > > Note to Share: You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no > matter what you say. It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an > unnecessary apology will be judged by them. > > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a > > "psychological rapist." > > > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step" > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely. > > > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your > > character. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part > > > of an apology. Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could > > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis > > > exchange. For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an > > > apology and this is where the cost comes in. And of course the cost or > > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences. Such as a > > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the > > > family savings for example. > > > > > > But the first step is to offer > > > apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person. > > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year. And it seems > > > we're not getting to it again. But I've made my offer and stand by it. > > > > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing. In those > > > days many people went to confession every week. Also I say it just in > > > case I've hurt someone's feelings. The better I know FFL people the > > > more I'll dispense with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE > > > > > > > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful > > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis > > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the > > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the > > > > semantics of that) > > > > > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and > > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference > > > to what Curtis said. > > > > > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you. > > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that > > > > > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including > > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when > > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best > > > *ambiguous*. > > > > > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin > > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's, > > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and > > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was > > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response > > > to your post about Barry, Ann. > > > > > > (snip) > > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite > > > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It > > > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to > > > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant. > > > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense > > > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate > > > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before > > > > they even have time to react. > > > > > > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone > > > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent > > > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what > > > will an apology from this person mean for something that > > > really requires an apology? > > > > > > If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to > > > the person to whom it is given. > > > > > > It would cost Share something to apologize for calling > > > Robin a psychological rapist. But she isn't willing to > > > give that much of herself to right the grievous wrong > > > for which she was responsible. > > > > > >
