Your blind is showing again Ann.  Glaringly so.  I don't know how that
could be possible, but it is.
Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even
close, not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him
physically up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his
"mindfuckery", his "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to even
conceive of such a thing that it makes me smile, just a little. And boy,
you think he can mess with you now, 30 years ago you would have lasted
about an hour at the mic. And even during all that time I wouldn't have
characterized it as 'psychological rape". I could and would and did call
it lots of other things but never quite that. Still, you have the option
to stop reading, stop responding but you don't. I noticed recently that
when you have been absent for a while and Robin intermittently shows up
so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating
toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop whining and
complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' totally.
> >
> > 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.Â
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > --- 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to