See Steve, this is why I appreciate you. And I will tell you something that might make you blush because, actually, I believe you are a healthy, gently, reasonable person PLUS I think you are one of the more courageous posters here. Why? Because you NEVER hesitate to answer a post, to go into the lion's lair or what may not turn out to be a dangerous place but still COULD be. You will take a chance and you will respond. Whether people agree with you or think you are a blundering fool is not the point. The point is I believe you to have integrity and strength that is born of a gentle spirit. If I have told you once I have told you ten times: you are a good man. And never forget it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ > wrote: > > > > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that > > > could be possible, but it is. > > > > What is a "blind"? spot (my bad) > > > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical. > > > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him > that time and time again. > > > I think you might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here. The > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we > have little breakthroughs. That maybe we further our understanding > about things. And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope, so one > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be > happening. Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in > the towel at the first sign of resistance. I don't believe for a second > for that to be the case. > > I find Curtis to be extremely patient. And for whatever reason I find > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions. I perfectly > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel > that you, or anyone else is a little off base. And certainly you do > that with me. So, let's live and let live. > > > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now. > There is no rank pulling. > > That's all neat. But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has > emerged. And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been > described previously. That does make me sad a little. But it also > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another > person. It seems the only reason to do that was to elicit some > response he wasn't getting any other way. > > We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement? > > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day? Sort of > that "one day at a time" philosophy. I guess to answer your question, > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business, > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the > spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me. > > Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea, you > perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life can > exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain level > of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent. > > > Yes, I agree > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
