Ann, if Steve is courageous because he "NEVER" hesitates to answer a post, does that mean that Robin is a coward because he does hesitate? How about me? Or anyone on FFL? How about you? As often happens, a double standard is implied.
Similarly there seems to be a double standard about Steve agreeing with someone and or defending them. If he does it for me, you have ridiculed him many times. But if he does if for you, then he's a good man who will catch you when you stumble?! A while ago you called Steve a doofus and I responded to that. Since then you've been oozing compliments to Steve, this being one of them. But the most masterful was when you told Steve that he was the kind of man who would catch you when you stumble. Masterful because of combining the compliment to Steve with painting yourself as stumbling. Maybe oozing is your way of apologizing. But if you ever go into politics, which I think you should given your skills, don't ever apologize, because to do so, one has to admit that one made a mistake. You simply can't carry it off and maybe that's why you don't apologize. And at least once I'd like to see you compliment Steve without then emasculating him in the very next breath as you do here with the blushing comment and then the blundering fool comment. As for your telling Steve to never forget it: what is he not to forget? That he is a good man? Or that you have said so ten times? Again, you remind me of a politician getting ready to run for office. BTW, many on FFL have told Steve that he's a good man. Thank you for compliment that I never would have made it for an hour at the WTS mic. Though I was a bit surprised when you talked about your WTS battle scars. Ann! Battle scars from a workshop, even an extended one?! Whatever would you say if I said such about one of my workshops?! Finally, I don't think I have ever, as you say in your post about apology, prostrated myself in anguish here on FFL. But I can totally see why you would need to make an exaggerated description about my apologizing behavior. I think for you there is something very uncomfortable about apologizing. ________________________________ From: Ann <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 10:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
