Something seems to be working for you, because you come off as someone who has gone through difficult times and managed to sort it out in the end. So, not for me to make any judgements. I made my point that when drawing conclusions, its best to get info from the original sources and not from a second interpretation. That's all.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <jchwelch@...> wrote: > > Hey seventhray...Yes there is that risk. > > And I imagine it would take me quite a bit longer than 15 to 20 minutes. It isn't the recent discussion that would take awhile; but rather, the history behind the recent discourses. That history appears to involve multiple relationships. And I'm not one to jump to quick conclusions...so my analytical skills (as limited as they may be) take time to process and think and weigh and compare. Do I want to put that much energy into this? At this point and time, I do not. But maybe later, I will. > > This next statement is not directed at you seventhray. ...It occurred to me some time ago that the word analyze begins with anal. I've sometimes thought of it as anal-eyes since entering the world of internet forums in 2006. I was late to the scene. > ************** > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <jchwelch@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm only a lurker in this dialog. I haven't read all the exchanges > > that have gone on in the latest conflict. Until these last few posts, I > > knew next to nothing about what you have expounded here Judy. Thanks for > > filling in some history for me. I don't know if I will go back and read > > all of the recent conflict or the prior history, but at least I have a > > place to start if I decide to. > > > > > > Think twice about this Carol. Going back and reading the raw feed on > > your own could be dangerous. You may arrive at a conclusion that could > > be a variance with what you have been spoon fed here. Evidently Judy > > was right about John Knapp, so it might be safer just to go with > > assumption that's she's right here, rather than putting in the fifteen > > to twenty minutes of examining the posts from a few days ago that might > > allow you to form your own opinion. They are pretty easy to find. But > > there is that risk of having to bring to bear your own analytical skills > > rather than rely on those of others. > > > > > > > Reading the bit I have as I have lurked, the dialog is all too > > familiar within the anti-cult circles I've had brushes with. Projection. > > Sidestepping accountability for one's words. Speculating of other > > people's motives. > > > > > > As I've read, I've not been sure who to believe and wondered why I > > even care. I thought how I sometimes long for innocence and wish to be > > an ostrich...as trite and childish as that may sound. > > > > > > I wrote some thoughts earlier after reading Judy's initial post today, > > trying to work through some of the muddle in my own head as I've read > > bits of this recent conflict. > > > > > > In writing those thoughts, I wondered why am I muddled? Why does this > > stuff even matter to me? Should I state anything publicly? Will I sound > > foolish? What if I do sound foolish, what difference does it really > > make? Has some of the dialog 'triggered' my own stuff that I am still > > working through after my involvement in a 'cult' and certain anti-cult > > 'cults?' > > > > > > I questioned my own biases and fairness. Do I judge other's motives? > > How much do I project? How much do my biases play into reading others? > > Like others, my own experiences have caused me to be less trusting of > > others; I already had been well trained to not trust my self and was > > gaining much ground in that area until the Knapp crap. I have picked up > > many of those pieces, but reading this recent dialog brought some of > > that stuff up again. > > > > > > Years ago, Judy had read Knapp correctly and called him out. I won't > > go into how I had rationalized the Knapp I thought I knew when I first > > came to FFL in 2010(?) or maybe it was 2009(?) and read some of Judy's > > posts calling Knapp out. I would never (at that time) have imagined she > > would be so spot on. But she was. Could she be right again? > > > > > > I'll stop here... > > > > > > A few of my muddled thoughts...for what they're worth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula > > <chivukula.ravi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this, you knew Curtis was twisting here since > > > > > they were full of mutual admiration back then. Robin was > > > > > certainly a very fascinating character but I couldn't > > > > > understand Robin's fascination and admiration for Curtis > > > > > when he came on board but then figured he would have to > > > > > figure Curtis out for himself, which he did. > > > > > > > > Curtis was on his very best behavior, at his most charming, > > > > with Robin at first. Their dialogue was really scintillating, > > > > some of the best I've seen on any Web forum. It was beautiful > > > > to see how much Robin was enjoying himself after his bleak > > > > quarter-century in virtual exile. He just expanded like a > > > > flower. > > > > > > > > I had no clue what was going to happen down the road. Even > > > > after they first began to fall out, reading their exchanges > > > > was like watching a highly competitive contest between two > > > > extremely skilled players. After each post, you couldn't wait > > > > to see how the other guy could possibly top it. > > > > > > > > > I don't believe you and I ever interfered in their > > > > > correspondence, I certainly never did > > > > > > > > At one point toward the end I became a topic of their > > > > arguments, and I had to step in and correct some things > > > > Curtis said about me that were not accurate. But > > > > otherwise I just soaked up their brilliance. > > > > > > > > > and had zero interest in their dialogue at that point - I > > > > > used to be too high anyway. > > > > > > > > Yeah, you were doing your own thing. If you ever have a > > > > dull patch, though, go back and take a look at their > > > > exchanges. Terrifically entertaining, and heart-wrenching > > > > to watch it crash and burn. > > > > > > > > > >
