Last week, I somehow found myself reading about fossils and the best places to find them. Sedimentary rock, that which is formed by compression is the only place they are found, vs. in igneous and metamorphic rocks.
Robin has the writing ability to work methodically down through the fossil record, to the bedrock, when approaching someone's consciousness. For those who doubt this, diagram out any of his writing, and you will see clear first, second, and third set assumptions, each supported by the previous. Very clean and perfectly constructed. This approach of Robin's, then, can be substantiated as being in the very least, logical. Through the reactions of his targets, including himself, he also (inadvertently?) reveals something about how we see ourselves, often as a shifting mass of emotionally tinged reactions, jellied memories. Not through this verifiable, logical deduction. Verifiable, logical deduction works well for external stuff, like determining where to find the fossil record. But most people do not like such dispassionate rigor, applied to their own self-examination. So Judy can argue for the validity of Robin's writing, and Steve can argue for its discomfort, and both are correct. Which then begs the question, if FFL is all about a search for meaning and personal truth, what are those people doing on here, who continually avoid personal truth, by shifting context? What is the implicit agreement we have all made, to validate the dialogue here, seek personal truth, or be comfortable with each other? Or both? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > Thank you Judy for laying it out again. I think one thing you may miss is > > that interactions often start out friendly. We often give one another the > > benefit of the doubt. But then, often the exchange starts to escalate and > > the more friendly banter becomes less so. > > > > So it is entirely possible that this is the case here. But over and above > > this, there are some that feel that Robin has the skill of zeroing in on > > people's blind spots, or unwillingness to acknowledge reality and "bring > > them around" to a truer picture of things. And then there are others that > > feel he is engaging in an unwelcome agenda of pushing his notion of what is > > real, or the truth, with no real interest in a dialogue. And those people > > may feel that it was exactly what they experiened first hand many years > > ago, or may feel that it seems exactly as they have understood it to be > > from those many years ago. Robin has stated that he had come up with a sure > > fire, infallable method of determining the reality of any situation. Do > > you remember that? It turns out that it was his entirely subjective > > determination of reality. Does that alone not sound sort of weird, and > > raise some flags? > > Dear Steve. I do not believe you could be objective about this subject if > your life depended upon it. This is part of what makes you loyal and a > champion and (here is where the other side comes in, as it usually does) what > makes you less credible. Loyalty is good to a point, constancy can be a > marvellous attribute. But you also have to have an ability to know when your > friends may have overstepped the line. You have to come to know when gently > realizing and bringing to a friend's attention the reality of a situation is > the best thing a friend can do. Enabling is not friendship. But let me keep > speaking in generalizations as I know if I get too specific you will react. > Just take this little post of mine and let it percolate. I am not overly > optimistic it will but the mere fact that I wrote this is evidence that I > have some degree of optimism. Remember, friends are willing to make another > friend angry at the risk of bringing to them love in the form of truth. > > > > So, if you happen to be in the "other" camp, where you think he may not > > possess such abilities, then you may wish to describe his confrontational > > approach as "psychological rape". > > > > And really, I don't understand why that would be such an incendiary term. > > We fling a lot of insults at one another. I don't know that this is so > > much worse than the usual fare. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Judy, > > > > > > > > I figured you'd play that angle. Acting as though I was > > > > referring to Share. But no that was not the case. As to > > > > the "psychological rape" accusation, why not solicit an > > > > opinion outside this little microcosm as to whether that > > > > might be an appropiate term. > > > > > > "Appropriate term" for what? How could anyone outside > > > this little microcosm know what the accusation referred > > > to if they hadn't been following how it all unfolded? > > > > > > Among other things, they would need to know how it > > > started. Here's what Share said to Robin to begin with: > > > > > > "Yes I will excuse your presumption if you excuse my not going > > > down this particular rabbit hole again....So no problemo. Sigh, > > > btw, I notice I'm feeling grumpy this morning. Blaming it on > > > the sugar I ate yesterday. Somehow I've become very sensitive > > > to sugar. Anyway, Robin, apologies for taking it out on you." > > > > > > Five days later, she said this to Robin concerning the same > > > incident: > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > It wasn't until *four weeks later* that she came up with > > > the "psychological rape" accusation: > > > > > > "Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset > > > initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post. > > > Being psychologically raped didn't feel good then just > > > as it doesn't feel good now." > > > > > > She's referring to the same incident in all three quotes. > > > > > > What accounts for the discrepancy, do you think? I've > > > mentioned this before, as you know, but she has never seen > > > fit to explain it. > > > > > > And BTW, from the outset, Robin repeatedly apologized to > > > *her* for having said something entirely innocuous that > > > *she had misunderstood in the first place*. > > > > > > > Then you might find some apologies might be in order, > > > > going in the other direction. > > > > > > I don't think so, Steve. > > > > > > And her behavior was actually even worse than I just > > > described. For a fuller (but still not complete) account, > > > see this post of mine: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321880 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh my. I missed this earlier in the day. Barry, Barry, you > > > > > > were right. It's not about defending x,y, or z. It's really > > > > > > about a very demented, pinched, and unhappy person. My > > > > > > compassion reaches out to her. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think she's actually *demented*, Steve. That's a > > > > > little harsh. But if you want to help her get right with > > > > > her karma, see if you can persuade her to apologize for the > > > > > "psychological rapist" accusation. That'll be a big > > > > > step forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for your nurturing words feste. Big karmic burn > > > > > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About time some of the rotten karma you've accumulated > > > > > > > here started burning you. Let's hope you learn something > > > > > > > from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  All support appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > From: feste37 <feste37@> > > > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:24 PM > > > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was > > > > > > > > HITLER'S VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > > > > > > <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Accuracy" is only part of it, Ann; the rest is > > > > > > > > > > interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > You can be technically "accurate" and still present a very > > > > > > > > > > biased view of something. In the case in point, it is not at > > > > > > > > > > all about "communicating," but rather about one person's > > > > > > > > > > desire > > > > > > > > > > to win and prove herself right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it's about one person's desire to expose the > > > > > > > > > malicious motivations and deceptive behavior of another > > > > > > > > > poster here as he tries to smear three other posters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an attitude that works against real communication. > > > > > > > > > > If you look at any of this poster's responses to Share, > > > > > > > > > > for example, they are nothing to do with being "accurate." > > > > > > > > > > They are intended to browbeat and humiliate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, ain't it awful? After all, Share's posts are always > > > > > > > > > shining examples of "real communication" and never have > > > > > > > > > anything to do with winning and proving herself right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, feste? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. I think Share does try her best to communicate. I > > > > > > > > think she has tried to communicate with you. She has actually > > > > > > > > been quite gentle and sometimes even playful with you, in spite > > > > > > > > of your persistent nastiness and confrontational attitude > > > > > > > > toward her. You could learn a lot from Share if you could free > > > > > > > > yourself from your obsessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
