Certainly we all have our affinities, whether they be ideological or personal, or both. In the case of Share, I guess I find myself with both. But I would certainly challenge her if I felt something she said did not make sense, or that I found offensive. In fact I did so in at least one instance, and it is my recollection that she acknowledged that she may have been a little off.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > > Thanks for your reply Steve. Just a few comments below: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > Thank you for your comments Ann. At the risk of "reacting", you realize of > > course that everything you say about me, could just as easily be said about > > you. i.e. not realizing when someone you support has "stepped over a line", > > or that you might be "enabling" less than desireable behavior. > > The same standards would have to apply to me, absolutely. How could I ever > think it was okay to "impose" certain conditions/standards on someone's > behaviour without being willing to adopt those myself? > > > > The thing is, I am okay if that is how you view Robin's behavior, or Judy's > > behavior with regard to Robin. That is to say, that if you see Robin as a > > reformed person in regards to what he was back in the day, fine. Or if you > > see Judy as having the accurate assessment of Robin now, fine. > > > > I just may see it differently. And evidently others do as well, including > > others that participated in WTS just as you did. > > That is fine too but you NEVER seem to be able to find any 'fault' or hole or > weakness or fallibility in certain poster's stance or statements. It is like > you have blinders on when it comes to a few people here. There is a sense you > have some unwillingness or inability to be truly objective with regard to > certain subjects or posters. You are hardly alone in this, of course. > > > > So, I ask you Ann, what is the big deal? Can this not be chalked up to a > > difference of opinion? I'd be okay with that. But yes, if I feel that a > > friend, or even a stranger is being misaligned, I will speak up, just as > > you would. > > But would you speak up if you felt a friend was maligning another? THAT is > what I feel is missing. But, hey, that is only my opinion and those 'friends' > love it that you don't. > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
