--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
>
> Judy, if the psychological rape incident is all hoo-hah
> as you say below, then why are you still bringing it up?!
That question makes no sense. Do you know what "hoo-hah"
means? Look it up.
I'm still bringing it up because it's never been resolved.
You haven't apologized. You haven't explained the
contradiction between your comments at the time the
incident happened, in which you declared that you weren't
upset by it (and initially, that you yourself had been at
fault because you'd eaten too much sugar and were feeling
"grumpy"), and your assertion four weeks later that you
had been "psychologically raped" and that the very same
incident had upset you terribly.
All this is on the record, Share. It's facts, reality,
which you refuse to face.
> And since I am no longer accusing Robin of psychological
> rape, I think it unhealthy of you to continue bringing it
> up.
I will continue to bring it up until you apologize *and*
explain the discrepancy between your comments at the time
the incident happened and your accusation of "psychological
rape" four weeks later.
"No longer accusing" is not sufficient. What's required is
an explicit retraction of the accusation.
What's unhealthy is your inability to deal with all this.
And I'm snipping your unhealthy bullshit designed to distract
attention from the point at issue here.
(snip)
> I think once before you raised the question of some Robin
> hater causing me to use the term psychological rape. No
> one in person or via electronic devise or printed matter
> suggested that term to me.
Here's what I said this time around:
> I think one of the Robin-
> haters got to her privately and talked her into seeing
> what had initially been only an annoyance as something
> far more serious.
I note that you're denying something I had wondered
about previously rather than what I wrote yesterday. I
don't think that's accidental. And your continuing to
ignore the contradiction between your earlier and later
comments about it is *certainly* not accidental.
> Lord Knows contacted me offline AFTERWARDS to support me.
> And then Bill and Brahmi Howell also validated what I
> said, all 3 of them having been part of WTS and friends
> of Ann.
Those three are hardly the only Robin-haters who could
have been in touch with you privately before you decided
that what initially had been merely an annoyance that
you weren't upset by (and even took responsibility for)
was an act by Robin of "psychological rape" (wherever
you got the term).
> I don't think it's possible for there to be what you describe
> as *two way* confrontations when there is such a power
> deferential as it sounds like there was in WTS.
("Differential.")
I wasn't there (nor, obviously, were you). I simply
reported what Ann (and Robin as well) have said. They
*were* there.
> Meaning that it sounds like Robin had all or the vast
> majority of the power.
And if he had all or the vast majority of the power, he
had the power to ensure that the confrontations were
two-way, if he thought that would be more productive. My
sense of Robin from his interactions on FFL is that this
is *exactly* what he would have done, because he has
always done something similar here: he encourages people
to go after him if they disagree with something he says.
> For example, when he literally cast his devoted wife out
> of the group, did she have any power to stay if she
> wanted to?
I don't know what the situation was with his wife, and
neither do you, since we weren't there and aren't privy
to the nature of his relationship with his wife. In any
case, his relationship with his wife 30-some years ago
is obviously his personal business, not ours, and it's
a complete non sequitur to boot. Shame on you for even
bringing it up.
> As for your saying that Robin pushes people to make them
> more interesting to have a dialogue with, I would hope
> that this is not his only motivation for pushing especially
> when he pushes too much according to the other person's
> valid assessment.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I do know
that most of what you've written in this post is not germane
to your "psychological rape" accusation against Robin and
the fact that you contradicted yourself in your posts about
the incident that generated it.
________________________________
> From: authfriend <authfriend@...>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:13 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
>
>
>
> Â
> --- 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.
>
> No, Steve, I haven't "missed" this phenomenon.
>
> > So it is entirely possible that this is the case here.
>
> Actually not; it's irrelevant in this case. All the hoo-hah
> (as you should have been able to tell if you read the quotes
> from Share's posts) was about one single incident.
>
> > 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.
>
> None of which would have been relevant in this case. (Read
> the other post of mine I linked to for more of the context.)
>
> My sense, BTW, is that such feelings about Robin are a
> function of the subconscious recognition of one's discomfort
> with reality. I do agree that Robin doesn't have much
> interest in having a dialogue with someone who refuses to
> acknowledge reality. But he's willing to push them a little
> to see if maybe he can get them to the point at which they
> *will* be interesting to have a dialogue with.
>
> But as noted, none of this would have been relevant with
> regard to the incident with Share.
>
> > And those people may feel that it was exactly what they
> > experiened first hand many years ago,
>
> Which would not have included Share. (And in the case of
> these other people, it *certainly* wouldn't have been
> "exactly" what they had experienced themselves. Those
> confrontations were no-holds-barred, much more intense--
> and as Ann has pointed out, they were *two-way*
> confrontations.)
>
> > or may feel that
> > it seems exactly as they have understood it to be from
> > those many years ago.
>
> Which was not the case with Share at the time of the
> incident. Mild annoyance was the extent of her feelings
> then, according to her. And as noted, Robin had
> apologized extensively for having been inadvertently
> responsible for that annoyance (inadvertently because
> she was annoyed at what she had misunderstood him to be
> saying, not what he'd actually meant).
>
> What happened between those posts and the "psychological
> rape" accusation four weeks later?
>
> I think I know what happened. I think one of the Robin-
> haters got to her privately and talked her into seeing
> what had initially been only an annoyance as something
> far more serious. When she referred to the incident in
> that later post, notice that she claimed she had been
> very upset by the incident *at the time*. But that
> contradicts what she had said in the two earlier posts.
>
> > 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?
>
> I don't think you read what he said in that vein very
> carefully. Yes, if what you describe were accurate, it
> would be weird. But his take was more complicated and
> subtle than that.
>
> > So, if you happen to be in the "other" camp, where you
> > think he may not possess such abilities,
>
> Remember that he wrote about this because he assumed
> everyone had the ability to do it if they had some idea
> of how to go about it. It wasn't a special ability of his.
>
> > then you may
> > wish to describe his confrontational approach as
> > "psychological rape".
>
> Don't think there's much of a connection here. In any
> case, his "How to Know Reality" posts were made quite
> some time after the incident with Share. And *he
> hadn't been confronting her in the first place*. That
> was *her* misunderstanding.
>
> See what I mean? You have been in this "little microcosm"
> all along, and *you* don't have much of a grasp of what
> went on. How would you expect someone who hadn't been here
> at all to render a meaningful verdict, as you suggested to
> start with?
>
> > 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.
>
> Yet you think "some apologies might be in order, going
> in the other direction." Perhaps you need to think about
> all this just a little bit more; your thinking so far
> has been pretty incoherent.
>
> (BTW, in your post just now to Ann, I think you meant
> "maligned," not "misaligned.")
>
