Aye-aye, Matey!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> I think that sea air really agreed with you. You have come back and written a
> post as crystalline as the salty, cold ocean and just as deep. Good one, I
> think we should all take a cruise - hey, we could all go together!
> >
> > --- 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Â All support appreciated.Â
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
