Richard I promise you I resisted the rabbit hole as long as I could. And even now am resisting it. And lookie I'm even changing the name of the thread a little.
BTW, I thought this was the best spiritual joke of the month. It appeared in the LBS publishing thread: In reality, we are living a vida maya loka. LoL! ________________________________ From: Richard J. Williams <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE seventhray27: > You've laid out your case, and I am not in a > position, nor do I have the interest in going > point by point through it. > Oh come on, we can go through this thread at least one more time - let's review what we know: it's about Share, right? LoL! > It is Share's perogative to describe her > interactions with Robin as she feels is > appropiate. And I think if the issue where > to go to trial, and she was accused of using > an inappropiate term, I think she would be > acquitted. > > And I admit that I do find somewhat amusing > the phrase you use (below)that Robin is willing > to push people "a little" in order to have a > dialogue. I'm sorry, but that hasn't been > what I have seen, and that may also be the > crux of the whole issue. > > > > 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.") > > > > > > > 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 <SNIP>
