seventhray27: > You're talking peculiar Seymour > So, now it's all about Seymour. LoL!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DD7VIKZnGA > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately Raunchy if you really cared to take a poll, you would find > > > yourself to have the minority position. I'm sorry about that, but those > > > are the facts, and you are welcome to put it to a test anytime you wish. > > > > > > <guffaw> (like you would ever put that to a test) > > > > > > > http://youtu.be/Qw9oX-kZ_9k > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scene: Courtroom, Share v. FFLife Archives > > > > Share: Defendant accused of using an inappropriate term. > > > > Steve: Attorney for the defense. > > > > Judy: Prosecuting attorney. > > > > Judge & Jury: FFLife > > > > > > > > Judy: Your Honor, the defense has testified that his client should be > > > > acquitted for using an inappropriate term on grounds that he is > > > > unwilling to rebut the facts of the case as put forth by the witness > > > > for the prosecution, FFLife Archives. > > > > > > > > Judge: It is the opinion of the court that an attorney has a > > > > responsibility to address the facts of his case, otherwise it is a > > > > dereliction of duty and reason for disbarment. The court finds that > > > > attorney Steve is in contempt of this court for accepting a case he was > > > > unwilling to defend. > > > > > > > > Steve: I object, your honor. The "truth" of any particular issue lies > > > > somewhere between the two viewpoints. > > > > > > > > Judge: Your assertion that truth lies in a magical balance between two > > > > viewpoints is an untenable stretch of imagination into the realm of > > > > truthiness, where because it "feels right" you can disregard evidence, > > > > logic and intellectual examination of the facts in the FFLife archives. > > > > Therefore, you have failed as Share's self-appointed defender. Fair and > > > > Balanced "truth" gives liars a pass and indolent idiots a free ride. > > > > That is the crux of the whole issue. > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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.") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], "authfriend" > > > > > > > > > <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], "authfriend" > > > > > > > > > > > <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 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: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:24 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes > > > > > > > > > > > > > was HITLER'S VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" > > > > > > > > > > > > > <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
