--- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > God, Xeno I do love how you make me laugh at myself here!
The greatest favor any human being could do for another one. > Now let me see: dear Xeno you are like some wonderful Greek > yogurt, smooth and creamy but with a bit of a bite to it > going down, and a little pitta vitiating for this pure > pitta Twinkie (-: Continuing this "simile trend," can I be like an Italian cannoli that one buys expecting a sweet creamy filling but bites into discovering that someone has filled it instead with Howlin' Hot Sauce (a Santa Fe condiment famous for sneakin' up on you). :-) > ________________________________ > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartaxius@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:07 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: psychological rape was parsing etc > > > >  > share: A part of a larger amount that is divided among a number of people, or > to which a number of people contribute. > > stein: A large earthenware beer mug (from German for 'rock'). > > Share you are kind of like the now defunct Hostess Twinkie. Golden sucrose > impregnated cake surrounding an ultra sweet soft creamy core, which by virtue > of preservatives, lasts for almost an eternity in time. You have that > spiritual sense of logic, which is totally dualistic when need be, but > outside the rigors of thought in the intuitive sense as its basis. > > Judy is like a silicon chip, rock, and circuits through and through > surrounded by Gothic spikes. A solid state Twinkie that will puncture you > every time. > > But when the lioness in you Share, emerges, it is delightful! But a lion is > flesh and blood, and spikes can get through. > > Judy, unlike you, Share, and unlike Barry, has not discovered that knowledge > based in thought is only representational, not truth, and that different > representations when run through the filter of logic, result in different > conclusions, even if the logic were the same. > > --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Judy, it may be facts in that sense that it's in the archives, but none of > > what you have EVER said about all this adequately reflects reality much > > less is reality.àWhy?àBecause IMO you do not acknowledge all the > > facts of what was going on for me as I attempted to deal all that began > > with my Sept 6 upset with Robin.àYes, my upset, the upset between him > > and me, and the question of my apologizing to Robin for anything is between > > him and me only, again IMO.à> > > > But I will add this:àgiven the mysterious and lofty standards you and > > Robin present for apologies, why would anyone even attempt such a doomed to > > fail task?àWhat I mean by mysterious is Robin rejected my previous > > apologies because he said they were founded on sentiment.àAnd recently > > he explained that sentiment means lacking real feeling.à> > > > How the fuckity > > fuck can he claim to know whether my feelings are real or not?àI guess > > he can know that they're not real enough for him.àFine, so be it.à> > But for him to proclaim, as he does over and over, that they are not real > > at all, well that IMO indicates, just to name one practical thing, that he > > does not want a reconciliation between us, regardless of what he recently > > said to Curtis.à> > > > And that's fine too if he doesn't want a reconciliation.àBut in that > > case, you two better get your agendas straight.àWhy would I attempt a > > reconciliation which you demand with someone, Robin who doesn't even want > > one?!àHave you finally gone totally 'round the bend?! > > > > And BTW, all those times Robin apologized to me back them, what I remember > > is that there would be an apology.àBut there would also be a tag line > > putting it all back on me. àà> > > > Good God, woman don't you hear the arrogance when you say that you will > > continue to bring it up?àWho died and made you Judge of All > > Creation?à> > > > Again for the record:àthe term psychological rape in terms of Robin's > > behavior came only from myself.àI probably read it many years ago but > > not recently and again, no one suggested the term to me.à> > > > > > And btw Ms. Persnickity Only When It Suits Her:àI have noticed that > > posting about all this you've used the term psychological rapist which I > > don't remember ever calling Robin.àGod what a hypocrite you are! > > > > > > As for bringing up Robin's eviction of his wife, I brought that up to > > explain to the FFL newcomers here the power that it sounded like Robin > > wielded.à> > > > Yeah, you're all about shaming people, aren't you Judy?àWell shame on > > you for your just about total lack of compassion, except for a few.àAnd > > for your continuing to dredge all this up and then shaming me for bringing > > up details.àAgain, what a hypocrite you are!àMore so because you > > present yourself as being all about truth.à> > > > > > Judy to Steve:àBut 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. > > > > Me repeating what I said before:àI hope that when Robin pushes people, > > I hope that he is motivated by more than getting them interesting enough to > > have a dialogue with. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:24 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: psychological rape was parsing etc > > > > > > > > à> > --- In [email protected], 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: [email protected] > > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:13 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > --- 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.") > > > > > >
