Share, as promised, here are my responses to two of your posts from Wednesday.
--- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Judy what I notice here is that you do not mention one > example of my alleged essence of corruption. Right. As you know, I told you I was going to respond to your post later. What I notice here is that you do not mention that. > And btw you've taken the path of hyperbole before when > delivering your supposed truth about me. It falls just > as flat as it always has. Somehow I didn't expect you'd like it. > BTW, yesterday at the post office I ran into someone, not a Dome > goer, I respect who's been lurking on FFL from the beginning. > They were very helpful in terms of understanding the unhealthy > relationship between you and Robin. Well, no, actually they weren't helpful at all, except perhaps in exacerbating your delusions. My relationship with Robin isn't the least bit "unhealthy," so that was their first mistake. > I was telling them how I was enjoying your philosophical > discussions with paligap and Xeno. Then Robin appears and > you turn back into a pit bull. You told this person a falsehood. In fact (as you know), I was out because of overposting the day Robin came back to leave his post about Barry (a Saturday). My discussions with PaliGap and Xeno didn't even begin until the following week. It wasn't until after Robin had *left*, and Curtis made his unbelievably dishonest posts about Robin and Ann, that I actually went into "pit bull" mode. > Their explanation was that Robin agreed with you about turq > and that that is the basis of your friendship. Hilarious. Hard to know how much *wronger* they could be. No, antipathy toward certain people on FFL is not the basis of my friendship with Robin, sorry to disappoint you. Share, if I were you--just a helpful hint here--I wouldn't continue to accord this person much respect, at least with regard to his or her understanding of what goes on on FFL. > Personally I think there's some previous life stuff going on > but that's just speculation on my part. > > Anyway, I do wish you complete healing, etc. Look into your heart, Share. What is *really* behind your expression of that wish? --- 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. Why? Because 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. I have read every single one of your posts to and about each other and about this incident. *You* haven't acknowledged the reality of what the posts you wrote reveal about what was going on for you. > Yes, my upset, the upset between him and me For example, according to you at the time of the incident, it wasn't a big deal. Remember? "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." And: "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." So were you upset, as you said four weeks later, or were you just grumpy, as you said to begin with? Which of your comments was false? And why did you have to tell a falsehood in order to deal with the situation? Any time you want to *provide* the facts of what was going on for you that changed from minor annoyance as the result of your grumpiness from eating too much sugar, to accusing Robin of being a "psychological rapist" four weeks later, I'm eager to hear them. They're what I've been asking you for, after all. and the > question of my apologizing to Robin for anything is between him > and me only, again IMO. You made an extremely nasty and unfair accusation about a member of this forum *in public*, one that appears to have been fabricated long after the fact to make yourself look like a helpless victim and him like a villain. You are accountable, as I've told you before, for what you say in public to everyone in your audience. You don't get to keep it between yourself and the person you've attacked. > But I will add this: given the mysterious and lofty standards > you and Robin present for apologies, Please tell me about my mysterious and lofty standards for apologies. I can't recall having presented any. > why would anyone even attempt such a doomed to fail task? > What I mean by mysterious is Robin rejected my previous apologies > because he said they were founded on sentiment. And recently he > explained that sentiment means lacking real feeling. That doesn't seem "mysterious" to me. It appears that he felt your previous apologies (which were not for your having accused him of being a "psychological rapist," BTW) lacked real feeling. What's "mysterious" about that? > How the fuckity fuck can he claim to know whether my feelings > are real or not? I guess he can know that they're not real > enough for him. Why, yes, I guess he can. > Fine, so be it. 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. Robin has said he wants a reconciliation. He doesn't say things he doesn't mean. I would guess that he would need to feel you were being "real" as a precondition, however. But you'd need to ask him about that. > And that's fine too if he doesn't want a reconciliation. But > in that case, you two better get your agendas straight. Robin and I each have our own individual agendas. We do not check them with each other. > Why would I attempt a reconciliation which you demand with > someone, Robin who doesn't even want one?! I have never said, nor would I recommend, that he should attempt to reconcile with you. I think he should have nothing further to do with you, ever. What I *do* ask is that you apologize to him for accusing him of psychological rape. Whatever happens after that is up to you and him. > Have you finally gone totally 'round the bend?! No, but perhaps if I did I could actually make contact with you there. > And BTW, all those times Robin apologized to me back them, > what I remember is that there would be an apology. But there > would also be a tag line putting it all back on me. Did you ever ask yourself whether you might actually be responsible for whatever he was "putting back" on you? > Good God, woman don't you hear the arrogance when you say > that you will continue to bring it up? Who died and made > you Judge of All Creation? I don't believe I said I was Judge of All Creation. I have my own standards for behavior and the right to express them. > Again for the record: the term psychological rape in terms > of Robin's behavior came only from myself. I probably read > it many years ago but not recently and again, no one > suggested the term to me. And again for the record, here is what I said most recently about that four-week gap between mild sugar-inspired grumpiness and the "psychological rapist" accusation: > > 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. You can throw the straw man about where you got the term in the garbage, Share. It's just making your avoidance tactics more obvious. > And btw Ms. Persnickity Only When It Suits Her: I have > noticed that posting about all this you've used the term > psychological rapist which I don't remember ever calling > Robin. rap·ist (n): One who commits rape. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rapist "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." > God what a hypocrite you are! I'm just going to let that sit there for folks to contemplate. > 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. Again: Robin's relationship with his wife 30-some years ago is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You don't know what actually happened, so you weren't "explaining" anything to anybody. All you were doing was repeating something you'd heard or read someone else say, in an attempt to make Robin look bad. It had nothing to do with what we'd been discussing, which was whether "confrontations" were two-way in his group. > Yeah, you're all about shaming people, aren't you Judy? I'm about shaming people like you who shamefully tell falsehoods about other people. > Well shame on you for your just about total lack of compassion, I wouldn't be talking about compassion if I were you, Share. At least when I show compassion, I mean it. > except for a few. And for your continuing to dredge all > this up and then shaming me for bringing up details. You haven't brought up any details. Details are what I've been asking for that you refuse to provide. > Again, what a hypocrite you are! I wouldn't be talking about hypocrisy either if I were you. > More so because you present yourself as being all about > truth. Nor would I be talking about truth if I were you. Once you figure out how to stop being a hypocrite and a teller of falsehoods and become a person of genuine compassion and honesty, *then* you'll have the standing to criticize others. > Judy to Steve: 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. > > Me repeating what I said before: I hope that when Robin > pushes people, I hope that he is motivated by more than > getting them interesting enough to have a dialogue with. Me repeating what *I* said before: 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 rapist" accusation against Robin and the fact that you contradicted yourself in your posts about the incident that generated it. Oh, wait, here's one more from you from Wednesday: --- In [email protected], Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > laughinggull I want to say that sometimes I find Robin's > writing simple and clear. But very often I find it unclear > and voluminous which for me adds up to unreadable. IMO > Judy demonstrates a certain kind of co dependent arrogance Oh, my God, "co dependent arrogance," that is *priceless*. > every time she berates people for not getting off their > butts, putting in the effort, etc. to understand Robin's > writing. Actually it's easier if you stay seated. (cackle) > Other posters here manages many times to be both clear > AND profound. Why can't Robin? You meant to say, "I manage many times to understand other posters here. Why can't I understand Robin when he's saying something profound?" > Ok, ok, people have a right to have their unique voice. And > I actually enjoy all the different writing styles. But if a > person wants to be understood, wouldn't they make an attempt > to write more clearly for their audience? Especially given > that at other times they are able to do so? So you're saying that Robin doesn't *want* to be understood? That he deliberately writes unclearly just to confuse you? Really? That's the most interesting excuse I've ever heard for not being able to understand a post on FFL. My sense is that Robin has respect for the intelligence of his audience and expects them to possess adult reading skills.
