Response to two posts from Share: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Here Ann goes one step further. She actually drops > the word psychological altogether! Of course > recently Ann wrote a whole paragraph about > physical rape so I guess she had already primed > herself for that leap.
Do you think you can sink any lower, Share? If you were talking about some vanilla ice cream you had eaten, and then a few sentences later you referred to it as "ice cream," would that be a "leap"? Or is that just the way normal people talk? > OTOH she is now tired of this topic so probably > she won't respond to this. It's self-evidently preposterous and self-evidently malicious, so there's no need for her to respond. I don't know why *I'm* bothering. > I used the phrase psychological rape. I never > said I was psychologically raped. Well, you've cooked your own goose now, baby doll. Let's go to the archives that you accuse me of having "rejected," shall we? Here's what you said (I've capitalized the phrase you used so it can't be missed): "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." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321664 You couldn't even remember which phrase you used, "psychological rape" or "psychologically raped." That's how much difference there is between them. > More importantly, I never called Robin a > psychological rapist. As Judy well knows, > because she is a word person, these phrases > carry differing connotations and weight. Being a "word person," of course I say (as any word person would) that those phrases do not "carry different connotations and weight." That's absurd. If you are robbed, the person who robs you is a robber. If you are taught TM, the person who teaches you TM is a TM teacher. If you are psychologically raped, the person who psychologically rapes you is a psychological rapist. A psychological rape doesn't happen in the abstract. For a psychological rape to occur, someone has to commit the psychological rape, and the person who does so is a psychological rapist. One uses whichever form of the phrase suits the grammatical context of what one wants to say. You don't have *any* wiggle room here, Share. (And FWIW, the phrase "psychological rapist" has been used here since the day you first made the accusation back on October 1, and you never objected to it until now. Even Robin used it, and you didn't correct *him*. Again, that's how much difference it makes--i.e., none.) > I have already emailed Robin about the separate > but related issues of reconciliation and > apologies. As far as I'm concerned, the next > step is his. Any badgering by Judy et al IMHO > should be directed his way. Even if he were here, there's nothing to badger him *about*. He never did anything wrong. I would have something to say to Robin on this only if he asked my advice about reconciling with you, in which case I would recommend, as I've said, that he stay as far away from you as possible, even if you apologize and retract your accusation. I'd tell him I thought he should accept the apology, grant forgiveness, then never interact with or speak about you again. You should become a nonperson to him. For that matter, this is what I would tell anyone who was contemplating any kind of personal relationship with you, online or offline: Do not get involved with Share. You'll only come to regret it, because if any disagreement ever arises between you, you will find yourself dealing with a person who does everything she can to keep reality off her radar screen, who has no sense of personal accountability, and who is entirely unable to cope with the demands of reason and logic. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Ann, the FACT is, according to Judy's oft beloved but > now strangely rejected archives, Does Share mean the archives I keep quoting over and over? "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." (Trouble is, this is not how Share said she felt *at the time*, as I keep pointing out.) > that in the upsets > with Robin I used the term psychological rape not > rapist. Judy's sneaky attributing of the latter > term to me as something I said is an example IMO > of the depth of her dishonesty, more so because > she presents herself as the epitome of honesty, > as the one who always sticks to the facts. Here > is just one example that she, like the rest of > us, does not always stick to the facts. But in > this case I think she does so maliciously not > because of faulty memory and or emotional upset. I've dealt with this in my response to her other post. Here I'll just say that I think the fact that Share has doubled down on this utter idiocy, and then accused *me* of dishonesty, is conclusive proof that she is completely lacking in good faith. What she's saying is that although she was psychologically raped, the person who raped her psychologically is not a psychological rapist. It's amazing that she thinks anybody will buy this, but it seems she's desperate. > Judy herself has said in a recent post to Steve > that Robin pushes people. I use the term > psychological rape to say that Robin pushed me > too hard and he went too far in terms of > attributing thoughts and feelings to me that I > wasn't having. He did not push you *at all*. It's crystal clear from the post in question that this was your misunderstanding. He was telling you what *his* experience of you had been, and explicitly said he might be wrong. When you indicated mild annoyance, he instantly reassured you that he had no intention of insisting his experience of you was what you were experiencing. It's also crystal clear from what you yourself said at the time that you did not consider it a big deal, remember? "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." Doesn't sound much like a person who has just been psychologically raped, does it? The accusation about psychological rape was cooked up *after the fact*--four weeks later--as part of a malicious attempt to discredit Robin. > And since it was happening to me, the fact is it > is for me to label what I was experiencing. You are not telling the truth about what Robin was doing. You are making up what you claim was happening to you so as to make Robin look bad. Guess what? I'm going to put up the original post that you were "grumpy" about, including his original remark and subsequent explanation. Anyone who reads it is going to wonder why the hell you were *at all* upset by it, ever. > And it is for Robin and I to reconcile about. Or not, as the case may be. > As for the initial upset, it is the same. Judy can > use the term innocuous all she wants to describe > Robin's comment that upset me on Sept 6. As I say, I'm going to post it so everyone can see for themselves. But here's what Share said on September 6 (I've quoted this at least half a dozen times as well): "I will excuse your presumption if you excuse my not going down this particular rabbit hole again. You know, the one about my being so positive yada yada....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." As I say, this doesn't sound like someone who has just been psychologically raped. > That is her opinion and she is entitled to it. > But the fact is that again only I can say > whether Robin's comment was merely innocuous > TO ME. It was innocuous to anybody *sane*, Share. You misunderstood it. All that is on the record. > And again it is for he and I to reconcile about. Nobody has said otherwise, Share. > Of course anyone can say to me how it seemed > to them from the outside. And I am open to such > feedback from reasonable and unprejudiced > individuals. But I do not put Judy in either > one of these categories. You've gotten quite a bit of feedback from reasonable and unprejudiced individuals other than me, Share. As to myself, if anything, I was "prejudiced" in your favor before the Robin incident revealed how crazy and malicious you really were. (As to my not being "reasonable," note that is a judgment from someone who is protesting that she was psychologically raped, but that the person who psychologically raped her isn't a psychological rapist.) > BTW, Judy, according to google, kabash is a valid > spelling. It's a valid spelling of "kabash," not of "kibosh," which is a different word. "Kibosh" is the way you spell "kibosh." "Kibosh" is the word you use in the phrase "put the kibosh on..." (And here's a general hint: Google is not a dictionary. You will find many, many misspellings in Google listings.) > TO ROBIN: you recently said to Curtis that you > want a reconciliation with me. I am cautious > because I remember at least one other time when > you said such but later said you were just being > ironic. In any case, I would like a > reconciliation with you. And I don't think FFL > is the best venue for that. Nor IMO is Judy a > reasonable choice for mediator. When did I suggest myself as a mediator?? Now you're hallucinating. > If you want, we can go from this point and > see if we can have a reconciliation. > > In case you don't already know, Judy is demanding > an apology from me to you and says she will continue > to demand it. However, given that we both have > apologized and not accepted the apologies of each > other No, no, no. Tell the truth, Share. The apology I want is for your psychological rape accusation, and I want it made *in public*. This you have never done (and obviously it isn't something Robin would do!). >, I think it wisest to save additional apologies > for after more reconciliation has taken place.
