Translation: FFL should be a place of comfort, security where I can just state my opinions without being challenged, without being discomforted whether it is the truth. I'm not here on any quest for any self-knowledge, discovery.
Ravi - OK Susan fair enough. But instead of being snarky just keep your big mouth shut and like my Uncleji stick to non-controversial topics, if you are feeling a little down you can always come up with some crazy conspiracy theory. On May 8, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "Susan" <waybac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Judy, It sounds as if you think your opinions - oops I mean Facts - are > Right. About everything. And you are fighting me. Carry on and enjoy yourself. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Glad you gave the post number. > > > > > > > > Funny thing, I've reposted it four times in the last week > > > > or so: > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342364 > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342376 > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342440 > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342520 > > > > > > > > But none of Share's supporters appear to have seen it or > > > > been able to find it (including Xeno) until Share gave the > > > > post number. > > > > > > > > Isn't that fascinating? > > > > > > Not really, I don't follow these types of discussions. > > > I am guessing that neither do most people. There was > > > no intent to be malicious or lazy. > > > > Wasn't suggesting that, and it wasn't just you. It's > > as if Share's supporters needed her permission to read > > the post. > > > > But saying "Glad you gave the post number" to Share > > suggested I had been withholding it because I didn't > > want anyone to actually check up on what I'd been > > saying about it, when in fact I'd already reposted it > > myself four times. > > > > > > Susan, I don't expect you to read what follows, because > > > > you're clearly set on supporting Share no matter what, > > > > so you don't want to know about anything that might make > > > > that support appear to be anything less than utterly > > > > reasonable. > > > > > > You have made a false assumption. I am not "set on supporting > > > Share no matter what." Why would you say that? > > > > Because you said you wanted to. > > > > > I have not chosen sides. Your statement is just inflammatory > > > and inaccurate. I supported her response to one post alone. > > > > That post was all about what I've addressed here. > > > > > I might have misinterpreted her reason for backing away, > > > but I certainly would have backed off too even if for my > > > own reasons. > > > > I seriously doubt you would have had you not picked up > > on what Share and her other supporters were saying about > > her "psychological rape" accusation. > > > > > > But I'm posting it for the record anyway. > > > > > > > > I can't help reading your reaction here as a recap-- > > > > perhaps unconsciously--of what you've seen Share and her > > > > supporters say. IOW, I doubt you would have had this > > > > reaction if you didn't know Share had characterized > > > > Robin's comments as some kind of terrible violation. > > > > > > > > You did read her initial response, right, in which she > > > > simply declined to discuss what Robin had said and > > > > apologized to him for her "grumpiness," which she > > > > attributed to having eaten too much sugar? > > > > > > > > How about Robin's response to that, in which *he* > > > > apologized for having made her uncomfortable and > > > > essentially took back everything he'd said? Did you read > > > > that as well, the part that begins "Robin2"? > > > > > > Yes I did read it, and Robin was apologetic. I think > > > he had temporarily slipped into old habits > > > > You don't know anything about his "old habits," Susan. > > > > > and was tentative about that old approach, and then > > > apologized when it was pointed out. > > > > *Share* doesn't know anything about Robin's "old > > habits" either, so there was nothing she could have > > "pointed out"; and she certainly said nothing to that > > effect in her response. > > > > > I think he was right to apologize. > > > > He's a gentleman and had no wish to upset Share, > > even if there was no real reason for her to be > > upset. He wanted to continue their conversation, > > and apparently so did she, at least at that point. > > > > > > And you are aware that this post from Robin was the > > > > latest in a long series of extremely warm and friendly > > > > exchanges he and Share had been having with each other, > > > > right? > > > > > > Yes, to some extent, altho I don't follow the details. > > > > > > > > I mean, you say what Robin wrote sounds like something > > > > that would be appropriate for a therapist or a "dear, > > > > dear friend" to say, but that it seems inappropriate for > > > > an "online chat." For sure, unusual for an online chat, > > > > but their conversations had had this unusually intimate > > > > quality almost from the beginning, and Share had > > > > obviously been enjoying them very much. > > > > > > > > "Hurtful, demeaning and offensive"?? "Creepy"?? That is > > > > just mind-boggling to me. It seems to me to reflect a > > > > sort of neurotic hyper-super-sensitivity, not a normal > > > > adult reaction, to an essentially innocuous--and quite > > > > affectionate--comment from Robin, with whom Share had > > > > developed a significant degree of mutual fondness over > > > > their extended, intimate exchanges of the previous > > > > month or two. And it was certainly not Share's reaction > > > > at the time. > > > > > > i stand by my reaction to the way he said it and what he said. > > > > Susan, your reaction doesn't add up. Above you say > > what he wrote would have been appropriate between > > "dear friends," *but that's exactly what Share and > > Robin had become* over the course of their many > > (very lengthy) conversations. > > > > > I think your reaction to someone speaking to you that way > > > would be much different - Healthier, maybe, I am not sure. > > > > You got *that* right. > > > > > But to me, Robin came across as someone thinking he knew > > > Share better than she herself did, he had glimpsed some > > > truer self there, and her usual self just wasn't as good. > > > He judged her > > > > He didn't judge her or say or imply "her usual self just > > wasn't as good." You've projected all that onto what he > > said somehow. He was telling her *what his experience of > > her* was. > > > > Have you never had a friend say they preferred you in one > > mood over another mood? > > > > > and did so in his old "I know you better than you do and > > > I can help you by pointing it all out" mode from years ago. > > > > Again, Susan, you have *no idea* what his "mode" was years > > ago. You said to start with, "It smells like what I have > > hears was the Robin of years ago, trying to dissect people, > > supposedly for their own benefit, without their permission > > or asking for that sort of 'help.'" > > > > I don't know where you picked this up. Robin has pointed > > out that for most of the 10 years the group was in > > existence, everyone *wanted to be there*. The folks in the > > group considered that they were undertaking a cooperative > > effort *as a group*--including Robin--everyone helping each > > other. That was why they were there. > > > > Ann has noted that "confrontations" were *always two-way*. > > Nobody "dissected" anybody without their permission. Even > > Ann's last disastrous confrontation with Robin was with her > > permission. She'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe > > she's said she *invited* it because she wanted to (and did) > > tell Robin off regarding what he'd he'd said about her earlier. > > > > You've concocted some fantasy, or taken on someone else's > > fantasy, of what Robin's group was like. > > > > > Whenever Robin gets like (and he has on several occasions) > > > that my radar seem to go up on alert. > > > > Share's radar did go on alert, although she called it > > "grumpiness" and apologized. Robin picked up on that and > > immediately withdrew what he'd said to her. Then they > > continued their friendly conversation as though nothing > > whatsoever had happened. As far as Robin knew, the issue > > had been resolved; he'd gotten no further distress signals > > from Share until her communication-suspending post days > > later. > > > > > I feel manipulation is in the air. I expressed that > > > years ago when Robin first came to FFL. That's my take. > > > > With all due respect, Susan, your take was bonkers back > > then too. (As I recall, when Ann came on board, you went on > > high alert, thinking it was Robin posting under another > > name.) You had almost no interaction with him. Your first > > post to him was quite confrontational; you implied that he > > had a sneaky writing style designed to obscure what he > > really meant and claimed it made you very uncomfortable. > > He replied with the utmost graciousness, did not take > > offense, said he'd think about what you'd said. > > > > Robin is not a simple person. I think, frankly, that it's > > his complexity that upsets you. I think when you run into > > someone you can't quickly get a handle on, it makes you > > uneasy, and then you tend to assume the person is somehow > > to blame for your discomfort, that there must be something > > off about *them*. > > > > > Yours is very different. As I said, I think Robin can > > > slip back into that style of interaction from years ago. > > > He was starting to do so again. > > > > No, no, Susan, I won't accept any remarks from you about > > Robin "from years ago," because you are speaking from > > ignorance. > > > > > Share quickly backed out of the conversation. > > > > She didn't back out of the conversation until two days > > later, *after* Robin had withdrawn his remarks and > > apologized for making her uncomfortable and they had > > continued their friendly conversation. > > > > > > However, all the above turns out to be irrelevant. > > > > > > > > You noted that Robin had used "qualifiers." You are > > > > apparently not aware that it was his parenthetical > > > > qualifier that he was "very likely...wrong" that was the > > > > basis for Share's decision to suspend communications > > > > with him (and ultimately for her "psychological rape" > > > > charge). Not that she had felt invaded and violated by > > > > his insight about her, but that he had said his insight > > > > was probably wrong. > > > > > > > > Confused? So was Robin. > > > > > > How do you know Robin was confused? Did he tell you this? > > > > Good grief. He said so in his posts to Share. > > > > > Perhaps he was confused because he does not understand how > > > he comes across to others, not because Share had written a > > > few words that weren't 100% clear in their meaning. > > > > He was confused because, as it turned out, she had > > completely misunderstood his qualifier and drawn an > > exceedingly peculiar conclusion from that misunderstanding. > > > > > > Again, so it's absolutely clear: Share didn't decide to > > > > suspend their communications because of what Robin had > > > > told her, but because he'd qualified what he had told > > > > her by saying he was probably wrong: > > > > > > Does Share agree with your statement above? I don't get it. > > > > If she were to disagree, she'd be disagreeing with > > what she herself had written. Susan, you're not getting > > it the same way Robin wasn't getting it. It never did > > make any real sense. > > > > > > "Robin, it sounds like you're saying that you sensed you > > > > were getting the real me and not my beliefs. But OTOH you > > > > were very likely wrong. Given this assessment of me by > > > > you, I'd prefer to suspend communication with you. > > > > Apologies if I've misunderstood and in that case, I hope > > > > we can work things out." > > > > > > Your take on the above is not absolutely clear nor is it mine. > > > I thought Robin had used the phrase "very likely wrong" first > > > and Share was parroting that back to him, almost sarcastically. > > > > I have no idea what you think my take is (and if mine isn't > > clear to you, how can you know it isn't yours?). Yes, the > > qualifier was Robin's, of course. "This assessment" refers > > to "very likely wrong."<