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."<

Reply via email to