--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Could you be any more irrational and idiotic Barry baby?
> > > >
> > > > Here's Ann - someone who was there, not your paranoid,
> > > > delusional fantasies
> > > >
> > > > "I find it quite ridiculous that Barry has once again
> > > > brought up this hitting thing. Not only are people well
> > > > over this subject but it amounts to, in the end, a
> > > > paltry hill of beans. It never was about the hitting..."
> > >
> > > I will respond to this because here Ann (and Ravi,
> > > agreeing with her) reveal *exactly* why people regard
> > > both of them as Class-A Cultists.
> > >
> > > It really *was* "about the hitting." Vaj said that
> > > Robin had repeatedly struck his students. Robin not
> > > only denied this explicitly ("I would never do that"),
> > > he repeatedly called Vaj a liar for having suggested
> > > it. And some people on this forum -- cultists all --
> > > rallied behind Robin in this, and treated whistle-
> > > blower Vaj the same way the US government is trying
> > > to treat people who revealed things about *it* that
> > > they would rather not have been revealed.
> > >
> > > Then what happens? Backed into a corner, Robin ADMITS
> > > to having struck his students, and repeatedly, just
> > > as Vaj said he had. And what do the same cultists
> > > here do *then*? They make excuses for his behavior,
> > > and find ways to "shoot the messenger" and pretend
> > > that the issue was "never about the hitting."
> > >
> > > You'll have to forgive me if I see this behavior as
> > > strongly analogous to children who have been abused
> > > by their parents making excuses for those abusive
> > > parents. "He had his reasons for hitting me/breaking
> > > my arm/whatever."
> > >
> > > This is revealing of the inability to differentiate
> > > between what one THINKS and what one DOES I wrote
> > > about earlier. In the cultist's mind, there are
> > > possible justifications for a teacher striking his
> > > students. The justifications always seem to be based
> > > on what the abuser was THINKING at the time, not
> > > what he was actually DOING.
> > >
> > > It was ALWAYS "about the hitting." It's only the
> > > die-hard cultists trying to protect their past or
> > > present investment in fantasies about Robin who are
> > > trying to make it appear to be something else.
> > >
> > > Robin physically struck his students, and can find
> > > ways to justify that. His "defenders" KNOW that he
> > > repeatedly physically struck his students, and con-
> > > tinue to find ways to justify that. THAT is why this
> > > topic continues to come up. THAT is the very stuff
> > > of the cult mindset.
> >
> > No Barry, think again. This is not about the hitting.
> > What Vaj initially brought up before my time here at
> > this forum was not about the hitting. What you are
> > bringing up now is not about that either. It is about
> > punishing Robin, which is fine if that is what you
> > want to do. But tell it like it is. You and Vaj are
> > not interested in getting "justice" for those who
> > were apparently hit in seminars, you are not about
> > ringing the bells of truth so that some wrong can
> > be rectified. Vaj is long gone and presumably has
> > taken up tiddly winks or badminton rather than remain
> > here at FFL. You, however, are still here and think
> > bringing up this boring and irrelevant subject is
> > important. But admit what it is you are doing: you
> > got pissed off at Judy and I about two days ago and
> > all of a sudden this mouldering subject reappears.
> > You are a desperate person. Not one molecule of one
> > human being reading this forum or not reading this
> > forum gives a shit about the subject. Nor do they
> > care about your personal dislike of either Judy,
> > Robin or myself. Everyone has seen it all before,
> > ad nauseum, this ongoing bickering. Surely you have
> > some new French delicacy to sample or rare vintage
> > wine to sip, you are in Paris after all. But one
> > thing is for sure, and people take note, it doesn't
> > matter if Barry was lying in the very bosom of God,
> > he would still find a reason to pick a fight or
> > spit at someone.
>
> Lurkers silly enough to read this should bear in
> mind that the above angry, shoot-the-messenger
> rant was written by someone who recently described
> herself as something like "the last person you could
> accuse of being a cultist."
>
> I think she's as classic an example of a cultist as
> I've ever encountered anywhere on planet Earth.
>
> We are talking, after all, about a woman who slavishly
> followed Robin Carlsen and his Lame Guru Act for a
> number of years, and was *herself* dragged up onto a
> stage in front of her peer-cultists and abused as
> being possessed by demons.
>
> Something like 25 years later, she is *still* lashing
> out at anyone who dares to criticize the person who
> did this to her. If that's not a cultist, I don't know
> what is.
>
> To her, whether a person posing as a spiritual teacher
> physically *struck* their students, and thus felt he
> had the *right* to do so, is a "boring and irrelevant
> subject" and "uninteresting." She considers such
> subjects "mouldering" topics. If that's not a cultist,
> I don't know what is.
>
> Again she screams "It's not about the hitting." I agree,
> it's about the hitting and then LYING about having done
> it, to everyone on this forum, several times over a
> period of two months. I guess that's another of those
> "boring and irrelevant subjects" Ann doesn't think any-
> one here cares about. If that's not a cultist, I don't
> know what is.
>
> One wonders whether she'd find it "interesting" if
> Robin really HAD broken the jaw of the person she
> (I think it was her) witnessed him striking? Would
> *that* have been just another "boring and irrelevant
> subject" to her?
>
> Ann is more of a cultist now that when she was one
> full-time. She will do almost *anything* to protect
> the memory of how "special" she was made to feel while
> a member of Robin's cult. Until she was made to feel...
> uh...not so special and accused of being possessed by
> demons, I guess. Either way, it made her feel all
> "special," and she's hanging onto that for all it's
> worth by trying to *defend* the very person she once
> exposed to the press, and -- 25 years later -- trying
> to *attack* anyone who criticizes him.
>
> Remember the analogy I made recently between people
> in cults doing this and the children of chronic child
> abusers making excuses for their abusive parents even
> years or decades after they abused them? THAT is what
> it seems Ann is doing.
>
> And if that's not a cultist, I don't know what is...
Well it might be if your description of "me" was anywhere near accurate. But
since talking to you is like talking to a brick edifice I will save myself the
effort of engaging with you on a subject you already think you know everything
about. You really should learn to tell the difference between support and
merely retelling historical events.
If failing to hate my 'ex cult leader' is being a cultist then I am guilty.
Frankly, I don't hate anyone so that is hardly proof of some lasting, slavish
devotion to a former spiritual teacher. It was interesting to see your evident
pride in having witnessed the sleight of hand of your ex cult leader, Mr Lenz
and feeling rather superior in having at least been around the higher calibre
of woo-ness.
If I thought, for one nano second, that anything I said would make an iota of
difference in your blinkered, hateful little world Barry, I would take more
time with this. But frankly, what you think of me rates up there with the
importance of what colour nail polish Miley Cyrus is sporting at this very
moment.
>
