--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > (snip) > > > > The problem, she had with me, was, 1) when I sided with you > > > > 2) went public with my opinion. > > > > > > The problem was 2, not 1. I've made my position clear on this > > > sort of thing. I made it crystal clear to you in private, and > > > I've spoken out about it publicly as well (as has Emily). The > > > trend on this forum toward speculatively slapping psychiatric > > > labels on people--especially in their presence--on this forum, > > > by nonprofessionals yet, is unconscionable and disgraceful. > > > It's also *ipso facto* hostile and insulting, whether it's NPD > > > or BPD or, as zarzari also speculated about Robin (and does > > > again below), "some schizophrenic disorder." > > > > Judy, I get what you are saying. And I wasn't giving out my > > opinion right away. But you have to take into account, that > > we are not talking here about anybody. We are talking here > > about somebody who claims the highest state of enlightenment, > > Claimed it *as of 35 years ago*.
No, right here, he was still making appeals to have special insight into, what he called people's first persons ontology. You yourself believed him to be still in a sort of enlighetend state (as you wrote to me in one of those mails.) > > > access, more than anybody else, to the highest level of truth, > > acting like a teacher, here on this forum, being a cult leader > > in the past, who at least was highly manipulative, and showed > > the signs of this here online as well. > > I don't agree with your description (except for "cult leader > in the past," which role he had decisively renounced decades > before he got here). > > > So, you had only the choice to accept his special claim of > > insight to truth, or insight into what other people thought > > and felt, or challenge these insights and experiences as > > something else. He didn't leave you much of a choice, you > > either had to accept him as some sort of an authority, admire > > him, as you did, or you questioned the very source of all his > > claims. > > Question him all you like. That wasn't what I was objecting to. > > > So at some point, rightly or wrongly, I felt that I had to > > make my own position clear, not being vague, and people knew, > > I was hiding my opinion, and called me out on that. That was > > right or wrong, but I did it. I am not the ultimate judge > > over him, and I am not the first. > > > > And please note, I didn't do it out of aggression or to hurt him. > > Sorry, I don't believe you. I think you wanted to punish > him for having the nerve, in your view, to claim to have > been enlightened. See, Judy, that's really what makes you so weird, you believe you know peoples motivations, and come up with the most absurd theory. What makes you so sure about this rubbish you just said? > Same with Barry. Now that's the point! That says more about you than you think. A clear give away. thank you. > > > I can't possibly feel friendly toward anyone who does that, > > > *to anybody*. > > > Sure, that's obvious. But you are not looking at the whole > > picture either. There are cultural differences, and > > differences, of how we understand a certain label. > > So in your culture it's OK to speculate about psychiatric > labels for people, in public, in their presence? > > Really? > > > At a certain point, I felt I needed to make a clear stand. If > > he is so enlightened (in whatever way), as you seemed to > > believe > > You are misrepresenting what I told you in private by > leaving out part of what I said. I do not believe and > did not believe that whatever was left of his > enlightenment--if anything--would have armored him > against the kind of hurtful, hostile garbage you and > Barry hung on him. > > In any case, *you* didn't think he'd ever been enlightened, > so you can't use what I thought as an excuse. No, you are wrong. I clearly considered the possibility. I know what I was thinking, when I wrote this. You don't. > The guy had > been through hell for 25-plus years, in seclusion, beating > himself up for what he'd done, trying to get his head on > straight, and finally being successful. According to his own dramatic testimony. Now, IF he has been so cruel to himself, casting himself into this situation, what am I to blame for? If he really went through all this, really and honestly, how could my feeble opinion, me, a nobody, have disturbed him? If he could take Maharishis 'Madman' with a straight face, and continue his act, rent a helicopter, how could such a man be possibly lose balance by my thinking he is borderline? (Which I had meant literally with a state, between the different states.) > He deserved > bouquets, not brickbats. If he was honest. But everything about him was over-dramatized. > He was nothing but courteous to > you even in his response to your hostile challenge to his > integrity. Well, it was up to him. He could have been more successful, if you weren't so outraged. > > I knew - I KNEW - he could digest it. He would have been > > above that. If not, it would have been better he stopped > > right here. > > What does "stopped right here" mean in this context? In this case, confront his game, his one-up-manship he played with people here.
