--- In [email protected], iranitea <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
<snip>
> > Only someone with a deeply warped mentality would try to
> > punish a person they were having a dispute with by
> > attacking another person for whom the first person had
> > respect and admiration.
>
> I wasn't trying to 'punish' you.
Sure you were: "This [questioning Robin's mental health]
was a spontaneous reaction, partly by your over-devotional
attitude (in another thread)..."
I think you may have actually been *jealous* of my
admiration of Robin. You thought I should be admiring
*you*. Remember all your "love-bombing"? So you
figured you needed to tear him down to "correct" my
opinion of him.
> LOL I was trying to make things clear, I said a thousand
> times. I must be a bore, because you don't understand and
> twist everything.
Mind-reading, iranitea.
I understand perfectly what you are trying to convey. It's
just that I don't believe you.
Furthermore, that's not the only instance in which you've
let your anti-Robin behavior be dictated by something
I've said. You've acknowledged you made that ridiculous
fuss over the misattributions because of what I had said
to you back in December 2011; and you posted that long
quote from something Robin had written 30-some years ago
awhile back because you didn't like something complimentary
I had said about him.
That's just *insane*, iranitea.
> > > Why don't you admit, when you were wrong?
> >
> > I always admit it when I'm wrong, unlike you.
> >
> > > Why don't you admit that you were wrong, that Robin
> > > could 'look through me', neither can you? If you make
> > > a mistake, in the timeline or in your judgment, why
> > > can't you just say: I'm sorry, I was wrong?
> >
> > I would not be telling the truth if I did.
>
> Did you take a politicians course or how to be a lawyer?
Uh, no. Does it seem particularly learned or scholarly
to you? Seems like basic common sense to me.
> > > You were also wrong when you said, as you did, that I called
> > > Robin of having NPD, that was Barry, not me, and at the same
> > > time, you called me a liar?
> >
> > And you *agreed* with Barry about Robin having NPD, remember?
>
> That's a downright lie. Your reading ability must be seriously
> impaired. I clearly stated that I did NOT think he had NPD.
You did not. Barry pronounced his "NPD/hypomania" diagnosis,
and you replied:
"Of course. He is smart enough, he makes everyone either
follower (or admirer) or opponent. (black and white, ask
Curtis) In reality he is a poor and old guy, who's
illusions were shattered. I don't really find any mystery
about him, I rather find the fascination mysterious, he
has for some people, intelligent people at that."
("Of course" indicates agreement in English.)
Just extraordinarily ugly and deliberately hurtful. And
clearly aimed at me as well.
Now, earlier in that same post, Barry said Robin was a
"classic case of NPD/hypmania [sic] augmented by
moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other
people's attention."
And you responded:
"Barry, I am with you on this. Not to the exact type of
diagnosis, I am not a psychiatrist. I would call it a borderline
personality, these people can be very intelligent. I don't like
it to be blunt like this, especially, since the person is here
on the board. it is also not meant to be a put-down, these
persons can't help it. That is why I said, there is no use
discussing with someone, who will be unable to change his mind,
no matter how smart he argues.
"From the very first reading of RWC I got this impression, and
expressed it to somebody here. Whatever I read, hear about the
whole case confirms my opinion. According to occam's razor, it
is more likely he had a mental disturbance, which is known to
have similar symptoms than enlightened states, than a fall
from a real enlightened state. There are too many congruences,
like all this demon/false devas stuff that permeates his whole
history. It's all throughout, pre- and post supposed unity. All
the channeling stuff, like obviously 1945, it's really all
rather typical for some schizophrenic disorder. That's my
opinion. I cannot know everything, and if I am wrong, who cares?"
It wouldn't have mattered who you were talking about,
those two paragraphs were *inexcusable*.
But "Not to the exact type of diagnosis" was the *closest
you came* to not subscribing to everything Barry said. (In
fact, you went well beyond it.) Barry's "diagnosis" was not
just NPD; it was hypomania and moodmaking and attention
seeking. Who knew what part(s) of that you were
disagreeing with, or to what degree? Highly ambiguous.
Then you went on to *confirm* Barry's NPD/hypomania
diagnosis with "Of course." You never said, "No, I don't
think it was NPD." It wouldn't have mattered even if you
had; the rest of what you wrote made it crystal clear
you thought (or wanted readers to think) that Robin was
seriously mentally unbalanced.
This was all *on a public forum* while Robin was present
to read it.
Here's the original post, if anyone wants to read the
whole disgusting thing:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299819
> My agreement with Barry, was about the general direction
> of the nature of his enlightenment.
I quoted all if it above, iranitea, so readers can decide
for themselves how honest that claim is.
> Only, when I made this general agreement in the introduction,
> you all flared up and stopped thinking, and haven't started
> ever since.
What you said (that I just quoted) was intolerably and
deliberately cruel. I can't believe you were surprised
that it made me angry. It *still* makes me angry to read
it. And even more so after your admission that you said
it to get back at me for admiring Robin, after you'd
expended so much effort sucking up to me.
It just doesn't get much lower-vibe than that, iranitea.
> > I didn't call you a liar in the post commenting on your
> > agreement with Barry, BTW. I've certainly had other
> > occasions to do so, however.
>
> All of them wrong.
<guffaw> Lots and lots of evidence in the archives.
> > > And then you get all upset, when I point out a mistaken
> > > attribution, to which you had linked.
> >
> > I didn't "get all upset," I thought it was hilarious.
>
> Well, in private email, you did agree, when I was so
> astonished how angry you were. You actually admitted it.
Admitted *what*? That I was angry at you for your attack
on Robin's mental health in December 2011? I'm talking
about what I thought of your eruption over the mistaken
attributions a couple of days ago.
Your writing is *so* unclear much of the time, and you
really have a hard time following the thread of a
conversation.
> Why do you feel the need to uphold this public farce?
Which public farce would that be, your hatred of Robin
and your inability to argue straightforwardly?
> I think that even your friends can see this. When I was
> your friend, I knew that you had an obsession with Barry.
> It's so obvious.
"Obsession with Barry" = defending myself from his
obsession with *me*. If you can't see that, you're
blind.
> > > I might not have done that, and not returned here,
> > > if you wouldn't have accused me falsely in the first place!
> >
> > Oh, that's even funnier. I didn't accuse you falsely.
> > But you're letting something I said over a year and
> > a half ago dictate your behavior *today*. That's just
> > amazing, so infantile.
>
> Oh, come on, you are spending here day in and day out,
> obsessing since decades over Barry, and over Robin in
> another way, digging up one old post after the other,
> and if I comment on the obvious mistake, it's infantile?
Yup. Because nobody would have noticed those old mistakes
if you hadn't burst in with a blast of trumpets to try to
"get" me for linking to them. I don't typically comment
on past mistakes unless it's relevant to what's going on
currently.
> Now, who is the master of in-adverted irony?
"Inadvertent." You're rapidly closing in on Barry's title.
> Ever looked into a mirror? Who started linking to old posts?
Apples and prickly pears. Lawson wasn't familiar with
how Robin had described what had gone on between him
and Maharishi, so I linked to that post because in it
Robin had given a blow-by-blow (which had nothing to do
with the misattributions). Lawson had *asked* what had
happened, and I was responding to that request. There
wasn't anything the slightest bit weird about that.
Your going ballistic over ancient, entirely irrelevant
misattributions was *extremely* weird, unbalanced
crackpottery. As I said before, you were gunning for me.
In fact, you *admit* to exactly that above: "I might not
have done that, and not returned here, if you wouldn't
have accused me falsely in the first place!"
> > > I have no problem to say sorry if I am wrong, as I was when
> > > made a wrong attribution to Dr. D post last time I was here,
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339572
> >
> > You didn't have any choice. You had made a complete ass
> > of yourself because you hadn't been paying attention. You
> > insulted DrD and Ann, and me as well, and wouldn't listen
> > when the two of them tried to clue you in.
>
> I made a mistake, and when I realized it, I admitted it. That
> can happen. It's possible to make a wrong attribution. It's
> only wrong to not admit it.See how you are trying to capitalize
> on it even now?
You brought it up, you dingbat. It was a particularly
egregious error given all the slimy insults that went
along with it. You admitted you were wrong because
DrD had you dead to rights. If there had been any
ambiguity or uncertainty, you'd have done your best to
wiggle out of your error, as you so often do with me.
> how childish.
>
> > As Ann said at the time, "Your posts just scream, 'I am
> > acting like a child because I can't help myself.'" I'd
> > say she hit the bullseye with that characterization.
>
> Dr D found out and cleared it up. I don't take Ann serious
> in any way, most of the time she is really just fooling
> around, just ganging up behind you. No need to take this
> characterization serious in any way.
Ann is one of the most independent, objective posters
on this forum. She has an enviable knack for hitting the
nail on the head with a minimum of words (and sometimes
just an image). She is much, *much* smarter than you are.
I think that's why you and Barry dislike her so much.
> > You disappeared for months after finally, finally
> > acknowledging your mistake. Not surprising, considering
> > how badly you had embarrassed yourself.
>
> Look, I disappeared, but not *because* of that.
Yeah, amazing coincidence of timing, wasn't it?
> Btw. it's nothing you are involved in. Usually I disappear,
> because I have jobs to do, and I want to be able to focus
> on them with undivided attention. Or because I go abroad. I
> also used to disappear regularly before, when we were still,
> according to your own words, 'a mutual agreement party'.
I don't think that's a phrase I've ever used.
> That mistake happened, because I couldn't follow up things
> with my full attention, being quite busy.
You had plenty of time to follow up things with insults
to Jim and Ann and (indirectly) me.
> So I said sorry for a mistake, and for me that's fine, and
> so it was for Jim.
Right. It was still an egregious, embarrassing mistake.
You didn't just make a mistake, you behaved badly.
> But for you, you obviously have problems to say sorry, or
> acknowledge mistakes.
Um, no.
> You also have a problem to forgive.
I don't tend to forgive when the offense is ongoing, no.
And I don't tend to forgive when the offender has denied
they've done anything wrong.
> Your nature is obsessive. You think you are infallible,
Mind-reading...
> while it's clear you make many mistakes.
<guffaw> I make mistakes all the time and always
acknowledge them, even if nobody else notices them. I've
made several and acknowledged them just in the past week.
My *average* for getting things right is pretty high, but
I'm certainly not infallible.
> And that combination is much worse.
>
> > But that's the only time I can remember that you
> > acknowledged a mistake, and you've made scores of them.
>
> I surely made more, and I surely also acknowledged them.
You've made heaps and heaps of mistakes in our arguments
that I've pointed out and you've never acknowledged.
