I can't help you with your fantasies, Share. You have far too much invested in 
them. Anyone who looked at Bill's book, or read "Brahmi's" post, knows they 
were out for Robin's blood. 

 Curtis certainly supported your accusations against Robin, even back when you 
were contradicting yourself right and left about what had happened and how you 
had felt about it. Even when you finally came up with the term "psychological 
rape," you claimed that was what you had felt from the beginning, but at the 
time you had insisted you weren't upset, so one way or another, you weren't 
telling the truth. I documented all this in detail with quotes from your posts. 
Your various stories simply didn't add up.

 Long after the fact, you latched onto the term somehow and decided it would be 
a good one to beat Robin up with.

 And the real irony is that you misunderstood what Robin had said to you in the 
first place, as he very graciously attempted to explain to you--and went on to 
apologize for your having misunderstood him.

 Note that Emily looked up the term and found your application of it way, WAY 
out of line. It's not so much that you coined it as that you so misused it that 
it became meaningless. That's not the case with Carol. That was the point I 
wanted to make.
 << Judy, I don't think that Bill and Brahmi and Lord Knows were trying to get 
revenge on Robin. First of all, I also know Bill in person and he is not that 
kind of person. Plus, none of their posts sounded revengeful to me.

 As for the FFL regulars, some were supportive of me but no one encouraged me 
to accuse Robin.

 I also want to make the point that Emily posted some definitions of the term 
psychological rape so again, I'm quite sure that no one on FFL thought that I 
coined the term. >>

 On Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:34 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> 
   Oh, yes, right, the old Barry canard: people who express the same views I do 
about something don't think for themselves and just follow my lead in hopes 
that I'll praise them, no matter what I say. That never carried any weight, and 
it hasn't improved with age.

 Of course those people who came onto FFL (how many were there, exactly? We 
know about Lord Knows and Bill and "Brahmi"; any others?) had the motivation to 
take revenge on Robin after what he'd done to them 30 years ago.

 I'll let Ann respond to your suppositions about her, but I'd be astonished if 
she would break off a friendship because the friend had "negative intentions" 
toward Robin. She's a bigger person than that.

 And yes, there were people here who were sufficiently at odds with today's 
Robin that they would encourage you to do him dirt by accusing him unfairly 
(including Xeno).

 << Judy, the people who agreed with you were the ones who usually agree with 
you. Whereas the people from outside FFL who supported me purposefully came 
onto FFL to do so and had zero motivation to do so, other than to validate what 
I had said and thus offer support. I believe Ann remains friends with some of 
those people and I doubt she would do so if they had negative intentions 
towards Robin. As well, there are people on FFL who understood what I meant by 
my accusation and did not find it malign. >>

 On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:53 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> 
   I'm sure you're confident, Share. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the 
picture. The people you spoke to knew Robin 30+ years ago, when he was quite a 
different person and did a lot of harm, and they had plenty of motivation to 
encourage you to believe he had mistreated you. We didn't see any such thing 
here, not even remotely; if anything, the reverse was the case. I stand by my 
contention that "psychological rape" was your malignant fantasy (as several 
others here asserted as well).

 << Judy, based on my own experience and the validation I received from several 
who experienced Robin in person, I am confident of the validity of what I 
accused Robin of. >> 

 On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:14 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> 
   OK. I'm not aware of any stories of sexual hanky-panky with Knapp, actually. 
I don't believe that was the problem Carol had with him. As I understand it, 
hers was more a matter of genuine psychological rape (as opposed to the kind 
Share fantasized from Robin).

 << I read plenty of his stuff and followed his troubles when patients began to 
complain - I watched him blame everyone but himself and he certainly did use 
Marshy's playbook in some respects to get his hands on women. >> 
 On Sat, 2/15/14, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... <authfriend@... 
mailto:authfriend@...> wrote:
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: John M. Knapp: Licensing Board Ruling
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, February 15, 2014, 7:15 PM
 You didn't know Knapp. He followed his own
 twisted footsteps.
 << not
 surprising that he would eventually follow in his form
 master's foot steps - there are others who have like Bob
 Fickes >>
 On Sat, 2/15/14, j_alexander_stanley@...
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: John M. Knapp: Licensing Board
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, February 15, 2014, 5:48 PM
 Interesting... when you posted earlier this
 morning, I Googled around to refresh my memory, and the one
 thing that really stood out for me was the "defrocked
 therapist" self-description he uses to promote
 I thought it very odd that a person would accentuate the
 consequences of his malevolence as some kind of badge of
 honor. Strange guy, that one.
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 <jchwelch@...> wrote:
 Thanks for the
 kind words Anne. Of
 course, there is a lot that happened between the lines of
 the brief outline.IMO (and others who were
 involved), Knapp's revocation is a good thing; he has
 harmed more than one person, including at least three
 ex-clients. From Knapp's online public
 displays, he has claimed he lost his license over at least
 year ago (and that due to a lawsuit), though that isn't
 the case because the ruling wasn't made until January,
 2014, and there was never a lawsuit. Regardless, Knapp
 to wear a lost license (or as he publicly describes himself
 as a "defrocked therapist") as a badge of being a
 rebel, or something. At least now, there is a public
 official ruling which will make it difficult for him to get
 licensed again if he ever would have an interest in doing
 so.Thanks again. Hope you and the horses are
 well. :-) 





Reply via email to