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@...> wrote: 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@...> wrote: 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@...> wrote: 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@... <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: John M. Knapp: Licensing Board Ruling 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 himself. 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 a 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 seems 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. :-)
