Emily, thanks for setting the record straight. It was a long time ago and I forgot.
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:51 PM, "emilymae...@yahoo.com" <emilymae...@yahoo.com> wrote: Share, I posted a definition of "emotional rape" as I had never heard of the term "psychological rape" and so looked it up on the internet and yes, I thought you had made it up! What I posted (note: different term) was not at all consistent with what you were asserting, which was my point. What I asked *you* to do, in fact begged you to do, is post a definition of what it was that you were talking about. You indicated that it meant "attributing thoughts and feelings to you that you don't have." Sorry, Share, if that is what you meant by PR, than accuse yourself of such a thing, as you've done this countless times, incorrectly, even as you persist now in what was proven and shown by your own self to be completely false in your case. Sorry, I'm not as well read as you. To me, it was clear that you had adopted this term for malign purposes, imho. Now, I'm not here to fight with you, but wanted to correct your misinterpretation of what I posted back then. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: 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@... <authfriend@...> wrote: >>>> >>>>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: John M. Knapp: Licensing Board Ruling >>>>To: 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 >>>> >>>>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, >>>> >>>><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. :-)
