[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Share on FFL is bullshit: toxic, thoroughly dishonest > > > > > and spiteful bullshit. You and Steve and feste have > > > > > been conned, but good. > > > > > > > > Other names can easily be substituted into the above two > > > > sentences and it would have just as much meaning or > > > > *rigorous truth* to a few (or perhaps *others*) on this > > > > forum. > > > > > > Oh, no question about it. Barry is also bullshit, etc., > > > and he has his fans as well. > > > > You're absolutely correct, Judy, although that's not who > > I had in mind. My point being that *other* names could be > > substituted in the above two sentences (just as you've > > done with Barry) and there would be someone on this forum > > that could argue intelligently as to the validity of this > > opinion. > > Oh, probably. Not sure what the relevance is here. The relevance being that each of us views the FFL forum differently, and *any* post can technically be adapted, twisted, turned, etc. to suit the needs or ends of the adaptor, twister, turner, etc. Furthermore, my reason for being here is not to "argue intelligently" about anything posted but, rather, to simply and respectfully exchange ideas and opinions. And if someone picks up something useful in the exchange, then great! Not necessarily the case with others, as I'm sure you're aware. > Thing > is, virtually nobody has argued intelligently against the > case that has been made by Emily and by Ann, raunchy, > Robin, Alex, and me for Share being a bullshitter. They've > almost exclusively been on the level of, "You just don't > get it, do you Emily? Send Emilina over and have Steve > explain it to her." Well, you got me there Judy although part of the above quote was my attempt at "humorous irony" (I'm new at this and perhaps I failed miserably). The "you just don't get it" part I hope is a little clearer by what I wrote above. I *do* feel that the intent behind some comments is to make the person to whom the comment is directed feel smaller or less significant, and I would hope that this is done unknowingly. For me (and probably for most here), there are subtle signs or indications in a post that contribute to my conclusions regarding the intent behind the post as well as the sincerity of the person writing the post. > > > > The interesting thing about conflicts that take place on > > > a Web forum that maintains archives, as this one does, is > > > that untruths about what others have said on the forum > > > can often be documented. That has been the case with a > > > number of things Share has said, so there really is not > > > any question--it's not just a matter of opinion--that her > > > version of the "truth" of the conflicts in which she's > > > been involved here has departed significantly from reality. > > > So says one of the people whose choice it was to become *highly* involved in the conflict and who has formulated one "reality" of the situation, and the others, again who have chosen to become involved in the conflict, have their own "realities" of the situation, and so on. So, how many realities do we have now? Who were the original players in this "conflict" of which you are referring? I'm thinking two: Robin and Share. Their realities are the only two that matter. IMO (and I've said this at least once before), the others should just butt out. > > > With chronic, compulsive tellers of falsehoods like Share > > > and Barry, there's always a question as to how much of > > > their own bullshit they believe. It has always seemed to > > > me that unwillingness to stand up for their bullshit when > > > it's challenged is a good indication that they know it's > > > bullshit, that they don't believe it themselves--i.e., that > > > they are deliberately lying rather than deluded. > > > > > > That characteristic--unwillingness to respond to challenge-- > > > applies to both Share and Barry, as you may have noticed. > > > > > I'm still having difficulty separating what you refer to > > as "compulsive tellers of falsehoods" from someone who is > > just offering their opinion of the situation as they > > perceive it right now from the evidence presented. > > If you're of the firm conviction that no given opinion is > any closer to reality than any other, then you and I have > nothing to discuss, because we are never going to see eye > to eye. > Judy, a person and a group of people express similar opinions based on perhaps a similar version of reality in their minds (or maybe it's the other way around), and it's that similarity that draws people together as a group who mutually support each other. The same can be said of people who are considered to be opponents of the group...different opinions based on a different version of re
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > I'm still having difficulty separating what you refer to > as "compulsive tellers of falsehoods" from someone who is > just offering their opinion of the situation as they perceive > it right now from the evidence presented. I change my opinion > all the time because I'm gathering additional information all > the time. Is that to say that my opinion when I had a little > information is a falsehood or is my opinion that I hold now > after gathering more information the falsehood? Perhaps > neither is a falsehood... Your confusion about this is obvious. You change your opinions. Judy never does. She doesn't need to, because her opinion is always right the first time. And I can prove it. On Monday I made a little "bet," one that I knew in advance I would win: > I would be willing to bet she cannot find and post > links to, say, five posts over her entire history > at FFL in which she has admitted to having changed > her mind about something. No response. I assume that this is because out of over 22,400 posts to FFL -- an average of 8 per day for 7.6 years -- Judy has never HAD to admit to having changed her opinion on something. It must be nice to be right all the time... :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > > > Share on FFL is bullshit: toxic, thoroughly dishonest
> > > > and spiteful bullshit. You and Steve and feste have
> > > > been conned, but good.
> > >
> > > Other names can easily be substituted into the above two
> > > sentences and it would have just as much meaning or
> > > *rigorous truth* to a few (or perhaps *others*) on this
> > > forum.
> >
> > Oh, no question about it. Barry is also bullshit, etc.,
> > and he has his fans as well.
>
> You're absolutely correct, Judy, although that's not who
> I had in mind. My point being that *other* names could be
> substituted in the above two sentences (just as you've
> done with Barry) and there would be someone on this forum
> that could argue intelligently as to the validity of this
> opinion.
Oh, probably. Not sure what the relevance is here. Thing
is, virtually nobody has argued intelligently against the
case that has been made by Emily and by Ann, raunchy,
Robin, Alex, and me for Share being a bullshitter. They've
almost exclusively been on the level of, "You just don't
get it, do you Emily? Send Emilina over and have Steve
explain it to her."
> > The interesting thing about conflicts that take place on
> > a Web forum that maintains archives, as this one does, is
> > that untruths about what others have said on the forum
> > can often be documented. That has been the case with a
> > number of things Share has said, so there really is not
> > any question--it's not just a matter of opinion--that her
> > version of the "truth" of the conflicts in which she's
> > been involved here has departed significantly from reality.
> >
> > With chronic, compulsive tellers of falsehoods like Share
> > and Barry, there's always a question as to how much of
> > their own bullshit they believe. It has always seemed to
> > me that unwillingness to stand up for their bullshit when
> > it's challenged is a good indication that they know it's
> > bullshit, that they don't believe it themselves--i.e., that
> > they are deliberately lying rather than deluded.
> >
> > That characteristic--unwillingness to respond to challenge--
> > applies to both Share and Barry, as you may have noticed.
> >
> I'm still having difficulty separating what you refer to
> as "compulsive tellers of falsehoods" from someone who is
> just offering their opinion of the situation as they
> perceive it right now from the evidence presented.
If you're of the firm conviction that no given opinion is
any closer to reality than any other, then you and I have
nothing to discuss, because we are never going to see eye
to eye.
But I really wasn't talking about opinion per se.
Have a reread of my paragraph beginning "The interesting
thing about conflicts..." By "untruths about what others
have said on the forum can often be documented," I meant
*proved unequivocally*. (That includes, BTW, someone
telling untruths about what they themselves have said. If
they deny vehemently, for example, ever having said X,
and a post is found in which they indeed said X, then it
has been documented--proved unequivocally--that they've
told an untruth.)
> I change my opinion all the time because I'm gathering
> additional information all the time. Is that to say that my
> opinion when I had a little information is a falsehood or
> is my opinion that I hold now after gathering more
> information the falsehood? Perhaps neither is a falsehood...
Well, again, I wasn't referring to opinions, so this is a
non sequitur. But responding to your question on its own
terms: sometimes an expressed opinion can be a falsehood,
in the sense that the person has enough information to know
that the opinion they've expressed is bullshit.
Let me ask you a question, if you don't mind. From Barry
today:
"Ann, on the other hand, is one weird kettle of fish. She
is, after all, one of the key figures who brought down
Robin's cult back in the day. I think we can legitimately
view her actions back then as more than a little attached.
Now she claims not to be. But since Day One here she's
been trying to suck up to the guy who once put her up on
a stage and called her a demon, as if she wanted to some-
how weasel her way back into his good graces. I'm sorry,
but that strikes me as MUCH more odd than LK and the
others making short statements and then slipping away
back into the cybermist."
Would you say Barry's description of Ann's behavior on FFL
("trying to suck up" etc.) is an honest one? Do you think
he believes what he wrote?
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and open
> > > > > and generous person. All I'm saying is that she has a shadow
> > > > > side, and she is demonstrating many aspects of that here.
> > > > > She can pretend she's all love and light all she likes, but
> > > > > the proof is in the words she puts down here, as far as I'm
> > > > > concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit. None of us are all
> > > > > love and light all the time; I don't know why she is so
> > > > > scared to acknowledge her negative qualities.
> > > >
> > > > You just don't get it, do you Emily?
> > >
> > > Emily gets it, laughinggull. So do Ann, raunchy, Robin,
> > > Alex, and I, and probably others who haven't spoken up.
> >
> > Then again, just as likely as probably *not* others who
> > haven't spoken up.
> >
> > > Share on FFL is bullshit: toxic, thoroughly dishonest
> > > and spiteful bullshit. You and Steve and feste have
> > > been conned, but good.
> >
> > Other names can easily be substituted into the above two
> > sentences and it would have just as much meaning or
> > *rigorous truth* to a few (or perhaps *others*) on this
> > forum.
>
> Oh, no question about it. Barry is also bullshit, etc.,
> and he has his fans as well.
You're absolutely correct, Judy, although that's not who I had in mind. My
point being that *other* names could be substituted in the above two sentences
(just as you've done with Barry) and there would be someone on this forum that
could argue intelligently as to the validity of this opinion.
>
> (BTW, in case you thought you were quoting the phrase that
> has been the topic of disagreement here of late, it's
> "rigorous honesty," not "rigorous truth." The latter is an
> abstraction; the former is not.)
Oh fudge! You are absolutely correct again...my bad.
>
> > Conned into what Judy?
>
> Into thinking Emily doesn't get it, of course. Into
> buying the picture of herself ("all love and light")
> that Share works so hard to convey.
>
>
> > Versions of the *truth* change from person to person
> > and are dependent on numerous factors.
>
> Uh, duh. However, that does not mean that every individual
> version of the "truth" partakes equally of reality.
>
> The interesting thing about conflicts that take place on
> a Web forum that maintains archives, as this one does, is
> that untruths about what others have said on the forum
> can often be documented. That has been the case with a
> number of things Share has said, so there really is not
> any question--it's not just a matter of opinion--that her
> version of the "truth" of the conflicts in which she's
> been involved here has departed significantly from reality.
>
> With chronic, compulsive tellers of falsehoods like Share
> and Barry, there's always a question as to how much of
> their own bullshit they believe. It has always seemed to
> me that unwillingness to stand up for their bullshit when
> it's challenged is a good indication that they know it's
> bullshit, that they don't believe it themselves--i.e., that
> they are deliberately lying rather than deluded.
>
> That characteristic--unwillingness to respond to challenge--
> applies to both Share and Barry, as you may have noticed.
>
I'm still having difficulty separating what you refer to as "compulsive tellers
of falsehoods" from someone who is just offering their opinion of the situation
as they perceive it right now from the evidence presented. I change my opinion
all the time because I'm gathering additional information all the time. Is that
to say that my opinion when I had a little information is a falsehood or is my
opinion that I hold now after gathering more information the falsehood? Perhaps
neither is a falsehood...
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote: > > Emily gets it, laughinggull. So do Ann, raunchy, Robin, > > Alex, and I, and probably others who haven't spoken up. > > > Then again, just as likely as probably *not* others who haven't spoken up. Sounds like she's making a list, probably going to check it twice. She's going to find out who's naughty and nice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
> > > > I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and open
> > > > and generous person. All I'm saying is that she has a shadow
> > > > side, and she is demonstrating many aspects of that here.
> > > > She can pretend she's all love and light all she likes, but
> > > > the proof is in the words she puts down here, as far as I'm
> > > > concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit. None of us are all
> > > > love and light all the time; I don't know why she is so
> > > > scared to acknowledge her negative qualities.
> > >
> > > You just don't get it, do you Emily?
> >
> > Emily gets it, laughinggull. So do Ann, raunchy, Robin,
> > Alex, and I, and probably others who haven't spoken up.
>
> Then again, just as likely as probably *not* others who
> haven't spoken up.
>
> > Share on FFL is bullshit: toxic, thoroughly dishonest
> > and spiteful bullshit. You and Steve and feste have
> > been conned, but good.
>
> Other names can easily be substituted into the above two
> sentences and it would have just as much meaning or
> *rigorous truth* to a few (or perhaps *others*) on this
> forum.
Oh, no question about it. Barry is also bullshit, etc.,
and he has his fans as well.
(BTW, in case you thought you were quoting the phrase that
has been the topic of disagreement here of late, it's
"rigorous honesty," not "rigorous truth." The latter is an
abstraction; the former is not.)
> Conned into what Judy?
Into thinking Emily doesn't get it, of course. Into
buying the picture of herself ("all love and light")
that Share works so hard to convey.
> Versions of the *truth* change from person to person
> and are dependent on numerous factors.
Uh, duh. However, that does not mean that every individual
version of the "truth" partakes equally of reality.
The interesting thing about conflicts that take place on
a Web forum that maintains archives, as this one does, is
that untruths about what others have said on the forum
can often be documented. That has been the case with a
number of things Share has said, so there really is not
any question--it's not just a matter of opinion--that her
version of the "truth" of the conflicts in which she's
been involved here has departed significantly from reality.
With chronic, compulsive tellers of falsehoods like Share
and Barry, there's always a question as to how much of
their own bullshit they believe. It has always seemed to
me that unwillingness to stand up for their bullshit when
it's challenged is a good indication that they know it's
bullshit, that they don't believe it themselves--i.e., that
they are deliberately lying rather than deluded.
That characteristic--unwillingness to respond to challenge--
applies to both Share and Barry, as you may have noticed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > > > > P.S. (post 48)  Steve, even if Share defers to her perception that > > > "psychological rape"  occurred during her off-line exchange with Robin, > > >  individually, Robin recently proposed, agreed, and offered to make > > > those exchanges public here.  Because they were private, he asked Share > > > for her permission.  Share ultimately, deferred to a meeting with her > > > pastoral counselor that she was going to have to supposedly get feedback. > > >  She came back here and posted something about "bringing more positivity > > > to FFL"  What?  She never said:  "I discussed it and decided > > > against it."  She didn't address it at all.  Her response was > > > completely insulting and completely dismissive of everyone here who was > > > following the conversation and participating in it.  Exceee Me! > > >  > > > > > > So, Share gets to retain her condemnation of Robin, and Robin, who was > > > willing to make the entire exchange public, is cut off at the knees. > > >  You see why Judy said that, in her opinion, if the allegations are > > > malicious, for example, the privacy issue doesn't apply.  It I were > > > being accused of such a thing, I would go ahead and post the exchanges, > > > if I thought it would be of service to me.  I learned my lesson in the > > > much less important post that Sal posted to me privately that I held > > > private and asked Judy and Curtis to do the same with, as I actually > > > didn't hold it quite private, did I?  In the future, for me, if it's an > > > FFL conversation or should be one, than it goes to FFL - period. > > >  Particularly if it's a controversial  one.  I want the extended > > > feedback for those that want to chime in.  I value it, I believe in it, > > > I always consider it.  Always.  Share's behavior here has been to act > > > out and create the kind of drama that shows that what's > > > inside the orange isn't necessarily orange juice.  Too bad she is > > > unwilling to take responsibility or accountability for anything she says. > > >  I am glad she has created a life for her that works in a community that > > > supports her.  I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and > > > open and generous person.  All I'm saying is that she has a shadow side, > > > and she is demonstrating many aspects of that here.  She can pretend > > > she's all love and light all she likes, but the proof is in the words she > > > puts down here, as far as I'm concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit. > > >  None of us are all love and light all the time; I don't know why she is > > > so scared to acknowledge her negative qualities.  > > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you Emily? > > Emily gets it, laughinggull. So do Ann, raunchy, Robin, > Alex, and I, and probably others who haven't spoken up. > Then again, just as likely as probably *not* others who haven't spoken up. > Share on FFL is bullshit: toxic, thoroughly dishonest > and spiteful bullshit. You and Steve and feste have > been conned, but good. > Other names can easily be substituted into the above two sentences and it would have just as much meaning or *rigorous truth* to a few (or perhaps *others*) on this forum. Conned into what Judy? From time to time, I remind myself that FFL is an internet forum where anyone is free to share ideas, opinions, insults (at least according to you), etc. (And why does someone choose to post? That's anyone's guess.) And that *right* of anyone to post their version of the *truth* as they see it is just that, nothing more, and IMO they don't *owe* anyone an explanation (even as relentless as some are) nor does it *have* to stand up to others' version of the *rigorous truth*. Versions of the *truth* change from person to person and are dependent on numerous factors. We all give some people more leeway and are more tolerant of their insults, opinions, truths, etc., then with others, we hold their feet to the fire as they are held to a different (and perhaps higher) standard. To say otherwise would be dishonest with ourselves. Why is this? Totally non-sequitur: My wish is that some posters would clean up their "sailor mouth" because it forms an opinion in my mind of who that person is inside (i.e. angry, speak/write before they think, etc.). And I ask myself, would I use that kind of language around my children, grandchildren, Maharishi, etc., and if not, then why use it at all. Then again, I have to ask myself, what makes certain words unacceptable to me, after all, words are just combinations of letters, aren't they? Hmmm, interesting...
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > > P.S. (post 48)  Steve, even if Share defers to her perception that > > "psychological rape"  occurred during her off-line exchange with Robin, > >  individually, Robin recently proposed, agreed, and offered to make those > > exchanges public here.  Because they were private, he asked Share for her > > permission.  Share ultimately, deferred to a meeting with her pastoral > > counselor that she was going to have to supposedly get feedback.  She came > > back here and posted something about "bringing more positivity to FFL" > >  What?  She never said:  "I discussed it and decided against it."  She > > didn't address it at all.  Her response was completely insulting and > > completely dismissive of everyone here who was following the conversation > > and participating in it.  Exceee Me!  > > > > So, Share gets to retain her condemnation of Robin, and Robin, who was > > willing to make the entire exchange public, is cut off at the knees.  You > > see why Judy said that, in her opinion, if the allegations are malicious, > > for example, the privacy issue doesn't apply.  It I were being accused of > > such a thing, I would go ahead and post the exchanges, if I thought it > > would be of service to me.  I learned my lesson in the much less important > > post that Sal posted to me privately that I held private and asked Judy and > > Curtis to do the same with, as I actually didn't hold it quite private, did > > I?  In the future, for me, if it's an FFL conversation or should be one, > > than it goes to FFL - period.  Particularly if it's a controversial  one. > >  I want the extended feedback for those that want to chime in.  I value > > it, I believe in it, I always consider it.  Always.  Share's behavior > > here has been to act out and create the kind of drama that shows that what's > > inside the orange isn't necessarily orange juice.  Too bad she is > > unwilling to take responsibility or accountability for anything she says. > >  I am glad she has created a life for her that works in a community that > > supports her.  I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and open > > and generous person.  All I'm saying is that she has a shadow side, and > > she is demonstrating many aspects of that here.  She can pretend she's all > > love and light all she likes, but the proof is in the words she puts down > > here, as far as I'm concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit.  None of us > > are all love and light all the time; I don't know why she is so scared to > > acknowledge her negative qualities.  > > > > You just don't get it, do you Emily? Emily gets it, laughinggull. So do Ann, raunchy, Robin, Alex, and I, and probably others who haven't spoken up. Share on FFL is bullshit: toxic, thoroughly dishonest and spiteful bullshit. You and Steve and feste have been conned, but good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > P.S. (post 48)  Steve, even if Share defers to her perception that > "psychological rape"  occurred during her off-line exchange with Robin, >  individually, Robin recently proposed, agreed, and offered to make those > exchanges public here.  Because they were private, he asked Share for her > permission.  Share ultimately, deferred to a meeting with her pastoral > counselor that she was going to have to supposedly get feedback.  She came > back here and posted something about "bringing more positivity to FFL" >  What?  She never said:  "I discussed it and decided against it."  She > didn't address it at all.  Her response was completely insulting and > completely dismissive of everyone here who was following the conversation and > participating in it.  Exceee Me!  > > So, Share gets to retain her condemnation of Robin, and Robin, who was > willing to make the entire exchange public, is cut off at the knees.  You > see why Judy said that, in her opinion, if the allegations are malicious, for > example, the privacy issue doesn't apply.  It I were being accused of such a > thing, I would go ahead and post the exchanges, if I thought it would be of > service to me.  I learned my lesson in the much less important post that Sal > posted to me privately that I held private and asked Judy and Curtis to do > the same with, as I actually didn't hold it quite private, did I?  In the > future, for me, if it's an FFL conversation or should be one, than it goes to > FFL - period.  Particularly if it's a controversial  one.  I want the > extended feedback for those that want to chime in.  I value it, I believe in > it, I always consider it.  Always.  Share's behavior here has been to act > out and create the kind of drama that shows that what's > inside the orange isn't necessarily orange juice.  Too bad she is unwilling > to take responsibility or accountability for anything she says.  I am glad > she has created a life for her that works in a community that supports her. >  I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and open and generous > person.  All I'm saying is that she has a shadow side, and she is > demonstrating many aspects of that here.  She can pretend she's all love and > light all she likes, but the proof is in the words she puts down here, as far > as I'm concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit.  None of us are all love > and light all the time; I don't know why she is so scared to acknowledge her > negative qualities.  > You just don't get it, do you Emily? Send Emilina over and have Steve explain it to her. > > > > From: seventhray1 > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:20 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve > > >  > Hey Emily, > > I am sorry that you are running low on posts.  I hope you don't post out. > > I also want to qualify my comment with something Raunchy has brought up, > about not commenting if you don't have any skin in the game.  And I don't > feel like I have a lot of skin in this game. > > But, I do want to say, that if one steps back a little and allows for what is > sometimes called, "poetic license", then maybe Share's comments take on a > different perspective. > > Let's take for example this term "psychological rape".  ( I hope I have the > term right, but you know what I am referring to) > > I knew what Share meant.  I guess if you want, you can take great offense at > the term, and pick it apart.  On the other hand,  do we not as a matter of > course here, often use such loaded terms? > > But even aside from that, I felt the term could be a reasonable description > of the way Robin often interacts with people. > > But that's the way he often is, and from his point of view, he feels he sees > a blind spot that person may not be aware of.  So, why the big deal about > it.  > > Or, does Share see a cult mindset among some of the people with whom Robin > has a greater affinity? > > Well, maybe she does.  Maybe she ascribes to a looser definition of what > defines "cult behavior". > > At any rate, I am not sure what is wrong with telling her that you disagree > with her conclusions and moving on.  Or after a time, moving on. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > > So: àYou do believe that wts survives here and you do believe that >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > Hey Emily, > I am sorry that you are running low on posts. I hope you don't post > out. > I also want to qualify my comment with something Raunchy has brought up, > about not commenting if you don't have any skin in the game. And I > don't feel like I have a lot of skin in this game. > But, I do want to say, that if one steps back a little and allows for > what is sometimes called, "poetic license", then maybe Share's comments > take on a different perspective. > Let's take for example this term "psychological rape". ( I hope I have > the term right, but you know what I am referring to) > I knew what Share meant. I guess if you want, you can take great > offense at the term, and pick it apart. On the other hand, do we not > as a matter of course here, often use such loaded terms? > But even aside from that, I felt the term could be a reasonable > description of the way Robin often interacts with people. > But that's the way he often is, and from his point of view, he feels he > sees a blind spot that person may not be aware of. So, why the big deal > about it. > Or, does Share see a cult mindset among some of the people with whom > Robin has a greater affinity? > Well, maybe she does. Maybe she ascribes to a looser definition of what > defines "cult behavior". > At any rate, I am not sure what is wrong with telling her that you > disagree with her conclusions and moving on. Or after a time, moving > on. Very sensible Steve. A person could fall in love with you based on this post alone. Not that I've fallen in love with you, you understand. Well, even if I had fallen in love with you, there's nothing wrong with that, is there? Good on ya'. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn > wrote: > > > So:  You do believe that wts survives here and you do believe that > healing of the wts cult has taken place since November 11th?  Huh? >  These two premises are oppositional; one does not support the > other.  Do you or  don't you believe that there is a wts cult in > operation here on FFL?  Yes or No.  > > > > The "healing" question was a change in context and a distraction by > you.the bottom line here is, Sharester, that I believe you believe a > faction of FFL (those you identify) are involved in a cult, that you > have termed wts.  I disagree, for the record, and will not play this > game with you in the future.  >
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > > P.S. (post 48)  Steve, even if Share defers to her perception that "psychological rape"  occurred during her off-line exchange with Robin,  individually, Robin recently proposed, agreed, and offered to make those exchanges public here.  Because they were private, he asked Share for her permission.  Share ultimately, deferred to a meeting with her pastoral counselor that she was going to have to supposedly get feedback.  She came back here and posted something about "bringing more positivity to FFL"  What?  She never said:  "I discussed it and decided against it."  She didn't address it at all.  Her response was completely insulting and completely dismissive of everyone here who was following the conversation and participating in it.  Exceee Me!  I guess it was a judgement call on her part. But certainly when this is an opportunity to clear something up, especially when it pertains to a person's character, it is desirable to do so. > So, Share gets to retain her condemnation of Robin, and Robin, who was willing to make the entire exchange public, is cut off at the knees.  You see why Judy said that, in her opinion, if the allegations are malicious, for example, the privacy issue doesn't apply.  It I were being accused of such a thing, I would go ahead and post the exchanges, if I thought it would be of service to me.  I learned my lesson in the much less important post that Sal posted to me privately that I held private and asked Judy and Curtis to do the same with, as I actually didn't hold it quite private, did I?  In the future, for me, if it's an FFL conversation or should be one, than it goes to FFL - period.  Particularly if it's a controversial  one.  I want the extended feedback for those that want to chime in.  I value it, I believe in it, I always consider it.  Always.  Share's behavior here has been to act out and create the kind of drama that shows that what's > inside the orange isn't necessarily orange juice.  Too bad she is unwilling to take responsibility or accountability for anything she says.  I am glad she has created a life for her that works in a community that supports her.  I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and open and generous person.  All I'm saying is that she has a shadow side, and she is demonstrating many aspects of that here.  She can pretend she's all love and light all she likes, but the proof is in the words she puts down here, as far as I'm concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit.  None of us are all love and light all the time; I don't know why she is so scared to acknowledge her negative qualities.  I would have to disagree with some of your statement here. I don't think she is in denial in any way, shape or form of her shadow self. But certainly I can understand if that is your opinion. It just may be that some of us think, feel, and express ourselves differently.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM2gCYN7y3M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fM2qhG8mA4&feature=watch-vrec --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" wrote: > > Hey Emily, > I am sorry that you are running low on posts. I hope you don't post > out. > I also want to qualify my comment with something Raunchy has brought up, > about not commenting if you don't have any skin in the game. And I > don't feel like I have a lot of skin in this game. > But, I do want to say, that if one steps back a little and allows for > what is sometimes called, "poetic license", then maybe Share's comments > take on a different perspective. > Let's take for example this term "psychological rape". ( I hope I have > the term right, but you know what I am referring to) > I knew what Share meant. I guess if you want, you can take great > offense at the term, and pick it apart. On the other hand, do we not > as a matter of course here, often use such loaded terms? > But even aside from that, I felt the term could be a reasonable > description of the way Robin often interacts with people. > But that's the way he often is, and from his point of view, he feels he > sees a blind spot that person may not be aware of. So, why the big deal > about it. > Or, does Share see a cult mindset among some of the people with whom > Robin has a greater affinity? > Well, maybe she does. Maybe she ascribes to a looser definition of what > defines "cult behavior". > At any rate, I am not sure what is wrong with telling her that you > disagree with her conclusions and moving on. Or after a time, moving > on. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn > wrote: > > > So:  You do believe that wts survives here and you do believe that > healing of the wts cult has taken place since November 11th?  Huh? >  These two premises are oppositional; one does not support the > other.  Do you or  don't you believe that there is a wts cult in > operation here on FFL?  Yes or No.  > > > > The "healing" question was a change in context and a distraction by > you.the bottom line here is, Sharester, that I believe you believe a > faction of FFL (those you identify) are involved in a cult, that you > have termed wts.  I disagree, for the record, and will not play this > game with you in the future.  >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
P.S. (post 48) Steve, even if Share defers to her perception that "psychological rape" occurred during her off-line exchange with Robin, individually, Robin recently proposed, agreed, and offered to make those exchanges public here. Because they were private, he asked Share for her permission. Share ultimately, deferred to a meeting with her pastoral counselor that she was going to have to supposedly get feedback. She came back here and posted something about "bringing more positivity to FFL" What? She never said: "I discussed it and decided against it." She didn't address it at all. Her response was completely insulting and completely dismissive of everyone here who was following the conversation and participating in it. Exceee Me! So, Share gets to retain her condemnation of Robin, and Robin, who was willing to make the entire exchange public, is cut off at the knees. You see why Judy said that, in her opinion, if the allegations are malicious, for example, the privacy issue doesn't apply. It I were being accused of such a thing, I would go ahead and post the exchanges, if I thought it would be of service to me. I learned my lesson in the much less important post that Sal posted to me privately that I held private and asked Judy and Curtis to do the same with, as I actually didn't hold it quite private, did I? In the future, for me, if it's an FFL conversation or should be one, than it goes to FFL - period. Particularly if it's a controversial one. I want the extended feedback for those that want to chime in. I value it, I believe in it, I always consider it. Always. Share's behavior here has been to act out and create the kind of drama that shows that what's inside the orange isn't necessarily orange juice. Too bad she is unwilling to take responsibility or accountability for anything she says. I am glad she has created a life for her that works in a community that supports her. I'm sure that on the outside she is a very loving and open and generous person. All I'm saying is that she has a shadow side, and she is demonstrating many aspects of that here. She can pretend she's all love and light all she likes, but the proof is in the words she puts down here, as far as I'm concerned, and it is undeniable bullshit. None of us are all love and light all the time; I don't know why she is so scared to acknowledge her negative qualities. From: seventhray1 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve Hey Emily, I am sorry that you are running low on posts. I hope you don't post out. I also want to qualify my comment with something Raunchy has brought up, about not commenting if you don't have any skin in the game. And I don't feel like I have a lot of skin in this game. But, I do want to say, that if one steps back a little and allows for what is sometimes called, "poetic license", then maybe Share's comments take on a different perspective. Let's take for example this term "psychological rape". ( I hope I have the term right, but you know what I am referring to) I knew what Share meant. I guess if you want, you can take great offense at the term, and pick it apart. On the other hand, do we not as a matter of course here, often use such loaded terms? But even aside from that, I felt the term could be a reasonable description of the way Robin often interacts with people. But that's the way he often is, and from his point of view, he feels he sees a blind spot that person may not be aware of. So, why the big deal about it. Or, does Share see a cult mindset among some of the people with whom Robin has a greater affinity? Well, maybe she does. Maybe she ascribes to a looser definition of what defines "cult behavior". At any rate, I am not sure what is wrong with telling her that you disagree with her conclusions and moving on. Or after a time, moving on. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > So: Â You do believe that wts survives here and you do believe that healing > of the wts cult has taken place since November 11th? Â Huh? Â These two > premises are oppositional; one does not support the other. Â Do you or > Â don't you believe that there is a wts cult in operation here on FFL? Â Yes > or No. Â > > The "healing" question was a change in context and a distraction by > you.the bottom line here is, Sharester, that I believe you believe a > faction of FFL (those you identify) are involved in a cult, that you have > termed wts. Â I disagree, for the record, and will not play this game with > you in the future. Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
Or, does Share see a cult mindset among some of the people with whom Robin has a greater affinity? Well, maybe she does. Maybe she ascribes to a looser definition of what defines "cult behavior". At any rate, I am not sure what is wrong with telling her that you disagree with her conclusions and moving on. Or after a time, moving on. Dear Steve, (post 47). Note: I am keeping track online so that I remember and don't use the excuse to myself that I "wasn't paying attention." I may correct the grammar in my last post as post 48, but likely won't. Nothing is wrong with what you say above, and I did disagree in my last post. I agree. I agree that "poetic license" is a good thing, and I use it all the time, myself. I trigger off the term "psychological rape." It is a serious term - not one that most people use in the context of poetic license. The term has serious implications and indicates that a threat is involved and that "rape" of sorts has occurred. I have never in the last two years seen such a term cross the forum. I have seen some great debates, disagreements, insults, etc. I have also seen Rick boot a couple of people who were exhibiting behavior that was downright threatening - to Barry, for example (although Dan did post recently so maybe he isn't truly booted). I think it unfair to lob this kind of term at Robin. I agree that Robin has challenged Curtis, for example. Their posts to each other are downright legendary here on FFL - I read none of the original ones as I wasn't tracking well at that time and Robin was posting in a mass of words that I couldn't decipher, bottom line. I started to read him to myself out loud and began to appreciate his poetic style a bit. But, I will say that he repeated his points numerous times in a given post. Curtis called him on that in more recent exchanges between them that I did read. I don't ever remember Curtis using that term - do you think he felt that he was being psychologically raped? Please. Rape is done in private, first of all, not in public. There were a lot of people here to witness. If you feel that you were psychologically raped than I would question why you thought so. Again, this is a serious allegation. I think it is a false one that doesn't apply to FFL on any level. Share is welcome to think what she likes and spread her message and thoughts and feelings on FFL in any way that she likes, using any communication style that she is comfortable with. I am aware and appreciative of some of what she says and I won't ever deny her that. I am not trying to control anyone here. She also has to be prepared for the fact that I take issue with the way that she characterized me as a member of Robin's inner circle (cult-style). This is my right and I have stated as such. I am moving on. From: seventhray1 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve Hey Emily, I am sorry that you are running low on posts. I hope you don't post out. I also want to qualify my comment with something Raunchy has brought up, about not commenting if you don't have any skin in the game. And I don't feel like I have a lot of skin in this game. But, I do want to say, that if one steps back a little and allows for what is sometimes called, "poetic license", then maybe Share's comments take on a different perspective. Let's take for example this term "psychological rape". ( I hope I have the term right, but you know what I am referring to) I knew what Share meant. I guess if you want, you can take great offense at the term, and pick it apart. On the other hand, do we not as a matter of course here, often use such loaded terms? But even aside from that, I felt the term could be a reasonable description of the way Robin often interacts with people. But that's the way he often is, and from his point of view, he feels he sees a blind spot that person may not be aware of. So, why the big deal about it. Or, does Share see a cult mindset among some of the people with whom Robin has a greater affinity? Well, maybe she does. Maybe she ascribes to a looser definition of what defines "cult behavior". At any rate, I am not sure what is wrong with telling her that you disagree with her conclusions and moving on. Or after a time, moving on. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > So: Â You do believe that wts survives here and you do believe that healing > of the wts cult has taken place since November 11th? Â Huh? Â These two > premises are oppositional; one does not support the other. Â Do you or > Â don't you believe that there is a wts cult in ope
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
Hey Emily, I am sorry that you are running low on posts. I hope you don't post out. I also want to qualify my comment with something Raunchy has brought up, about not commenting if you don't have any skin in the game. And I don't feel like I have a lot of skin in this game. But, I do want to say, that if one steps back a little and allows for what is sometimes called, "poetic license", then maybe Share's comments take on a different perspective. Let's take for example this term "psychological rape". ( I hope I have the term right, but you know what I am referring to) I knew what Share meant. I guess if you want, you can take great offense at the term, and pick it apart. On the other hand, do we not as a matter of course here, often use such loaded terms? But even aside from that, I felt the term could be a reasonable description of the way Robin often interacts with people. But that's the way he often is, and from his point of view, he feels he sees a blind spot that person may not be aware of. So, why the big deal about it. Or, does Share see a cult mindset among some of the people with whom Robin has a greater affinity? Well, maybe she does. Maybe she ascribes to a looser definition of what defines "cult behavior". At any rate, I am not sure what is wrong with telling her that you disagree with her conclusions and moving on. Or after a time, moving on. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: > So:  You do believe that wts survives here and you do believe that healing of the wts cult has taken place since November 11th?  Huh?  These two premises are oppositional; one does not support the other.  Do you or  don't you believe that there is a wts cult in operation here on FFL?  Yes or No.  > > The "healing" question was a change in context and a distraction by you.the bottom line here is, Sharester, that I believe you believe a faction of FFL (those you identify) are involved in a cult, that you have termed wts.  I disagree, for the record, and will not play this game with you in the future. Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
As for your other post about what's the rush, Emily was using up all her posts to pry an answer out of me. Yep, I caved! Thank you Sharester, this is post number 46. I was upping the stakes, of course - going for a little guilt. I wouldn't have posted out for you this week; am trying to exercise a little self-discipline these days as it is almost time for me to start looking for work. I didn't use *all* my posts this week on you :) I wasn't trying to "pry" an answer out of you - I was simply begging you to give me a clear answer. Yes, begging you to take compassion on me, not dismiss me, and do me the humble service of answering a question clearly - never did get that though - lets be clear on that. I had to use my remarkable powers of intuition and analysis to decipher your cryptic responses. And, in the process of our attempted conversation, you switched the context from the question of "do you believe that there is a wts being acted out here" (I paraphrase) to "do you think that complete healing of wts since November 11th?" I stuck with it because I really was curious as to whether you truly believed that FFL is operating as wts in your mind. You did author the post, of course, but perhaps you wrote that in a state of fear and anger at the time, and had let it go. Maybe you wrote it intending to be funny and never did believe it. I was just trying to understand your position; not even judge it, just understand it because it has the potential to affect the attitude you take/posts you make towards everyone on your list of wts participants. Honestly, your responses seem to indicate that you don't leave open the possibility of changing the reality you have created and determined is "right." Instead, you adapt and selectively choose the facts to support what you have determined is "right." It's a sad situation, given how many people you implicated in the wts scenario for example. Re: "Piling on" - another example of wts behavior you identify. Huh? This is an internet forum and the dynamic of the rules here that allow for all to weigh in on all the posts is a good one in that it allows for the reader/participant to get multiple feedback and multiple perspectives on a conversation, issue, or presented idea. Was Steve "piling on" when he chivalrously jumped in to exercise his right to state is opinion, in your support? If you don't want to receive feedback from multiple sources that may not agree with you and your perspective, then maintaining off-line, individual email conversations with people that you know agree with you ahead of time *IS* the best way to go. Please don't frame the one thing here that I love into a "behavior" of the wts cult. I find that inaccurate and offensive. The opportunity for multiple responses is a characteristic of a forum and you do not need to co-opt it into "cult-like behavior" that supports your premise of wts. Why are you putting yourself at risk here if you think that cult dynamics are in play? Seems like kind of a waste of time. If I felt that such dynamics existed here, I would leave, I assure you. You played a game; I played it with you. You don't like to be called on your behavior, no matter how compassionately, because it might require rigorous honesty. So you keep everyone guessing and communicate in a passive and sometimes passive-aggressive style that allows you to never take responsibility for your words. End of story. So: You do believe that wts survives here and you do believe that healing of the wts cult has taken place since November 11th? Huh? These two premises are oppositional; one does not support the other. Do you or don't you believe that there is a wts cult in operation here on FFL? Yes or No. The "healing" question was a change in context and a distraction by you.the bottom line here is, Sharester, that I believe you believe a faction of FFL (those you identify) are involved in a cult, that you have termed wts. I disagree, for the record, and will not play this game with you in the future. ________________ From: Share Long To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve Thanks, Steve, but I do still participate on Bat just about every day. Today I also sang Happy Birthday, not on Bat but to my Mom, before I went off to the Dome. She said I sounded on key the whole time and that I should join a choir. But she's 82 so allowances must be made for her hearing, etc. Then I made my first Christmas gift purchase at Overland Sheepskin. And the whole time wearing what I'll be wearing for the next few months: my long down coat with hood, looking like a
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 but really to Steve
Thanks, Steve, but I do still participate on Bat just about every day. Today I also sang Happy Birthday, not on Bat but to my Mom, before I went off to the Dome. She said I sounded on key the whole time and that I should join a choir. But she's 82 so allowances must be made for her hearing, etc. Then I made my first Christmas gift purchase at Overland Sheepskin. And the whole time wearing what I'll be wearing for the next few months: my long down coat with hood, looking like a cornflower blue marshmallow (-: As for your other post about what's the rush, Emily was using up all her posts to pry an answer out of me. Yep, I caved! Anyway, hope all are well and happy in your neck of the woods. Stay toasty. From: seventhray1 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 Hi Gang, I just tuned in for a moment, and I haven't read what came before this, or whats come after. But this is one of the funniest posts I have read in a long time. Share, I gotta say that at this point I am feeling very sorry for those guys, (and gals) at Batgap. We purloined their best talent. I mean, if that whole group were a Pokemon card, it would be have to be Snorelax. And if you were a Pokemon card, Share, it would be Pikachu, the most beloved of all the Pokemons. Emily, remember when you derived so much joy from the Judy/Robin exchange a long time back. I couldn't relate. But the humor in that exchange was so evident to you. I hope you can appreciate the marvelous humor Share is employing here. Kudos Share! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > EmilyBoo what does it mean when someone puts a word between asterisks? I've > been wondering this for a long time but it hasn't seemed truly pertinent til > now. And it sounds like you feel entitled to a simple yes or no answer > because you have spent SO many posts on me this week. OTOH, you say that I > am healing your karma. See how it all balances out all by itself (-: > > BTW, speaking of stress, don't listen to those TM teachers! You can be > totally unstressing and still be making a valid point. Like when they fed > us millet at every meal. Of course people were unstressing on that! Only > a totally zorbed out person wouldn't! The point is, the unstressors were > making a very valid, uh, point. What's a good synonym for the word point do > you think? > > > Anyway, what was the question, what was the question...oh, yes wts. > Completely healed. November 11th. Yes or no. Asterisks. Honey. > > You know, Ravi did not sound like himself at all today. I did wonder if HE > might be completely healed. Either that or he has been totally assimilated > by the BORG. Buttery Omnivorous Robin Group. > > Which is perfect just as it is. Warts and all. As is wts. As is FFL > High School football lunch table in the cafeteria gang. > > PS Your answer is in the first two sentences just above. You did say I > could answer with more than yes or no. Remember? > > > > From: emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 11:17 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily part 2 > > >  > Sharester, "Do you think there has been complete healing of wts since > November 11th?" Yes or No. It is *your* question, honey. No rabbit hole, > just a simple yes or no will do for me. Now, I have spent many posts this > week on you - you are healing my karma. I must back off of my propensity to > comment or I will post out again, and I'm not in the mood to do that this > week. I wish you a stress-free day. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > There was a post from wts via Ravi this morning! So based on that, I'd > > say wts is alive and kicking. Or maybe zorbing. Anyway, something > > relevant: when the karma is finished, the cure appears. Another > > version: when the karma is finished, the healer appears. Came to mind > > as I've been thinking about complete healing. Which seems related to your > > wts questions to me. It seems that another way to ask those wts questions > > is: do I think there has been complete healing of wts since Nov 11. > > Uhoh, still a rabbit hole as Richard would say. Still FFL waters that can > > be muddied way too quickly. Anyway, maybe someone is completely healed. > > Time will tell. > > > > Oh, I didn't think you were contesting anything I said. And thanks, I got > > it about your not disagreeing with Judy or Raunchy. And yes, there's > > always another way to look at everything. > > >
