[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
Goddamnit Ravi. Stop being nice. But really, I appreciate your comments. I empathize with what you have gone through. I think you have been courageous to post all that you have posted online. I would extend my hand in assistance in any way I could. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:57 PM, seventhray1 > lurkernomore20002000@...wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote: > > > Yes, that's black and white thinking. That abusing children > > > or animals is wrong is another example. Swindling elderly > > > widows out of their pensions is another. A guru sleeping with > > > his followers is another. Dumping untreated sewage into a > > > river that's used for drinking water is another. Forced > > > religious conversion is another. > > > > Making fun of people with > > > physical disabilities is another. > > > > Just curious. Would that include gratitous use of the work "retard"? Or > > is that exempt because it is a mental disability? > > > > Steve - I don't think Judy and/or anyone else has supported or will support > me for the use of that word. I wouldn't dare use it with people of actual > disability, I use it in a specific context, on FFL assuming people here are > mature, intelligent adults emotionally healthy enough to deal with the > usage of that word. You have to remember I may insult but insults do not > make me and I would gladly apologize if someone's offended on a personal > level. In any case her statement doesn't apply because I am not insulting > anyone with a mental disability - that is quite obvious since almost > everyone who posts here is intelligent. >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:57 PM, seventhray1 wrote: > ** > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Yes, that's black and white thinking. That abusing children > > or animals is wrong is another example. Swindling elderly > > widows out of their pensions is another. A guru sleeping with > > his followers is another. Dumping untreated sewage into a > > river that's used for drinking water is another. Forced > > religious conversion is another. > > Making fun of people with > > physical disabilities is another. > > Just curious. Would that include gratitous use of the work "retard"? Or > is that exempt because it is a mental disability? > Steve - I don't think Judy and/or anyone else has supported or will support me for the use of that word. I wouldn't dare use it with people of actual disability, I use it in a specific context, on FFL assuming people here are mature, intelligent adults emotionally healthy enough to deal with the usage of that word. You have to remember I may insult but insults do not make me and I would gladly apologize if someone's offended on a personal level. In any case her statement doesn't apply because I am not insulting anyone with a mental disability - that is quite obvious since almost everyone who posts here is intelligent.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > Yes, that's black and white thinking. That abusing children > or animals is wrong is another example. Swindling elderly > widows out of their pensions is another. A guru sleeping with > his followers is another. Dumping untreated sewage into a > river that's used for drinking water is another. Forced > religious conversion is another. Making fun of people with > physical disabilities is another. Just curious. Would that include gratitous use of the work "retard"? Or is that exempt because it is a mental disability?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > > > > > very inappropriate. > > > > > > > > > > Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would > > > > > disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these > > > > > days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill > > > > > Howell. > > > > > > > > Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if > > > > I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who > > > > are actually concerned. > > > > > > That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, > > > and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're > > > prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own > > > pre/misconceptions. > > > > > > > I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, > > > > trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not > > > > just own up to all of them, and let them have their > > > > judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't > > > > accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to > > > > them that you are different now. > > > > > > Perfect example of what I just described. > > > > > > Howell, "Brahmi," and Lord Knows have claimed he has not > > > changed. Why would Robin "own up" to what they claim if > > > he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what > > > he feels is an incorrect judgment? > > > > Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting to read CULT, > > and being dissatisfied with the way he was portrayed there. CULT is only > > about his past, and being dissatisfied with the perception of his > > ex-followers about these past proceedings, he made this offer. I don't call > > that owning up to it. > > > > > It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove > > > he has changed to anyone who doubts it. > > > > And it is just as appropriate for them to say: Sorry, we are not > > interested, you stole us a major part of our adult life, it took us years > > to get out, we need not invest more time. > > > > > And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the > > > judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in > > > any kind of dispute. > > > > No, He didn't. Ask him yourself, or best read his posts, where he states > > that he doesn't recognize himself in the book, and that this is not the > > truth about him. For me that mean that he is in DENIAL. And he still wants > > to influence them by 'proving' to them how much he has changed. > > > > > Moreover, his own judgment of > > > himself has been more severe than anyone else's. > > > > So you believe. Other's seem to think different. > > > > > > > Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted > > > > > to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at > > > > > that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in > > > > > September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) > > > > > because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did > > > > > not agree to the conditions which he set for our time > > > > > together. > > > > > > > > > > I think he thought me unworthy of his company. > > > > > > > > I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet > > > > now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. > > > > Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am > > > > sorry, i was wrong all along. > > > > > > What the *freak* is wrong with you, khazana? If he's said > > > once that he was wrong 25 years ago, he's said it literally > > > dozens of times. Again, that has never been in dispute. > > > > > Then what he wants the f*ck to prove? Why keep haunting these poor people? > > I have had a very busy day today and have just now literally jumped into the > middle of this very active day here at FFL. I may be behind the 8 ball just > landing rather arbitrarily in this particular post as I know things are > changing by the minute and lots of people are p
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > Regardless, it is UNACCEPTABLE and INEXCUSABLE and totally > > INAPPROPRIATE to even *speculate* about a DSM-IV diagnosis > > in a person who is present to hear the speculation. It's > > just completely out of line and is NEVER motivated by > > anything but hostility toward the person and a desire to > > do him or her harm. Anyone who claims a benign motivation > > is lying. > > > And that's what I call black and white thinking. Thank you > for showing it to us so clearly. Yes, that's black and white thinking. That abusing children or animals is wrong is another example. Swindling elderly widows out of their pensions is another. A guru sleeping with his followers is another. Dumping untreated sewage into a river that's used for drinking water is another. Forced religious conversion is another. Making fun of people with physical disabilities is another. Etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a > heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are > > interpreting a little too much into this. > > Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't > have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty > is not helping you. > > > > I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut > > 'diagnosis' at all. > > Look, you want folks to think Robin suffers from borderline > personality disorder. We all recognize that. > > > It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an > > opinion, which I shared. > > Let me put it another way: You want folks to think Robin > suffers from borderline personality disorder. We all > recognize that. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328555: Xeno: Barry is just doing what he always does, so why is this an 'hysterical meltdown'? Judy: Well, you'd have to read his posts in this thread to know why I called it that. (I don't *think* Xeno meant to suggest that Barry is always engaged in hysterical meltdowns; I think he just miswrote.) Judy above twice: Let me put it another way: You want folks to think Robin suffers from borderline personality disorder. We all recognize that. Me now: I don't *think* Judy meant to suggest that we all recognize that Robin suffers from borderline personality disorder; I think she just miswrote. > > Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very > > carefully, with the intention not to hurt anybody, > > knowing the likes of insensitive people like you would > > just madly jump at it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > Do you even know what "offer" means? > > > > Yup sure, Lady, like in Special Offer, Sell out in the > > Supermarket, right? > > Give it up, khazana. Did you actually read Judy's post > you're responding to? You deleted it so, I'll link for > context: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328693 Yes, he read it. That's why he deleted it. He has a tendency to delete the substance of a post that shows him to have been in serious error and just quote a line or two to make some wisecrack. Incredibly dishonest. > Unless you're joking, it's obvious Robin's offer to meet for coffee is not > the ridiculous, choose red or blue, sales pitch you claim in this post. If > you think he made an offer to "choose either this or choose that," you have > tuned into the wrong movie. http://youtu.be/SeldwfOwuL8 > > > > It's something that is > > > *made available* that you can take advantage of or not as > > > you choose. > > > > Or even sometimes being taken advantage of. Now choose from > > our special offer, red pill or blue pill. > > > > > > [http://www.breaktheillusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/red_pill_blu\ > > e_pill-copy.jpg]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Regardless, it is UNACCEPTABLE and INEXCUSABLE and totally > INAPPROPRIATE to even *speculate* about a DSM-IV diagnosis > in a person who is present to hear the speculation. It's > just completely out of line and is NEVER motivated by > anything but hostility toward the person and a desire to > do him or her harm. Anyone who claims a benign motivation > is lying. > And that's what I call black and white thinking. Thank you for showing it to us so clearly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > Cite some of that "black and white logic," please. > > Yep, Misses. What about: Finish the job, khazana. Cite examples of either raunchy or I making any of these assertions. > You either hate Robin or you love him. > > If you don't agree with his version of truth you must hate him. > > If you feel manipulated by him, it is because you are close minded, not open > to the discovery of Truth, or projecting childhood traumas on him. > > Robin changed, he said so. If you don't believe that, you hate him. > > Either Robin changed completely, or you still believe he is a Cult leader. > > If you have a different opinion than Judy about him, than it is because you > are obsessed. > > You either believe he is crazy or completely sane, nothing in between. > > That's all black and white in my book, but I guess you are unable to > recognize this. > > So it's all about Robin. What happened to TM, Judy? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, > > > especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see > > > where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in > > > those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how > > > would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when > > > they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated > > > them, because he needed to tell them something 'very > > > important', and that would be that he has changed? > > > > This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an > > *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. > > A challenge. An offer, an invitation, not a demand or a challenge. > > > Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? > > > > HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. > > But not convincingly though. For that there is too much self- > defense in it. Such as? > There are too many aspects in the whole thing he still > believes in. He has never claimed to have rejected everything he ever believed, nor should he do so. He's rejected the beliefs that caused harm. > For example the idea that he has a special access to the 1st > person ontology of people. Cite, please. Goodness only knows what you're referring to. > And that's a very serious one, believe me, not something to > joke about. Cite a joke, please. > > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position > > > > where you need to prove you are good and decent person, > > > > now changed from 25 years ago? > > > > > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so > > > absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just > > > be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the > > > hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in > > > itself makes him suspicious. > > > > This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of > > looking at this. > > You should now feel some compassion toward me :-> Too hard to feel compassion for a person who is so incredibly unpleasant and relentlessly hostile. > > > > What else would you have him do? > > > > > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > > > > He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what > > he's like now, if they're interested. > > Now that 'also offering' is contradicting the first statement. It does not. It's entirely up to them whether they take him up on the offer, and it's also entirely up to them whether they decide, on the basis of the meeting, that he has changed. You're trying to read in some form of coercion or undue influence, but it's simply not there. > It is undermining it directly, and more so as he does so only > as a reaction to his perceived 'wrong' portrayal in CULT. I already pointed out your whopping mistake on this. The portrayal in the book of what he was like *then* has nothing to do with whether he's different *now*. I don't know how you managed to conflate the two, because they're quite distinct. > Now, if he would have evolved in a major way, he would be > able to accept the way he was perceived. He would not try > to convince people that he is different. Well, this is just the purest nonsense. Nobody sane who had been a dangerous cult leader but had reformed and recovered would meekly assent to the accusation that they hadn't changed. > His very wish to INFLUENCE people even now is the problem. > ACCEPTANCE of the status quo would be the solution. As I said, nobody sane would do that. > Of course IMHO > > > > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin > > > > with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your > > > > part, IMO. > > > > > > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are > > > interpreting a little too much into this. > > > > Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't > > have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty > > is not helping you. > > > I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut > 'diagnosis' at all. Look, you want folks to think Robin suffers from borderline personality disorder. We all recognize that. > It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an > opinion, which I shared. Let me put it another way: You want folks to think Robin suffers from borderline personality disorder. We all recognize that. > Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very > carefully, with the intention not to hurt anybody, > knowing the likes of insensitive people like you would > just madly jump at it. That is utter bullshit, and you know it. Your intention was--once again--to lead folks to think Robin suffers from borderline personality disorder. It was *transparent*. And also ridiculous, as I'm sure you realized, but hoped others would not. He doesn't even begin to fit the profile.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > > > > very inappropriate. > > > > > > > > Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would > > > > disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these > > > > days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill > > > > Howell. > > > > > > Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if > > > I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who > > > are actually concerned. > > > > That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, > > and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're > > prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own > > pre/misconceptions. > > > > > I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, > > > trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not > > > just own up to all of them, and let them have their > > > judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't > > > accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to > > > them that you are different now. > > > > Perfect example of what I just described. > > > > Howell, "Brahmi," and Lord Knows have claimed he has not > > changed. Why would Robin "own up" to what they claim if > > he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what > > he feels is an incorrect judgment? > > Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting to read CULT, > and being dissatisfied with the way he was portrayed there. CULT is only > about his past, and being dissatisfied with the perception of his > ex-followers about these past proceedings, he made this offer. I don't call > that owning up to it. > > > It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove > > he has changed to anyone who doubts it. > > And it is just as appropriate for them to say: Sorry, we are not interested, > you stole us a major part of our adult life, it took us years to get out, we > need not invest more time. > > > And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the > > judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in > > any kind of dispute. > > No, He didn't. Ask him yourself, or best read his posts, where he states that > he doesn't recognize himself in the book, and that this is not the truth > about him. For me that mean that he is in DENIAL. And he still wants to > influence them by 'proving' to them how much he has changed. > > > Moreover, his own judgment of > > himself has been more severe than anyone else's. > > So you believe. Other's seem to think different. > > > > > Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted > > > > to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at > > > > that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in > > > > September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) > > > > because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did > > > > not agree to the conditions which he set for our time > > > > together. > > > > > > > > I think he thought me unworthy of his company. > > > > > > I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet > > > now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. > > > Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am > > > sorry, i was wrong all along. > > > > What the *freak* is wrong with you, khazana? If he's said > > once that he was wrong 25 years ago, he's said it literally > > dozens of times. Again, that has never been in dispute. > > > Then what he wants the f*ck to prove? Why keep haunting these poor people? I have had a very busy day today and have just now literally jumped into the middle of this very active day here at FFL. I may be behind the 8 ball just landing rather arbitrarily in this particular post as I know things are changing by the minute and lots of people are posting all over the place. But I just want to address this last sentence above. First of all, I am going to speak from my perspective and I am probably repeating what others have already said but one thing I can give is a viewpoint and understanding that no one else posting her
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > Do you even know what "offer" means? > > Yup sure, Lady, like in Special Offer, Sell out in the Supermarket, > right? > Give it up, khazana. Did you actually read Judy's post you're responding to? You deleted it so, I'll link for context: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328693 Unless you're joking, it's obvious Robin's offer to meet for coffee is not the ridiculous, choose red or blue, sales pitch you claim in this post. If you think he made an offer to "choose either this or choose that," you have tuned into the wrong movie. http://youtu.be/SeldwfOwuL8 > > It's something that is > > *made available* that you can take advantage of or not as > > you choose. > > Or even sometimes being taken advantage of. Now choose from our special > offer, red pill or blue pill. > > > [http://www.breaktheillusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/red_pill_blu\ > e_pill-copy.jpg] >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > Cite some of that "black and white logic," please. Yep, Misses. What about: You either hate Robin or you love him. If you don't agree with his version of truth you must hate him. If you feel manipulated by him, it is because you are close minded, not open to the discovery of Truth, or projecting childhood traumas on him. Robin changed, he said so. If you don't believe that, you hate him. Either Robin changed completely, or you still believe he is a Cult leader. If you have a different opinion than Judy about him, than it is because you are obsessed. You either believe he is crazy or completely sane, nothing in between. That's all black and white in my book, but I guess you are unable to recognize this. So it's all about Robin. What happened to TM, Judy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote:
> Look, Raunchy, you and Judy, you two are actually with your
> constant twisting and reinterpreting what a person has said,
> messing it all up.
No, we are UNtwisting the tangled mess you've made of this.
> I mean, do you want to help Robin really? I don't think you
> do with your black and white logic, your constant anger and
> attacks.
Cite some of that "black and white logic," please.
And yes, *your* hostility and attacks do piss us off. We
aren't saints.
It isn't a matter of "helping Robin." It's a matter of
making sure the straight story--whoever it's about--is
on the record despite your best attempts to muddle it.
> You are actually and effectively preventing even the
> possibility of a meaningful exchange with him, because I
> think he can argue far better and more truthful than any
> of you two would do.
("...than either of you two...") All three of us have
different styles of arguing, and all three are equally
truthful. My tendency is to go after your many mistakes
and misperceptions one by one, because so many of them
are due to your problems with English, and I'm an editor.
Of course neither raunchy nor I prevent your having a
meaningful exchange with Robin. That's just an excuse
for your unwillingness to connect with him.
> I feel much more sympathy for him than for any of you two.
("...for either of you two...") We aren't interested in
your sympathy. I would guess Robin isn't either.
> You are both only reacting, nothing original, and nothing
> even clever.
When we're trying to straighten out one of your hostile
messes, originality and cleverness aren't useful.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > Do you even know what "offer" means? Yup sure, Lady, like in Special Offer, Sell out in the Supermarket, right? > It's something that is > *made available* that you can take advantage of or not as > you choose. Or even sometimes being taken advantage of. Now choose from our special offer, red pill or blue pill. [http://www.breaktheillusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/red_pill_blu\ e_pill-copy.jpg]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal > > > > > human being. > > > > > > > > To whom? > > > > > > To anyone who is interested, obviously. > > > > > > > Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different > > > > continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. > > > > I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed > > > > up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of > > > > people, crazy and sane. > > > > > > Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin > > > because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no > > > sense whatsoever. > > > > > > > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > > > > > > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, > > > > especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see > > > > where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in > > > > those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how > > > > would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when > > > > they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated > > > > them, because he needed to tell them something 'very > > > > important', and that would be that he has changed? > > > > > > This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an > > > *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. > > > > A challenge. > > > > > > Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? > > > > > > HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. > > > > But not convincingly though. For that there is too much self-defense in it. > > There are too many aspects in the whole thing he still believes in. For > > example the idea that he has a special access to the 1st person ontology of > > people. And that's a very serious one, believe me, not something to joke > > about. > > > > > > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position > > > > > where you need to prove you are good and decent person, > > > > > now changed from 25 years ago? > > > > > > > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so > > > > absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just > > > > be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the > > > > hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in > > > > itself makes him suspicious. > > > > > > This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of > > > looking at this. > > > > You should now feel some compassion toward me :-> > > > > > > > > What else would you have him do? > > > > > > > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > > > > > > He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what > > > he's like now, if they're interested. > > > > Now that 'also offering' is contradicting the first statement. It is > > undermining it directly, and more so as he does so only as a reaction to > > his perceived 'wrong' portrayal in CULT. Now, if he would have evolved in a > > major way, he would be able to accept the way he was perceived. He would > > not try to convince people that he is different. His very wish to INFLUENCE > > people even now is the problem. ACCEPTANCE of the status quo would be the > > solution. Of course IMHO > > > > > > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin > > > > > with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your > > > > > part, IMO. > > > > > > > > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are > > > > interpreting a little too much into this. > > > > > > Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't > > > have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty > > > is not helping you. > > > > > I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut 'diagnosis' at > > all. It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an opinion, > > which I shared. Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very > > carefully, with the intention not to hurt anybody, knowing the likes of > > insensitive people like you would just madly jump at it. > > > > Having now admitted what everyone suspected, that you posted about BPD with > Robin in mind, did it feel good to validate your *opinion* of him so that you > could denigrate him in good conscience? I'd say you were pretty darn > insensitive yourself and slanderously presumptuous, to go balls out BPD on > him, I might add. > Nope, your are entirely hypocritical here, Raunchy, I had no intention of even mentioning him, neither could I expect him to comment on the video. There was no plan to denigrate him from my side at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
No, Khazana, the Starbucks invitation stands. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > Dear Khazana, > > > > It is not possible for you to understand any of this. You have your fixed > > point of view--and you don't even know how all this (my past, me, what has > > happened) can been seen in a different way. You are not capable of a form > > of sophistication and complexity of apprehension that would even begin to > > do justice to what happened in those Ten Years. > > Well, if you say so, it must be like this. > > > You don't have any feeling for the person that I am at all, and if reading > > the first 93 pages of CULT has led to your present impression of me, then > > the book is worse than I thought. > > Sorry to interrupt you here Robin, but reading those 93 pages didn't really > do much to my opinions, they were there before. > > > But no one can do anything to make you see things in a different light--You > > must be right in how you see reality and me. > > Well, Robin, I am not so sure here. Maybe Judy and Raunchy, could we call > them Jaunchy or Rudy, have an effect on my, but I fear it is the opposite > effect they intent. (But then I don't know which effect they actually intent, > maybe the intent this opposite effect ..) > > > There is nothing I can do to change this; so you can just have the > > satisfaction of knowing that anyone (like authfriend or raunchy or Ann or > > those who know and love me in my present life) who disagrees with you must > > be wrong. Because this is how you will always feel. > > Must be, if you say so. You are supposed to have a special insight into > people. > > > Nothing can penetrate this, Khazana. So I will accept that your judgment > > about me is what it will be--and that anyone who sees me very differently > > from you (persons who have known me for 35 years)--they are deceived, and > > you have the correct perception. > > But of course are entirely untitled to their opinions, just as I am, albeit > less informed than Lord Knows, Billy Boy Howell, and of course Ann. > > > It is not necessarily that you are at fault here; but your understanding is > > being determined in a particular way which will brook no compromise or > > modification. > > Gosh, that took some time. So no meeting for us two? > > > You are dead wrong in some vital respects concerning me; but you are > > carrying out a good deed in the eyes of those who would view me as you do. > > In that regard, you are preserving a view of myself which is out there. > > That's certainly a way of seeing it. I only represent a POV, if I wouldn't > somebody else would. Now what's the big deal about it? > > > But if there is anyone who has got a certain immovable and unchangeable > > view of myself, it is you--way beyond Bill Howell and Lord Knows (who will > > be delighted at your obstinacy and implacability). > > I am sorry you so misunderstand me, Khazana, but that is our destiny. > > Yes, Robin, I think so too, it's my destiny to think this way of you. It's > actually completely impersonal from my side, I only give manifestation to a > thought Meme out there. In fact its God's will I think so, > > > Of course I am only telling you what I think, how I feel. > > > > But the system you are employing to understand me, that is a closed system > > and is not subject to being influenced by anything--including the truth. > > Well, it's influenced by my truth, not your truth. > > > You will see things quite differently than this of course. > > > > You a very simple-minded fellow, Khazana. > > Thank you Robin. > > > But who knows? I am not God. Perhaps he sees things exactly as you do. > > He does. He just told me so. > > > But in that case I will have to tell Him he is wrong. :-) > > I know you are at odds since you said he died in 1945. He says that's not a > joke, you know. No kidding about somebodies death, even if he's God. > > > You have a fatal condition of fixed context of apprehension. It is, I > > believe, entirely innocent. > > I realize that in the word 'innocent' is a certain hidden sympathy, right? > > > You are doing your best--that will have to be enough for me. > > Yep, can't do anymore. > > > But we have nothing to say to each other. > > So no meeting at Starbucks then. > > > Which is disappointing to me. > > So sorry, but at least I am not wasting your time. > > > Robin > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > Dear Khazana, > > It is not possible for you to understand any of this. You have your fixed > point of view--and you don't even know how all this (my past, me, what has > happened) can been seen in a different way. You are not capable of a form of > sophistication and complexity of apprehension that would even begin to do > justice to what happened in those Ten Years. Well, if you say so, it must be like this. > You don't have any feeling for the person that I am at all, and if reading > the first 93 pages of CULT has led to your present impression of me, then the > book is worse than I thought. Sorry to interrupt you here Robin, but reading those 93 pages didn't really do much to my opinions, they were there before. > But no one can do anything to make you see things in a different light--You > must be right in how you see reality and me. Well, Robin, I am not so sure here. Maybe Judy and Raunchy, could we call them Jaunchy or Rudy, have an effect on my, but I fear it is the opposite effect they intent. (But then I don't know which effect they actually intent, maybe the intent this opposite effect ..) > There is nothing I can do to change this; so you can just have the > satisfaction of knowing that anyone (like authfriend or raunchy or Ann or > those who know and love me in my present life) who disagrees with you must be > wrong. Because this is how you will always feel. Must be, if you say so. You are supposed to have a special insight into people. > Nothing can penetrate this, Khazana. So I will accept that your judgment > about me is what it will be--and that anyone who sees me very differently > from you (persons who have known me for 35 years)--they are deceived, and you > have the correct perception. But of course are entirely untitled to their opinions, just as I am, albeit less informed than Lord Knows, Billy Boy Howell, and of course Ann. > It is not necessarily that you are at fault here; but your understanding is > being determined in a particular way which will brook no compromise or > modification. Gosh, that took some time. So no meeting for us two? > You are dead wrong in some vital respects concerning me; but you are carrying > out a good deed in the eyes of those who would view me as you do. In that > regard, you are preserving a view of myself which is out there. That's certainly a way of seeing it. I only represent a POV, if I wouldn't somebody else would. Now what's the big deal about it? > But if there is anyone who has got a certain immovable and unchangeable view > of myself, it is you--way beyond Bill Howell and Lord Knows (who will be > delighted at your obstinacy and implacability). > I am sorry you so misunderstand me, Khazana, but that is our destiny. Yes, Robin, I think so too, it's my destiny to think this way of you. It's actually completely impersonal from my side, I only give manifestation to a thought Meme out there. In fact its God's will I think so, > Of course I am only telling you what I think, how I feel. > > But the system you are employing to understand me, that is a closed system > and is not subject to being influenced by anything--including the truth. Well, it's influenced by my truth, not your truth. > You will see things quite differently than this of course. > > You a very simple-minded fellow, Khazana. Thank you Robin. > But who knows? I am not God. Perhaps he sees things exactly as you do. He does. He just told me so. > But in that case I will have to tell Him he is wrong. :-) I know you are at odds since you said he died in 1945. He says that's not a joke, you know. No kidding about somebodies death, even if he's God. > You have a fatal condition of fixed context of apprehension. It is, I > believe, entirely innocent. I realize that in the word 'innocent' is a certain hidden sympathy, right? > You are doing your best--that will have to be enough for me. Yep, can't do anymore. > But we have nothing to say to each other. So no meeting at Starbucks then. > Which is disappointing to me. So sorry, but at least I am not wasting your time. > Robin > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > [I wrot
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
Dear Khazana, It may seem impossibly predictable that I would say this, but authfriend and raunchy and Ann (to name three persons: there are others), THEY DO UNDERSTAND ME, KHAZANA. Of course that is very convenient for me to say this, because they have a positive and merciful view of me. But what they get about me, they convey with depth and complexity. It will be outlandish for me to say this, but should any of these three persons see me the way you see me, the way they would go about communicated this would make me believe they were right. It is not, then, Khazana, that these persons like me, support me, respect me; No, it is not this--just. *It is the way they have determined their point of view about me* which I respect. Had they used the same process of investigation and arrived at a very different conclusion--one which perfectly coincides with yours--I would have to respect this utterly. Their way, then, of reaching their conclusions about me would be as valid as I could have ever expected. And then their judgment would be a profound one. Even if wholly negative. You must understand, then, it is not your opinions or judgments that bother me or leave me greatly disappointed; it is what you have gone through to reach them. In this way you have failed to encounter much of the reality which could enable you to really understand the person that I am. That said, you will not be surprised to know that your posts today caused some celebration and relief in other quarters--so certainly your point of view is not unique to yourself. I must be content with having told you this. You will violently disagree with me. This seems in the nature of things. I appreciate your effort to reach a conclusion you deem is consistent with your own way of seeing reality and human beings. It is sincere. It is just too bad it is so goddamn wrong. But I would say that, wouldn't I. Thanks for the effort you have made, Khazana. Sincerely, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > Dear Khazana, > > It is not possible for you to understand any of this. You have your fixed > point of view--and you don't even know how all this (my past, me, what has > happened) can been seen in a different way. You are not capable of a form of > sophistication and complexity of apprehension that would even begin to do > justice to what happened in those Ten Years. > > You don't have any feeling for the person that I am at all, and if reading > the first 93 pages of CULT has led to your present impression of me, then the > book is worse than I thought. > > But no one can do anything to make you see things in a different light--You > must be right in how you see reality and me. > > There is nothing I can do to change this; so you can just have the > satisfaction of knowing that anyone (like authfriend or raunchy or Ann or > those who know and love me in my present life) who disagrees with you must be > wrong. Because this is how you will always feel. > > Nothing can penetrate this, Khazana. So I will accept that your judgment > about me is what it will be--and that anyone who sees me very differently > from you (persons who have known me for 35 years)--they are deceived, and you > have the correct perception. > > It is not necessarily that you are at fault here; but your understanding is > being determined in a particular way which will brook no compromise or > modification. > > You are dead wrong in some vital respects concerning me; but you are carrying > out a good deed in the eyes of those who would view me as you do. In that > regard, you are preserving a view of myself which is out there. > > But if there is anyone who has got a certain immovable and unchangeable view > of myself, it is you--way beyond Bill Howell and Lord Knows (who will be > delighted at your obstinacy and implacability). > > I am sorry you so misunderstand me, Khazana, but that is our destiny. Of > course I am only telling you what I think, how I feel. > > But the system you are employing to understand me, that is a closed system > and is not subject to being influenced by anything--including the truth. > > You will see things quite differently than this of course. > > You a very simple-minded fellow, Khazana. > > But who knows? I am not God. Perhaps he sees things exactly as you do. > > But in that case I will have to tell Him he is wrong. :-) > > You have a fatal condition of fixed context of apprehension. It is, I > believe, entirely innocent. > > You are doing your best--that will have to be enough for me. > > But we have nothing to say to each other. > > Which is disappointing to me. > > Robin > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Howell, "Brahmi," and Lord Knows have claimed he has not > > changed. Why would Robin "own up" to what they claim if > > he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what > > he feels is an incorrect judgment? > > Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting > to read CULT, and being dissatisfied with the way he was > portrayed there. CULT is only about his past, and being > dissatisfied with the perception of his ex-followers about > these past proceedings, he made this offer. I don't call that > owning up to it. No, YOU got it wrong. The offer to meet with people was only about what he's like NOW. Here's the first paragraph of his first Open Letter to Howell: "I will just make one claim right from the start, Bill: Were I to come--*now*, in this moment, as of today, November 11, 2012--into the presence of *any one person from my past*--I exclude no one in this--I would not project anything upon them, nor would I find any justification to judge them, nor would that person experience--despite their past experiences with me--anything coming from me which would have anything to do with an experience that Robin is analyzing them, sifting them, arriving at some definitive idea of them. Each and every person who walked into this Starbucks, where I am right now, and sat down at my table--they would experience a person, absolutely non-judgmental, and entirely able to let that person be what they are. I am not living or experiencing my life on that plane which created the terror and violence and drama and intensity and confusion and trauma and beauty of those Ten Years when I acted as the enlightened man-- without any unambiguous contradiction of this fact by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/325770 This had not a thing to do with his dissatisfaction with how he was portrayed in "Cult." Different issue entirely. Are you big enough to acknowledge you got that wrong? I doubt it. > > It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove > > he has changed to anyone who doubts it. > > And it is just as appropriate for them to say: Sorry, we > are not interested, you stole us a major part of our > adult life, it took us years to get out, we need not invest > more time. Absolutely. Nobody ever said otherwise. Do you even know what "offer" means? It's something that is *made available* that you can take advantage of or not as you choose. > > And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the > > judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in > > any kind of dispute. > > No, He didn't. Yes, he has. > Ask him yourself, or best read his posts, where he states > that he doesn't recognize himself in the book, and that > this is not the truth about him. That's *a different issue*. He has never denied that he did terrible things and harmed people. His objections to the book's portrayal are much more subtle. > For me that mean that he is in DENIAL. Nope, you couldn't be more wrong. "I was infinitely deceived, out-of-my-mind (in some fundamental way), and I unnecessarily and unjustifiably hurt and violated many innocent human beings (most all of whom I loved deeply), and therefore I fully deserved to go through a purgatory of extreme agony as a consequence of my naivete, blindness, fanaticism, and cosmic egotism. I was wrong, and what I did was wrong." That sound to you like denial, khazana? You know where that quote is from? From his initial post about the "Cult" book, the same post in which he says he didn't recognize himself in it. He's made many very similar confessions since he arrived here back in June 2011. He's been absolutely consistent about how he views the harm he did and that he deserved to go through terrible suffering as a consequence. If you had good English comprehension and had been paying attention, you'd have seen that what he did not recognize about himself in the book had NOTHING to do with what he did wrong. > And he still wants to influence them by 'proving' to them > how much he has changed. He has *offered* to prove to whoever is interested how much he has changed. Of course he would like them all to recognize he has changed, but he doesn't expect that to happen, and he's not trying to compel anybody to do so. > > Moreover, his own judgment of > > himself has been more severe than anyone else's. > > So you believe. Other's seem to think different. Cite the posts in which somebody says they think he hasn't been as hard on himself as he should have been, khazana. Have another look at the quote I provided above. > > > > Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted > > > > to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at > > > > that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in > > > > September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) > > > > b
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > > > > might say. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the > > > > > existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote > > > > > above, and not what you imagine he wrote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > > > > > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > > > > > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > > > > > > mood-swings for example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > > > > > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > > > > > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > > > > > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > > > > > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > > > > > > to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > > > > > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > > > > > > > > > > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > > > > > > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > > > > > > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very > > > > > inappropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? > > > > > > Just be normal HERE. > > > > > > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human > > > > being. > > > > > > To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different > > > continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my > > > judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a > > > lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. > > > > > > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > > > > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to > > > people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the > > > danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be > > > realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when > > > they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because > > > he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that > > > he has changed? Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What > > > if Charly Manson invited everybody to convince you that he is actually a > > > nice guy, would you go and meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like > > > Manson!) > > > > > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need > > > > to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? > > > > > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then > > > Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal > > > > human being. > > > > > > To whom? > > > > To anyone who is interested, obviously. > > > > > Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different > > > continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. > > > I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed > > > up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of > > > people, crazy and sane. > > > > Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin > > because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no > > sense whatsoever. > > > > > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > > > > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, > > > especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see > > > where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in > > > those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how > > > would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when > > > they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated > > > them, because he needed to tell them something 'very > > > important', and that would be that he has changed? > > > > This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an > > *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. > > A challenge. > > > > Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? > > > > HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. > > But not convincingly though. For that there is too much self-defense in it. > There are too many aspects in the whole thing he still believes in. For > example the idea that he has a special access to the 1st person ontology of > people. And that's a very serious one, believe me, not something to joke > about. > > > > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position > > > > where you need to prove you are good and decent person, > > > > now changed from 25 years ago? > > > > > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so > > > absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just > > > be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the > > > hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in > > > itself makes him suspicious. > > > > This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of > > looking at this. > > You should now feel some compassion toward me :-> > > > > > > What else would you have him do? > > > > > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > > > > He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what > > he's like now, if they're interested. > > Now that 'also offering' is contradicting the first statement. It is > undermining it directly, and more so as he does so only as a reaction to his > perceived 'wrong' portrayal in CULT. Now, if he would have evolved in a major > way, he would be able to accept the way he was perceived. He would not try to > convince people that he is different. His very wish to INFLUENCE people even > now is the problem. ACCEPTANCE of the status quo would be the solution. Of > course IMHO > > > > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin > > > > with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your > > > > part, IMO. > > > > > > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are > > > interpreting a little too much into this. > > > > Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't > > have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty > > is not helping you. > > > I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut 'diagnosis' at all. > It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an opinion, which I > shared. Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very carefully, > with the intention not to hurt anybody, knowing the likes of insensitive > people like you would just madly jump at it. > Having now admitted what everyone suspected, that you posted about BPD with Robin in mind, did it feel good to validate your *opinion* of him so that you could denigrate him in good conscience? I'd say you were pretty darn insensitive yourself and slanderously presumptuous, to go balls out BPD on him, I might add.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
Dear Khazana, It is not possible for you to understand any of this. You have your fixed point of view--and you don't even know how all this (my past, me, what has happened) can been seen in a different way. You are not capable of a form of sophistication and complexity of apprehension that would even begin to do justice to what happened in those Ten Years. You don't have any feeling for the person that I am at all, and if reading the first 93 pages of CULT has led to your present impression of me, then the book is worse than I thought. But no one can do anything to make you see things in a different light--You must be right in how you see reality and me. There is nothing I can do to change this; so you can just have the satisfaction of knowing that anyone (like authfriend or raunchy or Ann or those who know and love me in my present life) who disagrees with you must be wrong. Because this is how you will always feel. Nothing can penetrate this, Khazana. So I will accept that your judgment about me is what it will be--and that anyone who sees me very differently from you (persons who have known me for 35 years)--they are deceived, and you have the correct perception. It is not necessarily that you are at fault here; but your understanding is being determined in a particular way which will brook no compromise or modification. You are dead wrong in some vital respects concerning me; but you are carrying out a good deed in the eyes of those who would view me as you do. In that regard, you are preserving a view of myself which is out there. But if there is anyone who has got a certain immovable and unchangeable view of myself, it is you--way beyond Bill Howell and Lord Knows (who will be delighted at your obstinacy and implacability). I am sorry you so misunderstand me, Khazana, but that is our destiny. Of course I am only telling you what I think, how I feel. But the system you are employing to understand me, that is a closed system and is not subject to being influenced by anything--including the truth. You will see things quite differently than this of course. You a very simple-minded fellow, Khazana. But who knows? I am not God. Perhaps he sees things exactly as you do. But in that case I will have to tell Him he is wrong. :-) You have a fatal condition of fixed context of apprehension. It is, I believe, entirely innocent. You are doing your best--that will have to be enough for me. But we have nothing to say to each other. Which is disappointing to me. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > > > > very inappropriate. > > > > > > > > Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would > > > > disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these > > > > days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill > > > > Howell. > > > > > > Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if > > > I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who > > > are actually concerned. > > > > That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, > > and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're > > prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own > > pre/misconceptions. > > > > > I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, > > > trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not > > > just own up to all of them, and let them have their > > > judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't > > > accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to > > > them that you are different now. > > > > Perfect example of what I just described. > > > > Howell, "Brahmi," and Lord Knows have claimed he has not > > changed. Why would Robin "own up" to what they claim if > > he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what > > he feels is an incorrect judgment? > > Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting to read CULT, > and being dissatisfied with the way he was portrayed there. CULT is only > about his past, and being dissatisfied with the perc
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > > > might say. > > > > > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the > > > > existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote > > > > above, and not what you imagine he wrote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > > > > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > > > > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > > > > > mood-swings for example: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > > > > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > > > > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > > > > > > > > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > > > > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > > > > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > > > > > to them. > > > > > > > > > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > > > > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > > > > > > > > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > > > > > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > > > > > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very > > > > inappropriate. > > > > > > > > > > What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? > > > > Just be normal HERE. > > > > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. > > > > To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different > > continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my > > judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a > > lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. > > > > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people > > who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The > > very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how > > would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked > > to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell > > them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? Why > > can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What if Charly Manson > > invited everybody to convince you that he is actually a nice guy, would you > > go and meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like Manson!) > > > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to > > > prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? > > > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then > > Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone > > has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? > > That in itself makes him suspicious. > > > > > What else would you have him do? > > > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > > > > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BP
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal > > > human being. > > > > To whom? > > To anyone who is interested, obviously. > > > Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different > > continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. > > I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed > > up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of > > people, crazy and sane. > > Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin > because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no > sense whatsoever. > > > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, > > especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see > > where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in > > those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how > > would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when > > they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated > > them, because he needed to tell them something 'very > > important', and that would be that he has changed? > > This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an > *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. A challenge. > > Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? > > HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. But not convincingly though. For that there is too much self-defense in it. There are too many aspects in the whole thing he still believes in. For example the idea that he has a special access to the 1st person ontology of people. And that's a very serious one, believe me, not something to joke about. > > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position > > > where you need to prove you are good and decent person, > > > now changed from 25 years ago? > > > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so > > absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just > > be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the > > hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in > > itself makes him suspicious. > > This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of > looking at this. You should now feel some compassion toward me :-> > > > > What else would you have him do? > > > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > > He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what > he's like now, if they're interested. Now that 'also offering' is contradicting the first statement. It is undermining it directly, and more so as he does so only as a reaction to his perceived 'wrong' portrayal in CULT. Now, if he would have evolved in a major way, he would be able to accept the way he was perceived. He would not try to convince people that he is different. His very wish to INFLUENCE people even now is the problem. ACCEPTANCE of the status quo would be the solution. Of course IMHO > > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin > > > with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your > > > part, IMO. > > > > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are > > interpreting a little too much into this. > > Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't > have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty > is not helping you. > I was thinking of him, yes, but this was not a clear cut 'diagnosis' at all. It was just a piece of information for myself, to form an opinion, which I shared. Only one aspect, a consideration, and I phrased it very carefully, with the intention not to hurt anybody, knowing the likes of insensitive people like you would just madly jump at it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > > might say. > > > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the > > > existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, > > > and not what you imagine he wrote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > > > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > > > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > > > > mood-swings for example: > > > > > > > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > > > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > > > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > > > > > > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > > > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > > > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > > > > to them. > > > > > > > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > > > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > > > > > > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > > > > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > > > > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very > > > inappropriate. > > > > > > > What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? > > Just be normal HERE. > > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. > > To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent > and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I > read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all > kinds of people, crazy and sane. > > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people > who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The > very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would > those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet > the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them > something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? Why can't > he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What if Charly Manson invited > everybody to convince you that he is actually a nice guy, would you go and > meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like Manson!) > > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to > > prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then > Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has > changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in > itself makes him suspicious. > > > What else would you have him do? > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping > > pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. > > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a > little too much into this. > In my opinion you're an opinionated, chucklehead. Now, here and forevermore, everyone who reads FFLife will kn
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > > > very inappropriate. > > > > > > Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would > > > disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these > > > days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill > > > Howell. > > > > Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if > > I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who > > are actually concerned. > > That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, > and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're > prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own > pre/misconceptions. > > > I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, > > trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not > > just own up to all of them, and let them have their > > judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't > > accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to > > them that you are different now. > > Perfect example of what I just described. > > Howell, "Brahmi," and Lord Knows have claimed he has not > changed. Why would Robin "own up" to what they claim if > he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what > he feels is an incorrect judgment? Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting to read CULT, and being dissatisfied with the way he was portrayed there. CULT is only about his past, and being dissatisfied with the perception of his ex-followers about these past proceedings, he made this offer. I don't call that owning up to it. > It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove > he has changed to anyone who doubts it. And it is just as appropriate for them to say: Sorry, we are not interested, you stole us a major part of our adult life, it took us years to get out, we need not invest more time. > And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the > judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in > any kind of dispute. No, He didn't. Ask him yourself, or best read his posts, where he states that he doesn't recognize himself in the book, and that this is not the truth about him. For me that mean that he is in DENIAL. And he still wants to influence them by 'proving' to them how much he has changed. > Moreover, his own judgment of > himself has been more severe than anyone else's. So you believe. Other's seem to think different. > > > Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted > > > to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at > > > that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in > > > September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) > > > because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did > > > not agree to the conditions which he set for our time > > > together. > > > > > > I think he thought me unworthy of his company. > > > > I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet > > now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. > > Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am > > sorry, i was wrong all along. > > What the *freak* is wrong with you, khazana? If he's said > once that he was wrong 25 years ago, he's said it literally > dozens of times. Again, that has never been in dispute. > Then what he wants the f*ck to prove? Why keep haunting these poor people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal > > human being. > > To whom? To anyone who is interested, obviously. > Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different > continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. > I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed > up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of > people, crazy and sane. Non sequitur. The issue is, why are you carping at Robin because he invited people to come meet him? That makes no sense whatsoever. > > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? > > What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, > especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see > where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in > those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how > would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when > they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated > them, because he needed to tell them something 'very > important', and that would be that he has changed? This is insane. Nobody *has* to come meet him. It was an *offer*, an invitation, not a demand. > Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? HE'S DONE THAT ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. > > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position > > where you need to prove you are good and decent person, > > now changed from 25 years ago? > > That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so > absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just > be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the > hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in > itself makes him suspicious. This person is mentally ill. That is not a normal way of looking at this. > > What else would you have him do? > > Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. He's doing that. He's also offering to let them see what he's like now, if they're interested. > > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin > > with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your > > part, IMO. > > > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are > interpreting a little too much into this. Everybody here knows why you posted it, khazana. You didn't have to mention Robin for that to be obvious. Your dishonesty is not helping you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > purpose. > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > > very inappropriate. > > > > Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would > > disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these > > days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill > > Howell. > > Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if > I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who > are actually concerned. That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own pre/misconceptions. > I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, > trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not > just own up to all of them, and let them have their > judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't > accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to > them that you are different now. Perfect example of what I just described. Howell, "Brahmi," and Lord Knows have claimed he has not changed. Why would Robin "own up" to what they claim if he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what he feels is an incorrect judgment? It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove he has changed to anyone who doubts it. And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in any kind of dispute. Moreover, his own judgment of himself has been more severe than anyone else's. > > Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted > > to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at > > that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in > > September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) > > because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did > > not agree to the conditions which he set for our time > > together. > > > > I think he thought me unworthy of his company. > > I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet > now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. > Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am > sorry, i was wrong all along. What the *freak* is wrong with you, khazana? If he's said once that he was wrong 25 years ago, he's said it literally dozens of times. Again, that has never been in dispute.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > might say. > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence > > of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what > > you imagine he wrote. > > > > > > > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > > > mood-swings for example: > > > > > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > > > > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > > > > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > > > to them. > > > > > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > > > > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > > > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > > > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very > > inappropriate. > > > > What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? Just be normal HERE. > Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. To whom? Obviously I am not in question. I am living in a different continent and have only marginal interest in all of this. I base my judgments on what I read here, based and backed up by my experience of a lifetime of meeting all kinds of people, crazy and sane. > Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? What's the point in trying to 'prove' anything at all, especially to people who were harmed once? Don't you see where they may perceive the danger? The very harm was in those 'confrontations'. So, Raunchy, be realistic, how would those people feel, who were once manipulated, when they where asked to meet the man who obviously manipulated them, because he needed to tell them something 'very important', and that would be that he has changed? Why can't he just say 'Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa'? What if Charly Manson invited everybody to convince you that he is actually a nice guy, would you go and meet him? (I am not saying that Robin is like Manson!) > Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to > prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? That's my point: where's the need to prove it? That's so absurd. And then Raunchy, anyone, anywhere, will not just be a trustful to believe someone has changed just on the hearsay of it. So what? Why the NEED to convince? That in itself makes him suspicious. > What else would you have him do? Nothing. Just let people have their opinions. > Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping > pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO. > I didn't even mention Robin when posting the link. You are interpreting a little too much into this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry > > > > > > have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two > > > > > > thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate > > > > > > it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > > might say. > > > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended > > > the existence of demons. > > > > Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. > > Nope I read it several times, and I am not really > talking to you here, I am talking to Robin, so STFU, and > leave it to him if he wants to respond or not. (What does "" mean here? Appears to be gibberish.) Don't tell me what I may or may not comment on. This is a public forum, and I don't give a rusty nail who you think you're talking to. And obviously Robin can respond or not as he chooses. You are getting WAAY above yourself here, khazana. You aren't that smart and you're seriously lacking in insight, plus which you have your difficulties with English, as I've pointed out before, and you all too often lose track of the context of a post or don't get it in the first place. You are not in a position to lay down the law to anyone about anything. > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > > very inappropriate. > > > > Very much au contraire. He did not post it in the form of a > > challenge. > > That's debatable. It was repeated by you and several others > here as a challenge, and still is. So, own up to it. It was not repeated by me here as a challenge, and I don't recall anyone else doing so. You either misread something, or you're lying. Prove me wrong. Quote the posts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > might say. > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence > > of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what > > you imagine he wrote. > > > > > > > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > > > mood-swings for example: > > > > > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > > > > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > > > > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > > > to them. > > > > > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > > > > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > > > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > > > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very > > inappropriate. > > Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would disprove my very > assertion. I do not challenge anyone these days. You have seriously misread > my first letter to Bill Howell. Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who are actually concerned. I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not just own up to all of them, and let them have their judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to them that you are different now. > > Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted to meet with me. > I was not ready to meet with anyone at that time. He did not come for our > scheduled visit in September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) > because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did not agree to the > conditions which he set for our time together. > > I think he thought me unworthy of his company. I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am sorry, i was wrong all along. > You are working with concepts here, Khazana. I am dealing with things at the > level of my experience and perception. Sure, I can only see you through the imperfect uttering's of either others or yourself, that is necessarily imperfect. And I am not making any final judgment about you. I have already formed a judgment about you after reading the very first post, somewhere in November last year, it was a post addressed to Seventhray. At that time I had not heard the name Robin Carlsen, had no idea about you having been a 'Cult-Leader', about anything that went on at the time, no idea about confrontations, I just knew you as yet another poster on FFL. And yet, Robin, my first judgment about you is still very much the way I perceive you now. So, call me stubborn if you like. > Ann Woelfle Bater knows me as well as anyone from this period of time in my > life. She has been confronted (as an "evil being"), she has confronted me, > and we are friends.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > wrote: > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > might say. > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of > demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you > imagine he wrote. > > > > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > > mood-swings for example: > > > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > > to them. > > > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. > What's a guy gotta do to please you, khazana? Robin offered a friendly invitation to prove he is a normal human being. Why are you are choosing to see this as a challenge? Can you imagine what it must feel like be in a position where you need to prove you are good and decent person, now changed from 25 years ago? What else would you have him do? Where's the compassion you spoke of? Diagnosing Robin with BPD is a heaping pile of inappropriateness on your part, IMO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
Khazana baby what is this madness, in a quest to get back at Judy and Robin you don't even mind enabling the tactics of someone with psychological issues like Barry. I disagree with Robin - from my perspective there are two people who have psychological issues based on their posts here - Barry and Share and people like you and Steve are doing a huge disservice by enabling them. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM, khazana108 wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > > might say. > > > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended > > > the existence of demons. > > > > Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. > > Nope I read it several times, and I am not really talking to you > here, I am talking to Robin, so STFU, and leave it to him if he wants to > respond or not.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > wrote: > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > might say. > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of > demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you > imagine he wrote. > > > > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > > mood-swings for example: > > > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > > to them. > > > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate. Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill Howell. Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did not agree to the conditions which he set for our time together. I think he thought me unworthy of his company. You are working with concepts here, Khazana. I am dealing with things at the level of my experience and perception. Ann Woelfle Bater knows me as well as anyone from this period of time in my life. She has been confronted (as an "evil being"), she has confronted me, and we are friends. My best friend was confronted (and declared "evil") many times. I see him almost every day. And he confronted me maybe 10,000 times in the past twenty-five and one half years. You know nothing about this, Khazana. The person who is posting as Robin, he is all right. I say you are misreading me, Khazana. Where is the experimental evidence that I am wrong in this? You want your world of beliefs preserved at all costs. It doesn't work that way. We refute people not be arguing against them; but by getting a deeper experience of reality. The story is so complex, Khazana. I am doing my best--and I am very very different. But you will do what you will do. I continue to have love in my heart. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > > might say. > > > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended > > the existence of demons. > > Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. Nope I read it several times, and I am not really talking to you here, I am talking to Robin, so STFU, and leave it to him if he wants to respond or not. > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > very inappropriate. > > Very much au contraire. He did not post it in the form of a > challenge. That's debatable. It was repeated by you and several others here as a challenge, and still is. So, own up to it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > wrote: > > > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > > might say. > > > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > > What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended > the existence of demons. Read it again, khazana. Pay attention to the context. > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > very inappropriate. Very much au contraire. He did not post it in the form of a challenge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > > might say. > > Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the > blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? What are you talking about? Not even a month ago he defended the existence of demons. I am of course referring to what Robin wrote above, and not what you imagine he wrote. > > > > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > > mood-swings for example: > > > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. > > Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > > > > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > > to them. > > > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > > The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum > are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a > function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is very inappropriate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have > > penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years > > ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by > > demons; well we know he was wrong. > > You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one > might say. Right, the 25-plus years it took him to do it is just the blink of an eye, isn't it, khazana? > It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I > think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of > behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong > mood-swings for example: > > "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and > demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute > evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. Mood-swings can have many, many different causes. > People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum > are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect > themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses > to them. > > You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find > out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. The circumstances under which mental illness on this forum are brought up indicates that it is virtually always a function of hostility, not wanting to "find out the truth." > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some > > things we observe here. > > > > Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my > > intention. I just want to share a source of background information that > > could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that > > there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and > > some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that > > this is not a reason for denigration. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 > > One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the > mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to > indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. You do? Then you changed your mind rather abruptly, one might say. > Still, I feel there is a ways to go in making me feel that persons who are > psychotic--apart from pharmacological remedies--have the hope of a full > recovery based upon what Freud figured out--and everyone after him. I feel a > mental patient defeats the powers of human knowledge. He is metaphysically > isolated where nothing can reach him/her. At least this is very often the > case. Borderline is not necessarily completely psychotic, or may be it's a special case of it. > My own experience and observation is that, as acrimonious as things get on > FFL, I haven't sensed anyone who seems unbalanced in the way that is > pertinent to this video. People seem obtuse, invulnerable, stupid, petty, > biassed, and naive (I like thinking of my adversaries like this: it always > helps), but unhealthy mentally? I haven't seen any sign of this, khazana. And > if you have, then that just proves how superficial psychology really is in > its attempts to describe the human soul. Well some have seen signs of it, not everybody of course. But more than one. Also please understand, I am not trying to prove anything here to anybody, neither to you or anybody else. It is actually just a link I share about a subject that is I think interesting, and could well explain a certain set of behaviors that can be observed here as well, that of strong mood-swings for example: "Splitting in BPD includes a switch between idealizing and demonizing others (absolute good or love versus absolute evil or hate with no middle term)." from Wikipedia. We can to a certain degree see this tendency in many people, but in some it seems stronger and exaggerated. I think there is no clear cut border between mental health and disease, there is an overlap, a line between what is considered healthy (which is also only a social norm) and termed sick. > I think if any poster was truly sick in this way, all of us would sense this. Or just some. > And we would be merciful. How that? We should be, yes, but this depends on our recognition, and our insight. > No matter what names persons are called around here, the aggression and > vehemence with which this is done is incompatible with any real belief in > what is being said--else there would be, instead of this hostility, some form > of compensation for that person. People who attempt to bring in mental > illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to > protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You may assume so, but may be some people just try to find out the truth. They don't need to be hostile. > You don't get angry at someone who has lost touch with reality. So, until we > collectively feel some form of compassion for a single poster here, I think > we can assume that your video has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It would be good, but, no, you can't assume that. I mean Hitler was sick, mad, possessed, but does this mean people feel compassion about him. Or Charles Manson. (I am not comparing anybody here with Hitler or Charly Manson, just pointing out the principle.) > Although I am aware of Alex's posting of reaction formation. > > Acutely aware of it. > > Starbucks invitation still stands. Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that you should have understanding if people who have been hurt by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your purpose. Why don't you just leave them and wish them peace? > Robin >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some > things we observe here. > > Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my > intention. I just want to share a source of background information that > could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that > there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and > some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that this > is not a reason for denigration. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 One thing we know, khazana: psychology and psychiatry have penetrated the mystique of mental illness. Two thousand years ago, God (as Jesus) seemed to indicate it was caused by demons; well we know he was wrong. Still, I feel there is a ways to go in making me feel that persons who are psychotic--apart from pharmacological remedies--have the hope of a full recovery based upon what Freud figured out--and everyone after him. I feel a mental patient defeats the powers of human knowledge. He is metaphysically isolated where nothing can reach him/her. At least this is very often the case. My own experience and observation is that, as acrimonious as things get on FFL, I haven't sensed anyone who seems unbalanced in the way that is pertinent to this video. People seem obtuse, invulnerable, stupid, petty, biassed, and naive (I like thinking of my adversaries like this: it always helps), but unhealthy mentally? I haven't seen any sign of this, khazana. And if you have, then that just proves how superficial psychology really is in its attempts to describe the human soul. I think if any poster was truly sick in this way, all of us would sense this. And we would be merciful. No matter what names persons are called around here, the aggression and vehemence with which this is done is incompatible with any real belief in what is being said--else there would be, instead of this hostility, some form of compensation for that person. People who attempt to bring in mental illness on this forum are always persons who are using that as a weapon to protect themselves against the challenge that person or persons poses to them. You don't get angry at someone who has lost touch with reality. So, until we collectively feel some form of compassion for a single poster here, I think we can assume that your video has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. Although I am aware of Alex's posting of reaction formation. Acutely aware of it. Starbucks invitation still stands. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > > > I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some > > things we observe here. > > > > Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my > > intention. I just want to share a source of background information that > > could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that > > there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and > > some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that > > this is not a reason for denigration. > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 > > It would be instructive for khazana to explain what he observes > on FFLife as a reason for posting a video about BPD. Oh, he couldn't be posting it with reference to anybody on FFL. Nobody with any sense would think a personality disorder, or even a tendency toward a personality disorder, could be diagnosed from posts on an Internet forum, especially by a layperson. He must be thinking that some FFLers probably have people in their personal lives who have been diagnosed with BPD and could make use of a little additional understanding. Really very compassionate and helpful of him. He's not naming names, he's just trying to help everyone understand that we shouldn't denegrate people with BPD when we judge them. I guess he means we should have pity on those who must not be named for having a disability. As soon as khazana either tells me or I figure out who on FFLife has BPD, I'll be sure to judge the person kindly based on armchair diagnosis. Once I have someone neatly in a BPD box it will make my life so much easier because I'll feel good about myself that I can prejudge them with a proper measure of compassion, and won't have to bother reading or take seriously anything they have to say. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Back From the Edge
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 wrote: > > I found this video quite instructive about BPD, possibly explaining some > things we observe here. > > Please don't see this as an attempt to denigrate anybody, this is not my > intention. I just want to share a source of background information that > could be helpful to understand, or judge a situation. I am very aware that > there is always a graduation between what may be termed mentally sane, and > some kind of disorder, and if such a disorder is actually the case, that this > is not a reason for denigration. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=967Ckat7f98 > It would be instructive for khazana to explain what he observes on FFLife as a reason for posting a video about BPD. He's not naming names, he's just trying to help everyone understand that we shouldn't denegrate people with BPD when we judge them. I guess he means we should have pity on those who must not be named for having a disability. As soon as khazana either tells me or I figure out who on FFLife has BPD, I'll be sure to judge the person kindly based on armchair diagnosis. Once I have someone neatly in a BPD box it will make my life so much easier because I'll feel good about myself that I can prejudge them with a proper measure of compassion, and won't have to bother reading or take seriously anything they have to say.
