--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Hi Judy, I've numbered your replies so I can respond to each one.
It's a lot easier if you type your comments in underneath what you're commenting on, the way I'm doing now with your post. Having to look back and forth to find corresponding numbers is a pain in the rear and totally unnecessary. > In general, it's more than likely that you understand Robin better than I do. > Also you've been interacting with him longer and are probably more familiar > with his writing style. I often find his phraseology challenging to me. > > 1. In your response #1 below I think by substantially changing the wording, > you substantially change the tone of both me and Robin. I didn't change any of Robin's wording. But I think my rewording of your comment captured the underlying sense of it quite well. > 2a. Before I made the comment about suspending communication, I mention the > specific theme of my being real vs. my beliefs. Yes, so what? > 2b. I didn't decide. In next sentence I said that perhaps I misunderstood in > which case I hope we could work things out. Oh, please. You said you were going to suspend communications. That was a decision, regardless of whether you left yourself an out. > 2c. In our previous long exchanges Robin had several times raised the issue > of my being real vs. my beliefs. We had a break in exchanges. Then he sent > the Putting On the Ritz flash mob post and I replied positively about it. I > loved it. To which he sent the relevant post which began with the theme of > my being real vs. my beliefs. I was unwilling to continue exchanging > communication with that theme as either a subtext or a context. No, that isn't what you said, that you were unwilling to continue with that theme. You said: "Robin, it sounds like you're saying that you sensed you were getting the real me and not my beliefs. But OTOH you were very likely wrong. Given this assessment of me by you, I'd prefer to suspend communication with you." The two of you had talked about many other themes besides your being real vs. your beliefs (including in the very post you objected to the first paragraph of). But here you said you were going to suspend communication altogether, not just communication on that one theme. Share, you need to take responsibility for what you actually wrote. You're trying to clean it up and make it seem as though you said something less petulant and peevish. Remember, *you were the one who misunderstood him*. And your misunderstanding was so far-fetched that it took him a long time to figure out what it could possibly have been. > 2d. Again, you probably understand Robin and his writing style better than I > do. I don't see that you're making much of an effort to understand what he's telling you. He's left you now three conciliatory posts in an attempt to restore cordial relations between you, and you've taken all three of them as if they were offensive. He's standing on his head to repair the breach, but you not only aren't contributing to that effort, you seem determined to sabotage it. You can declare you're willing to work things out till you're blue in the face, but if you don't actually make any effort to do so, it leads one to wonder whether you're sincere. If I were Robin, at this point I'd tell you to go do something impossible to yourself. But he's a much nicer guy than I am, so I'm sure he won't say that. > 3. See 2c above. See my response to 2C. > 4. We've both apologized. IMHO, he had nothing whatsoever to apologize for. He did so anyway. And you're most ungraciously throwing it back in his face. I guess there's no question we've been seeing the "real Share" rather than her beliefs in this episode. By me, it isn't a pretty sight.  And I don't think I'm beating up on Robin. If he says that I am, then I'm willing to work it out with him. Robin? > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:53 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: "I'm not going to shut up; it's my > turn!" > > >  > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Good morning, Robin and duh?! We've discussed all this > > offline and it seemed we had come to a mutually loving > > conclusion. Remember? You even gave me your private > > email address! So I'm not sure what this FFL post is > > about. Perhaps I'm the thick headed one. As I noted > > many times offline, I'm not as developed as you. I'm > > sure I'm missing some subtleties. > > > > In the last paragraph you say that perhaps it would be > > better to ask the person if your interpretation is correct. > > If you check my reply you will see that I did just that > > when I said apologies if I've misunderstood and in that > > case I hope we can work things out. > > 1.No, you didn't do "just that," Share. Big difference in > tone between asking, "Did you mean X, Robin?" and "You > said something I didn't like so I'm not going to talk > to you any more unless you can show me I've misunderstood." > > > As for what my feelings were, I didn't suffer or feel insulted. > > Nor did I think you were being hurtful or cruel. I simply did > > not want to pursue the theme of whether or not I was being the > > real me. Nor the theme of my alleged hyper positivity. > > 2a. Share, what you said was that you were "suspending > communications" with Robin--not just that you didn't > want to talk about specific themes. > > 2b. After all the lovely conversations you'd had with > him, covering a wide range of themes, that you had > decided you were going to "suspend communications" > altogether because of a single remark sure sounded > like you had felt seriously insulted. And now you > seem to feel even more seriously insulted that he's > left you a public apology. > > 2c. FWIW, I couldn't figure out either what your problem > was with what he had said. > > 2d. When I read it, I assumed > he meant exactly what he explained to you last night. > > > We've been down those rabbit holes plenty. At this point, > > I've written enough posts having nothing to do with my > > supposed beliefs. Posts wherein I express delight or > > gratitude or dismay at another's offering. Sufficient to > > have expressed a fuller me. Perhaps you missed those posts. > > 3.For the life of me, I can't see why you're being so > snarky. > > > The honeymoon being over, my wish is that a deeper loving > > friendship can now emerge. > > 4.Really? Because this post sure doesn't sound to me as > though you want to do anything but beat up on Robin, > even after he's taken the blame on himself for *your* > misunderstanding and apologized at length. >
