--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote:
There is not one person who has enthusiastically praised and comforted Share Long who can systematically, honestly, enter into each of raunchydog's points here and rebut them. Share certainly won't. She will ignore this post, and if she ever gets around to answering it, it will not represent any attempt whatsoever to grapple with the issues that raunchydog has herself grappled with. You think raunchydog is just expressing opinions here, Xeno, Steve, and the rest of you? Raunchydog is writing with purpose, conviction--a sense of justice (not defensively, subjectively)--and so she carries with her a certain grace into her post, and that post becomes a formidable challenge to anyone not willing to stay true to his or her conscience in order to try to answer her. It is ridiculous to believe that I am writing this because in a sense what raunchy has written becomes a defence of my posts, my character. If any of you who dislike me or worse could write with the careful regard for the truth of the matter--as raunchy has done here--then even if your post were an indictment of me, I would have to accept the justice of it. So, that becomes the challenge to all of you who 1. support Share (think she is plucky, defiant, intrepid) 2. disapprove of me and my posts--and my history as a cult leader (to speak euphemistically): Can you take this post on and produce a context which aesthetically and intellectually can contest the performance that raunchy has given here? A performance entirely based--or so it seems to me--upon the truth of her heart, her perception, her fearless understanding. What say you, Xeno, Steve, laughingull--all those who think Share has been the white swan of truth around here: Can you enter into the arguments that raunchydog has made in rebutting Share and demonstrate the same confidence in your sincerity and honesty as raunchydog does? Did I know nothing of what was going on on FFL and read this post--in counterpoint to Share Long's post--I could conclude nothing else but that raunchydog is a person of strength and wit and intelligence and integrity. The real feat will be if any of Share's apologists can challenge what raunchydog has said. I know that you will all ignore her post here. Right, fellas? It is a beautiful post, raunchydog--even if it had been a devastating attack on myself, it would be just as beautiful--this is something one senses just in the context out of which it was written, the context of the person who wrote it. It is true in its intention. It makes a mockery of anyone who has said that Share is brave and beautiful in what she has said. She has not even attempted to get into a real fight for the truth. But I do not underestimate her affect--it is lethal. And no doubt that will be the substitute for any kind of real and meaningful response to raunchydog. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > Share: Hey, Alex I enjoy just about all your posts and I remember our Waking Down days with a little smile. But I am not anti Robin. I am anti whatever it is in him that still blocks and distorts his gifts. Whatever it is in him that then contributes to his group becoming so polarized against everyone else. It's that black and white thinking again in them: that unless one thinks he's wonderful all the time, then one is supposedly out for his blood and wanting to crucify him, both phrases that Judy used. RD: Share I don't have a problem with strong language, metaphors or idioms that hit the mark but I do have a problem with vague, undefined, insinuations meant to disparage or undermine the character or integrity of another person. Being factually specific can prove one's case as well a earn respect for holding oneself accountable to a standard of reason and truth. Share: "whatever it is in him that still blocks and distorts his gifts." RD: Implying something is wrong with Robin without saying what it is that needs fixing is unfair because 1.) How can he possibly fix an undefined "something?" 2.) If you were to define "blocks" what facts do you have to support the existence of "blocks?" 3.) What authority, expertise or information do you have to make such a statement in the first place? Share: "Whatever it is in him that then contributes to his group becoming so polarized against everyone else." RD: To not give examples of how Robin contributes to *his* group becoming polarized insults everyone who likes him as if they have no powers of discernment independently of him. Also, it's an assault on his character and an irresponsible allegation. Share: "unless one thinks he's wonderful all the time, then one is supposedly out for his blood and wanting to crucify him, both phrases that Judy used." RD: No one thinks Robin is "wonderful all the time." Robin's posts stand on their own merits when he post just as everyone's does. His posts are subject to scrutiny and comment no more or no less than anyone. Judy explained the idioms she used, which IMO made her point appropriately emphatic. Share: BTW Raunchy, this kind of language from Judy is what I mean by enabling in this context. Obviously in an online situation no one is supplying a physical fix. Not only is such language enabling of an unhealthy dynamic, it's also extreme thus creating more polarity. RD: How exactly does Judy's language, which you've characterized as violent, which it is not, enable an unhealthy dynamic? It begs the question, exactly who gets to decide what is "unhealthy?" Judy can write any damn thing she pleases, and anyone can take it or leave it. That's the FFLife dynamic in sum. No one is compelled to read, write, or respond to anyone. People write what they write and they can be held to account by others for what they write or not. That *is* the dynamic. There is no value judgement of healthy or unhealthy concerning the process of posting on FFLife. It just *is*. Furthermore, Robin is just another poster on FFLife. Any histrionics claiming, NPD, demon possession, or attention vampirism or that he is culturing an enabling cult of followers is completely ludicrous and offensive in the extreme to Robin and insulting to the intelligence to anyone who happens to like him. Share: And yes, the Robin group is very loyal. But it doesn't seem balanced to me. It's as if he's right all the time and so is his group. And anyone who disagrees with him or it is all wrong. And yes Emily you did accuse me of enabling Barry. No big deal. It's such a preposterous idea. RD: No one is "right" about anything until they drill into the facts of the matter and prove true or false. If you disagree with Robin you have a right to make your case like anyone else. In fact he invites it. Share: Of course Robin himself uses extreme language as when he attributed the jezebel and termagant labels for Judy to his questioners. And several labels to them about himself: reprobate, not changed one iota, etc. This is a double whammy. RD: My brain cells rather like Robin's rich vocabulary and exquisite writing. Please clarify if you think Robin labeling himself as a reprobate means he has not changed he ways as a cult leader. I don't get your logic on this point and I haven't a clue what you mean by double whammy. Share: Anyway, I'm not about to use DSM IV labels or talk about demons, etc. I won't even mention jyotish or some of the info in the Epilogue of Cult. I've seen that Ann thinks Robin is very changed. And that her friendship with LK is over. LK who has been concerned about her. RD: Your decision to make no comment labeling Robin should have been implemented at the beginning of your post. Ann's relationship to LK is rather personal and IMO comments about it belong to her. Share: I'm sure that Robin is changed and in a good way. I'm also sure that I want Robin to be completely healed and happy. Because he is so intelligent and intuitive, he knows it too. But if he and his group want to continue to call me anti Robin, then so be it. I know he has many supporters including me on FFL outside of his group. Maybe someday he'll be both willing and able to see that. RD: I don't see you as anti-Robin, Share. I see you as making inappropriate, unfounded presumptions about Robin as I have now explained why I think this. > > PS to Ravi: sorry for taking it all out on you.      > > > ________________________________ > From: Alex Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 4:27 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The day hysteria, paranoia, mayhem reigned supreme on FFL > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > dear Ravi, Thank you SO MUCH for FINALLY putting me at the top of the list. You Robinites are always calling Barry the Number One Bad Person and I'm actually FED UP with that. The guy is a cupcake compared to me! A cupcake I say! FWIW, I still love you. Tee hee. > > > > > > As for your topic in the Subject line above, I say: so just another day on FFL (-: > > > BTW, I have not read your EIGHT posts of this morning yet. Hope I haven't missed > > > something important. If I did, apologizing in advance. And feeling guilty because I think I've been neglecting my apologizing duties lately. What with exposing wts, etc. > > > > > > Next topic: who is this Siri hussy and why the heck are you trysting with her?! Look, I didn't want to have to be the one to tell you, but I'm pretty sure I just saw her at the FF in spot, Revs. With You Know Who. No silly, not THAT You Know Who. That OTHER You Know Who. > > > > > > Anyway, keep up the good work there in the Outer Circle with bull, er ox cart. You guys are doing an excellent job of maintaining the perimeter for The Inner Ones and JJ NOE the Number One Enabler. > > > > > > > Share, I'll ask the same question that Emily asked that you still haven't answered: "ENABLING WHAT?" Exactly what is Judy enabling? Judy defends Robin (and rightly, so) from unceasing attacks on his character and integrity from those who have difficulty dealing with an occasional stiff dose of honesty that necessitates taking a hard look at themselves. > > > > Codependents enable addicts. Friends stick up for each other. Robin earned Judy's friendship, as he has others, and mine for being the caring, sensitive, intelligent and courageously honest person that he is. It's not a mystery why people like Robin. On FFLife, as in real life, honesty earns respect and dishonesty earns distain and mockery. > > > > The beauty of FFLife, where you live and die by your words on the record, bullshitters don't get to dodge a bullet. If you make yourself a target, someone will always take the shot. It's nothing personal, it's just that Judy and Robin happen to have very good aim. > > > > I second the question: Enabling what? In real life, Share's a friend of mine from Waking Down, and watching her glom onto this bizarre and malevolent anti-Robin polarity is both strange and disappointing. The person I'm most impressed with is Ann, who appears to have actually discovered grace, despite having done the Robin trip, 25 years ago. >
