Hey Share, I enjoyed your response here. You realize of course that Judy and perhaps Robin are going to issue a rebuttal, point by point to everything you are saying. Well Judy may be running short on posts. And you realize of course that your points will be thoroughly discredited, at least in their mind.
But your response here is the Kali side of Share that I am so impressed with. Rather mild in this case, but effective nonetheless. Here's something I've been thinking about. I like Robin. I think he is a gifted writer. But wouldn't you expect someone who claims to have come off the cult leader persona, and who is vehement in this claim to come off a little differently? I mean, keep in mind that Robin saw fit to write what was, I believe, a forty page letter to Curtis, insisting that Curtis address some issues that Robin deemed to be essential. Does that make any sense? I mean Curtis indicated that he didn't really care to discuss the matter further. And yet Robin pressed on, again and again. A forty pager, a 20 pager, 10 pagers. And this is the pattern with Robin. A pattern of bringing to most every discussion a template which attempts to discern if one is acting from a level of truth which is aligned with reality, or with ones' first person ontology. I mean who communicates like this? Does this seem normal? And does this not resemble the little we know about the WTS? According to at least three people who were there, Bill, Brahmi, and LK, it does resemble that time. But evidently Raunchy doesn't see it that way. Nor Judy or Ravi I assume. But inspite of this, Robin says he is reformed. That he has spent 25 years reforming himself. but all we have to go, is his word, because his actions don't indicate this, at least to me. Perhaps he is the cult leader version of a dry drunk. He still demonstrates some of the behaviors of a cult leader, but at his core, he is not. But like I said, I like him quite a lot, and I enjoy his participation here. That's my take --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Share2 > > > ________________________________ > From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:27 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The day hysteria, paranoia, mayhem reigned supreme on FFL > > >  > > > --- 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? > Share2: Well Robin, here I am! The one who, according to you, probably won't grapple as Raunchy has. Raunchy who will be doing more than just expressing opinions. Good set up, Robin. Now it has been suggested to every reader what to expect. > > Robin: 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. > > Share2: You see Robin, this is often what I am talking about. Look what you do above. You declare, as if it is God's > truth, that Raunchy is writing with purpose, conviction, a sense of justice. Also, such phraseology creates the implication that I am not writing with such. Which is totally untrue. And again you suggest that people are disliking you. Which is also untrue. > > Robin: 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. > > Share2: People are not disapproving of you Robin. Certainly there's an attemp[ted diminishment of my intent when you use the word disapprove. And again you bring up your history which I've said over and over is secondary to what I'm raising here. My concern is with the current situation. Yes, Raunchy > has wonderful qualities. But what is the fearless understanding you see in her? I will see fearless understanding in her if and when I see her challenge you in a significant way. > > Robin: 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? > > Share2: The above is an example of polarizing your supporters against everyone else. > > Robin: 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? > > Share2: Here with the word counterpoint you again sneakily suggest that Raunchy has the listed good qualities and that I do not. You are absolutely wrong about me Robin. > > Robin: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. > > Share2: But it wasn't a devastating attack on you was it, Robin? Here is the tactic of making a point about the positive context of the person who wrote it. But the context is based on something negative that actually did not happen! > > Robin: 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. > > Share2: Those first 2 sentences are sneaky ways of saying that I am not brave and beautiful in what I have said. But I am. More than you are willing and or are able to see. > And with whom would you suggest I get into a real fight for the truth with? Judy who even Barry has commented on several times these last few days. I'm sure a TMer like me isn't his favorite person. Yet he mentioned Judy's ripping into me. He's counted how many rips there were. 31 in 44 posts. No I don't think Judy is the one to supply a real fight for the truth. Ann? Well as Xeno said so well, Ann has a dark streak. And now she is in the midst of having to end deep and long standing friendships. Emily? Emily is the most compassionate I think. But often she slips into sentimentality about you. Good Lord, she could barely ask you a question about cult leaders growing beyond their cult behaviors! >  > > --- 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. > > Share2 Right! You're calling Judy's writing strong, etc and mine vague. Right? > Got it! BTW, I have the respect of the people whose respect I value, thank you. > > > 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? > > Share2: I've done more than imply. And I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned experts of extraordinary compassion, spiritual > strength and discernment several times. I don't put myself in that category and I assume that > such experts will know exactly what is wrong and what to do. The statements I make about > Robin, again as I've said over and over the last few days, is based on the past 6 months of > my reading his interactions with others and having interactions myself. You, Raunchy > > have had nothing like the kind of interactions with Robin that I have. Nor has Judy, > Emily, Ann or Ravi. And yet you all continue to rally round him as if he is completely > in the right and I am completely in the wrong. This has been going on since the Russian > flash mob youtube upset. > > > 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. > > Share2: I am not speaking of everyone who likes Robin. I am speaking only of > > a few who continually respond in positive and knee jerk fashion to any criticism of him. And > > even they have discernment independent of him.  The main way that Robin and > > you, Judy, Ann, Emily and Ravi do this, is that you rarely call one another on > questionable behavior. > > > 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. > > Share2: Well yes, others scrutinize Robin's post. Not you all so much. > > I'm sure Judy did explain her use of idioms. Of course once they've been > written and read, it's kind of too late to stop the subliminal impact of such imagery. > As an editor, I'm sure she's aware of this impact. > > > 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. > > Share2: You don't think the words crucify and out for blood are violent in their tone, whether > > they be idioms or something else?! > Secondly if what you're saying is true about Judy's language, then isn't it also true about mine? > > That you can take or leave it?  That I can write any damn thing I want?! That no one is > compelled to read it? Don't these guidelines apply to my writing too? Even if I use the word unhealthy?! > Perhaps there is a double standard with which you are not aware Raunchy. > > > Thirdly, and yet how often do you all say something similar about Barry's > posts? As for the histrionics, I never said any of that. Those were mentioned > by others. > > > 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. > > Share2: Actually Robin only invites it up to a certain point. And simply disagreeing with Robin would be easy if he weren't often > so confusing in his writing. A perfect example of this is his very first reply to > Cult. He continually contradicts himself in that piece. But even that is not done in > a straightforward manner. In a nutshell, he keeps saying how awful he was. Then > > he'll say that there's a sense in which Bill's book is not true! > > > > 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. > > Share2: Robin has a technique of as if writing what the other person is thinking. > In this case that he is a reprobate and that Judy is a termagant and a jezebel. It's doubly > confusing because it uses words that the others actually never used. But he presents them > as if the others had used them! > > 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. > > Share2: Well, she's the one who brought it up in a post. According to Judy that > means anyone can comment on it. Right? > > 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. > > Share2: They are neither presumptions nor inappropriate nor unfounded. They are experiences. > IMO they are valid concerns to raise here. They are founded on 6 months of observing and interacting with Robin here. > > > > > PS to Ravi:à sorry for taking it all out on you.à à à à à à > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > à > > > > > > --- 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. > > >
