Hold on everybody. Forget Fairfield H.S. PS. This is starting to shape up more as a Petraeus, Broadwell, Kelley triangle. (Allen as a more minor player at this point)
Some ground rules. No Threatening E-mails! The most I'll say is that Robin is Petraeus. After that, anything goes. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > I get this, Emily, and you absolutely got it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > Robin, baby, you are so fucking original - seduce me sweetheart, seduce me. > > Â > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Robin Carlsen <maskedzebra@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:02 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The day hysteria, paranoia, mayhem reigned > > supreme on FFL > > > > > > Â > > Johnny Manziel creates depression in Tuscaloosa. > > > > Ludwig still allowed Elizabeth to have him buried as a Catholic. > > > > Shakespeare can really get you down. > > > > If there really were such a thing as reincarnation men would not be as > > helpless as they are before a beautiful woman. > > > > The revulsion towards incest proves the existence of providence. > > > > Falstaff's first person ontology defeats analysis and yet he is real enough. > > > > Psychotherapy is in any ultimate sense almost useless if it is not as > > subtle as quantum mechanics. > > > > Madonna stopped really being Madonna when she became Kabbala-ized. > > > > Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch was doing the same thing as the > > Evangelist approaching Curtis when he was busking. > > > > Allah is not interested in making someone beautiful or more intelligent. > > > > A philosopher's philosophy is determined not by objective reality, but by > > the subjectivity of the philosopher in his or her unconscious reaction to > > reality. > > > > Churchill, although non-religious, knew he was going to win. > > > > Mitt will seek to understand his defeat entirely inside his Mormonism--and > > not existentially. > > > > No Maharishi in the West without LSD and the Beatles. > > > > Paula and David probably really did love each other. > > > > If you weren't intelligent you didn't get to be one of Saint Teresa of > > Avila's nuns. > > > > Sneezing proves there is (or once was) a Personal God. > > > > My memory of those seven Tour de France victories remains what it was > > despite the fallenness of Lance. > > > > I like the originality of the idea that God became a person inside his > > creation. > > > > Ann writes about horses the way Balanchine talked about ballet. > > > > James Joyce loved reading Aquinas. > > > > I'll go back to doing TM when The Maharishi School of Enlightenment has a > > high school football team. > > > > America is more alive than Canada: that might be our problem--and mine. > > > > The angel of Paris didn't like Hitler standing near the Eiffel Tower. > > > > Oral Roberts could never imagine a Super Bowl commercial--and that proves > > the limits of Evangelical Christianity. > > > > Nobody knows what reality is--reality makes sure this is the case: thus no > > way of resolving these controversies on FFL. > > > > The phenomenon of Elvis Presley proved Christ was no longer in the world. > > > > If Barry is right about me, I would like to find that out. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > This is a good discussion, so against my better judgment :-) > > > I'll weigh in on it. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Opinions and/or possible insights interspersed below: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" > > > > <lurkernomore20002000@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > Perhaps come off differently in his *actions* but perhaps not > > > > necessarily in his *writing*...and the only thing we currently > > > > have that tell us anything about who he is today are his *words*. > > > > > > This is a good point. I have made a similar one in the > > > recent past that I think is relevant -- that most of the > > > people on this forum only *know* about words. They *never* > > > spent any appreciable amount of time around Maharishi or > > > any other spiritual teacher, and as a result place a > > > great deal of importance *on* words. Words are the only > > > way they've ever learned *anything* in a spiritual context, > > > and and they've actually come to believe that they can > > > learn things *from* words that they really can't. > > > > > > But there is another aspect to this that relates more to > > > what laughinggull said. In my opinion -- and please bear > > > in mind that when *I* use those three words I really mean > > > them, not like others here who spout opinion and claim it > > > as truth -- *IF* Robin has changed in any significant way > > > in these last 25 years, he hasn't changed his writing > > > style to reflect it. IMO he is a *lazy* writer, falling > > > into the same ruts while writing FFL posts that he fell > > > into while writing his earlier interminable rants as a > > > wannabee spiritual teacher. > > > > > > THAT, in fact, was the thing that first "blew his cover" > > > on TM-Free. People recognized his corpulent, completely > > > self-obsessed *style*, even though he (as I understand) > > > hadn't revealed who he was. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I would suggest that THIS is an *action* that reveals a > > > great deal about present-day Robin. It's NOT as if what > > > he did with Curtis -- *demanding* that he plow his way > > > through page after page of invective and self-serving > > > justifications -- was unique; he's done it with MANY > > > people here. > > > > > > This leads me to ask, "How exactly is this *action*, this > > > *behavior* any different than when he was equally demand- > > > ing of his cult students, and in fact dragged them up on > > > a physical stage to endure his flagellation? The only > > > thing that seems to have changed IMO is that he shifted > > > from a physical stage to a virtual one, re-enacted in > > > cyberspace. > > > > > > The same bullying, the same *demanding*, and the same > > > overriding sense of *entitlement* are still present. > > > THIS is the primary behavior that makes me believe that > > > nothing has changed from the "old Robin" to the "new > > > Robin." He's still the same bullying cult leader, or > > > trying to be. The only difference is that this time > > > he has run into a few people who refuse to fall for it. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Just the sheer *volume* is an affront to the senses. > > > WHO in their right mind would feel that he has the > > > right to subject people to *literally* novel-length > > > diatribes and then 1) expect them to actually read > > > them, and 2) expect them to respond and get into one > > > of his "confrontations" with him, point by point? > > > > > > I'll tell you WHO -- someone still suffering from > > > Narcissistic Personality Disorder. > > > > > > > It's not really my "cup of tea" which is why I don't > > > > generally read what he writes. > > > > > > Tell me about it. :-) > > > > > > For me it's not just about the florid prose and the > > > oppressive style, but an overriding icky feeling I > > > get when in the presence of someone who has an > > > overweaning sense of *entitlement*. Robin DOESN'T > > > RESPECT his readers. He doesn't respect them enough > > > to allow them to withdraw from one of his harrangues > > > when they want to, and he doesn't respect them > > > enough to fucking EDIT, and find ways to spew his > > > crap in fewer words. > > > > > > > (But I have occasionally uncovered a gem...well, maybe > > > > not a gem but a zirconia...in my in scanning some of > > > > his shorter posts.) > > > > > > I have not. I have been *consistently* underwhelmed. > > > > > > > But that's the "nature of the beast" (i.e. a public forum) > > > > in which we have all *chosen* to participate. What anyone > > > > writes here can be read and responded to, read and not > > > > responded to, or completely ignored (i.e. not read). > > > > > > See, THIS is what Robin -- IMO still lost in his NPD > > > haze -- doesn't understand. It is difficult for him > > > to even *conceive* of the last two possibilities you > > > list above. It's more like, "*I* wrote it...*of course* > > > have to read it and respond to it." > > > > > > > However, what anyone writes comes with a responsibility > > > > of not slandering a person, and the right of anyone to > > > > respond in defense. > > > > > > Not to mention the right to NOT respond to slander, > > > and to just ignore the slanderer as if he (or she) > > > didn't exist. That doesn't "map" to Robin's universe; > > > IMO he doesn't even get the possibility of such a > > > thing happening. He can only envision people reacting > > > the way *he* would react -- "If someone challenges > > > my world view, I *have* to react and bat them down > > > and make them see things the right way...*my* way." > > > I don't think he can comprehend people who have no > > > need to do that. > > > > > > And again, this is a classic symptom of Narcissistic > > > Personality Disorder. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Yet another classic symptom of NPD. Robin's definition > > > of "truth" seems to be "How I see things." > > > > > > > > I mean who communicates like this? Does this seem normal? > > > > > > Does it even seem SANE? > > > > > > > > And does this not resemble the little we know about the WTS? > > > > > > It's *exactly* the same act. > > > > > > > > According to at least three people who were there, Bill, > > > > > Brahmi, and LK, it does resemble that time. > > > > > > > > In his *writing* alone and not necessarily in his *actions*. > > > > > > I hope that I've made this point sufficiently. We do NOT > > > have only his writing with which to judge Robin. We have > > > the ways that he *treats* people, and the ways that he > > > makes *demands* of them. These are all actions. > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be interesting to hear from someone who has > > > > actually been around him for a period of time over the > > > > last couple of years who could really *see* who he is > > > > today? > > > > > > Only if one is interested in Robin to start with. :-) > > > > > > > (I'm beginning to understand the aphorism "actions speak > > > > louder than words".) There is no doubt that he is one of > > > > the more "colorful" characters that I've come across in > > > > my life... > > > > > > Here is where my experience dancing around the spiritual > > > smorgasbord may give me a different perspective. I find > > > Robin Carlsen one of the most ORDINARY people I've ever > > > run across. I've seen cookie-cutter copies of him in > > > half a dozen other spiritual movements. And ANY of the > > > other cookies were more interesting. For one thing, > > > most of them were capable of coming up with their > > > *own ideas*. > > > > > > > ...and I might enjoy sitting down with him more as a > > > > "person of interest" but I think I would not want to > > > > sit down with him regularly. But then again, I try to > > > > keep an open mind about such things. > > > > > > I'd certainly have a beer with the guy, but I wouldn't > > > turn my back on him. > > > > > > > > But evidently Raunchy doesn't see it that way. Nor Judy > > > > > or Ravi I assume. > > > > > > Duh. Robin's act is *their* act. Like attracts like. > > > > > > > I'm beginning to understand where they're coming from. It's > > > > in defense of someone who is being unfairly judged but what > > > > he *writes* alone and not necessarily his *actions* in real > > > > life. > > > > > > I disagree. They like Robin because he's better at being > > > an abuser than they are, and they're gone enough to actually > > > respect that and want to be around it. > > > > > > > > But inspite of this, Robin says he is reformed. That he > > > > > has spent 25 years reforming himself. > > > > > > This is one reason that I have posted some of the things > > > I have about NPD. The condition is rarely successfully > > > treated by professionals, and almost *never* successfully > > > self-treated. > > > > > > > > ...but all we have to go, is his word, because > > > > > his actions don't indicate this, at least to me. > > > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > > "... but all we have to go (on), is his word..." That > > > > exactly right, his *word* (i.e. his writing). > > > > > > I hope I've made the point that we have a great deal more > > > than that to "go on." We have the demands that he has > > > consistently made on others, the abuse he's heaped upon > > > them when they failed to react the way he wanted them to, > > > and the hissy fits he's thrown when someone says something > > > that *really* pushes one of his hot buttons. I find it > > > difficult to comprehend how anyone could have witnessed > > > these things and not considered them "actions." > > > > > > > "...his actions don't indicate this..." What actions? We > > > > can't see his *actions* unless we're in his presence for > > > > a significant period of time. > > > > > > Nonsense. We see them in the *intent* that lies beneath > > > every post, and the *demands* these posts make of others. > > > > > > > I was hung up on the same thing until someone pointed out > > > > to me that writing style can remain the same even though > > > > a person may be different inside. I, for one, am willing > > > > to give him the benefit of a doubt until he proves > > > > otherwise (i.e. does some *actions* that would impact > > > > me in a negative way). > > > > > > And you are free to do just that. Unlike some on this > > > forum, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) that > > > there is one and only one "right" way to view Robin. > > > I'm just presenting the way *I* see him. > > > > > > For me, he has *never* acted in such a way that urges > > > me to give him the benefit of a doubt in terms of > > > "having changed." > > > > > > > > Perhaps he is the cult leader version of a dry drunk. > > > > > > Best line of the whole discussion. :-) > > > > > > > > He still demonstrates some of the behaviors of a cult leader, > > > > > but at his core, he is not. > > > > > > My OPINION is that he still demonstrates not some but > > > *many* of the behaviors of a cult leader, because at > > > his core, he still is one. Nothing has changed. > > > > > > > > But like I said, I like him quite a lot, and I enjoy his > > > > > participation here. > > > > > > > > > > That's my take > > > > > > And now you have mine... > > > > > >
