--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Hey, I absolutely *must* win my initial argument at all costs, therefore I'll > re-enter the fray: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > > Hey, if you're saying that he's just pretending to be a > > > > "changed man" in his writings but at heart he's really > > > > still Adolf Hitler, that's your > > > > take on the situation, not mine. :-) > > > > > > Seems to me you missed the premise of your own post. > > > > It seems to me that you missed the whole premise of > > another of my posts, that we do NOT have to rely > > on either Robin's writing *style* to judge him, or > > on the *words* themselves. We have the ACTIONS > > that underlie these posts with which to assess him. > > IMO, this is where the difficulty lies...in what each of us means by > "writing" (or "style" or "words"), and "actions". Of course, the very act of > writing IS an action, and I guess you *could* call the relentless pursuit of > an argument on paper (or through cyberspace) as an action as well, but that's > now how I initially separated the Robin of yesteryear (by his *actions* > alone) from the Robin of today (by his *words* alone) even though there is > intent and action involved in typing those words. > > To me, the confrontations way back when were definitely "actions" in that > everyone involved were in each other's presence with everything that > accompanies this such as the ability to get up in someone's face, punch him, > spit on him, pursue him if he tries to get away, etc. etc. A few people WERE > able to walk away from such actions, but the majority were swayed in one way > or another by these actions (call it charisma, shakti, woo-woo rays, or just > plan weak-mindedness or a predisposition to be attracted to such actions) and > made a choice to submit themselves to this, not just once but again and again > over the years. This is how I view the Robin of yesteryear. > > The Robin of today 25+ years after what I term his *actions* of yesteryear is > only known to most of us by what he has *written* here and at TM-Free. I > don't consider his writing, his words, or even the intent behind his writing > as an *action* because the reader has a clear choice of whether or not to > read those words and/or to respond to them. Those words or writings or even > the intent behind them cannot even begin to touch the reader like those > *actions* of yesteryear; in fact, they can be completely neutralized by > simply hitting the "delete" key in your email or not opening the post to > begin with. > > I'm sure Robin enjoys a good argument as much as anyone (and who doesn't like > to win that argument!) but it takes two to tango, and if there's no response > to someone's post or comment, then it usually ends at that point (unless > you're Buck and respond to your own posts!). I should know because very few > of my posts receive a response. But it doesn't matter because I don't post to > receive a response; I post because I have something to say that may be of > value to someone and once I've said it, I'm done. > > Anyway, that's why I think that none of us can say that the Robin of today is > the same as the Robin of long ago, because we have no basis on which to make > that judgment without being around him physically for a reasonable amount of > time to witness what I think of as true *actions* with all the accompanying > nuances, body language, etc. etc. And besides, who can say that Robin isn't > laughing his ass off or doesn't have his tongue firmly planted in his cheek > as he types his comments here at FFL...maybe he's just having a little fun at > our expense.
I agree that close physical proximity to anyone is the only way to go if you want to really get to know them. The nuances just can't be beat if you want the real goods on someone. Just like my horse, I need to hear them, (smell them!) and watch every little move they make to come to understand more of what is going on in their person(hood). And this on top of hearing what they have to say, in person > > > Those actions, since he has first appeared here, > > have entailed *consistently* trying to suck people > > into one-to-one confrontations with him, so that he > > can argue with them and (in his own mind, at least) > > "win" and establish his dominance. When doing this, > > he has also *consistently* DEMANDED that people not > > only read his long, long, insufferably long rants, > > but rely to each and every one of the points he > > thinks he's raised, as if they *owe* him partici- > > pation in his "confrontation fantasies." When one > > or more people (such as Curtis or Share) have told > > him clearly and unmistakably that they have NO > > INTEREST in pursuing such fruitless egobattles > > with him, he has *consistently* failed to respect > > their choices, and in fact has continued to badger > > them, doing anything he could possibly think of > > to try to lure them back into a one-on-one with > > him. > > See, this is our differences in perception. I don't consider words on a forum > as *actions*, and I definitely don't believe that *confrontations* are even > possible in cyberspace nor can *demands* be placed on anyone (at least not to > me). Why? Because we can just simply ignore them...it's really very easy to > do. I just to let you know I read everything you wrote here and I think it was a thoughtful, reasonable and sensitive viewpoint you expressed. And since you think many of your posts go unresponded to I wanted to let you know that I had a response and this is it. One of your strongest points is that no one can truly be confronted in cyberspace because one can find a way to get away, escape, disappear at any time. There is no coercion here, no ability by the confronter to control the potential confrontee by either imprisoning them or trapping them physically. This is very handy if you want to get away from something unpleasant quickly. Interaction with words, via computer, is different from other actions in that the only thing that can control, touch or hurt you is your willingness to stay engaged with the source of the words you may find repellent and this translates into continuing, through your own free will, to stay staring at a screen, reading what is on that screen, and perhaps responding. > > > These are not things that are revealed in his > > words or stylistic choices (as abysmal as they > > may be). These are ACTIONS. And they ALL reflect > > important behavioral traits seen in people who > > suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. > > If a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to hear it, would it make a > sound? Get the point? > > <snip> >
