No, Khazana, the Starbucks invitation stands. Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > Dear Khazana, > > > > It is not possible for you to understand any of this. You have your fixed > > point of view--and you don't even know how all this (my past, me, what has > > happened) can been seen in a different way. You are not capable of a form > > of sophistication and complexity of apprehension that would even begin to > > do justice to what happened in those Ten Years. > > Well, if you say so, it must be like this. > > > You don't have any feeling for the person that I am at all, and if reading > > the first 93 pages of CULT has led to your present impression of me, then > > the book is worse than I thought. > > Sorry to interrupt you here Robin, but reading those 93 pages didn't really > do much to my opinions, they were there before. > > > But no one can do anything to make you see things in a different light--You > > must be right in how you see reality and me. > > Well, Robin, I am not so sure here. Maybe Judy and Raunchy, could we call > them Jaunchy or Rudy, have an effect on my, but I fear it is the opposite > effect they intent. (But then I don't know which effect they actually intent, > maybe the intent this opposite effect ..) > > > There is nothing I can do to change this; so you can just have the > > satisfaction of knowing that anyone (like authfriend or raunchy or Ann or > > those who know and love me in my present life) who disagrees with you must > > be wrong. Because this is how you will always feel. > > Must be, if you say so. You are supposed to have a special insight into > people. > > > Nothing can penetrate this, Khazana. So I will accept that your judgment > > about me is what it will be--and that anyone who sees me very differently > > from you (persons who have known me for 35 years)--they are deceived, and > > you have the correct perception. > > But of course are entirely untitled to their opinions, just as I am, albeit > less informed than Lord Knows, Billy Boy Howell, and of course Ann. > > > It is not necessarily that you are at fault here; but your understanding is > > being determined in a particular way which will brook no compromise or > > modification. > > Gosh, that took some time. So no meeting for us two? > > > You are dead wrong in some vital respects concerning me; but you are > > carrying out a good deed in the eyes of those who would view me as you do. > > In that regard, you are preserving a view of myself which is out there. > > That's certainly a way of seeing it. I only represent a POV, if I wouldn't > somebody else would. Now what's the big deal about it? > > > But if there is anyone who has got a certain immovable and unchangeable > > view of myself, it is you--way beyond Bill Howell and Lord Knows (who will > > be delighted at your obstinacy and implacability). > > I am sorry you so misunderstand me, Khazana, but that is our destiny. > > Yes, Robin, I think so too, it's my destiny to think this way of you. It's > actually completely impersonal from my side, I only give manifestation to a > thought Meme out there. In fact its God's will I think so, > > > Of course I am only telling you what I think, how I feel. > > > > But the system you are employing to understand me, that is a closed system > > and is not subject to being influenced by anything--including the truth. > > Well, it's influenced by my truth, not your truth. > > > You will see things quite differently than this of course. > > > > You a very simple-minded fellow, Khazana. > > Thank you Robin. > > > But who knows? I am not God. Perhaps he sees things exactly as you do. > > He does. He just told me so. > > > But in that case I will have to tell Him he is wrong. :-) > > I know you are at odds since you said he died in 1945. He says that's not a > joke, you know. No kidding about somebodies death, even if he's God. > > > You have a fatal condition of fixed context of apprehension. It is, I > > believe, entirely innocent. > > I realize that in the word 'innocent' is a certain hidden sympathy, right? > > > You are doing your best--that will have to be enough for me. > > Yep, can't do anymore. > > > But we have nothing to say to each other. > > So no meeting at Starbucks then. <uff> > > > Which is disappointing to me. > > So sorry, but at least I am not wasting your time. > > > Robin > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, khazana108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > Starbucks invitation still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look, I wouldn't mind if it was close by. But I think that > > > > > > > > > you should have understanding if people who have been hurt > > > > > > > > > by you in the past, resist meeting you. In this case, > > > > > > > > > challenging them, or putting any kind of psychological > > > > > > > > > pressure on them would surely be detrimental to your > > > > > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > > > > He's done neither. It's an invitation, an offer, to anyone > > > > > > > > who genuinely wants to know whether he has changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet, he posted it in the form of a challenge, and that is > > > > > > > very inappropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not true, khazana: if I posed it as a challenge I would > > > > > > disprove my very assertion. I do not challenge anyone these > > > > > > days. You have seriously misread my first letter to Bill > > > > > > Howell. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe, Robin, but then, if I misread it, that is to say, if > > > > > I misunderstood your intentions, so may have done others who > > > > > are actually concerned. > > > > > > > > That does not follow. Your command of English is faulty, > > > > and you have enormous hostility toward Robin, so you're > > > > prone to misunderstand him in a way that supports your own > > > > pre/misconceptions. > > > > > > > > > I am just saying that I don't understand this move of you, > > > > > trying to 'prove' something (that you have changed). Why not > > > > > just own up to all of them, and let them have their > > > > > judgments, no matter what they where? It is, as if you can't > > > > > accept these judgments, that is why you have to prove to > > > > > them that you are different now. > > > > > > > > Perfect example of what I just described. > > > > > > > > Howell, "Brahmi," and Lord Knows have claimed he has not > > > > changed. Why would Robin "own up" to what they claim if > > > > he believes he *has* changed? Why would he accept what > > > > he feels is an incorrect judgment? > > > > > > Wait, wait, you get it wrong. He offered this AFTER starting to read > > > CULT, and being dissatisfied with the way he was portrayed there. CULT > > > is only about his past, and being dissatisfied with the perception of his > > > ex-followers about these past proceedings, he made this offer. I don't > > > call that owning up to it. > > > > > > > It's entirely appropriate for him to *offer* to prove > > > > he has changed to anyone who doubts it. > > > > > > And it is just as appropriate for them to say: Sorry, we are not > > > interested, you stole us a major part of our adult life, it took us years > > > to get out, we need not invest more time. > > > > > > > And he has said *dozens* of times that he accepts the > > > > judgments of him from 25 years ago, so that was never in > > > > any kind of dispute. > > > > > > No, He didn't. Ask him yourself, or best read his posts, where he states > > > that he doesn't recognize himself in the book, and that this is not the > > > truth about him. For me that mean that he is in DENIAL. And he still > > > wants to influence them by 'proving' to them how much he has changed. > > > > > > > Moreover, his own judgment of > > > > himself has been more severe than anyone else's. > > > > > > So you believe. Other's seem to think different. > > > > > > > > > Lord Knows had no fear of me--even ten years ago. He wanted > > > > > > to meet with me. I was not ready to meet with anyone at > > > > > > that time. He did not come for our scheduled visit in > > > > > > September not because he was afraid of me, but (I believe) > > > > > > because he disapproved of me, and was offended that I did > > > > > > not agree to the conditions which he set for our time > > > > > > together. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he thought me unworthy of his company. > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea of course. I would say, whatever you meet > > > > > now, in the form of Lord Knows and others, is your karma. > > > > > Why not just accept it as it is? Why not just say: I am > > > > > sorry, i was wrong all along. > > > > > > > > What the *freak* is wrong with you, khazana? If he's said > > > > once that he was wrong 25 years ago, he's said it literally > > > > dozens of times. Again, that has never been in dispute. > > > > > > > Then what he wants the f*ck to prove? Why keep haunting these poor people? > > > > > >
