--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > I find people who insist on getting apologies to be very > tiresome. It's s form of aggression.
Exactly. > In this case, it is not even the "wronged" person who is > insisting on it, but his self-appointed protector. > Authfriend reminds me of a mother hen protecting one of > her chicks, without noticing, apparently, that her "chick" > is a full-grown rooster who can and does out-crow anyone > on the block. For the record, the technical term for this type of person is "fag hag." Contrary to popular belief, this term has nothing to do with whether the people being "protected" are gay or not, only that the self-appointed "protector" seeks to gain power and adulation from them by stepping in as their "savior" as often as humanly possible, thus demonstrating that they are unable to protect themselves. Continuing in my usual subtle way to describe how I perceive this whole tempest in a pisspot, I would describe the seem- ingly neverending demand from some on this forum that others APOLOGIZE as a form of Castaneda's "petty tyrant" behavior. It's a power play. As you suggest, it's aggressive, and its whole intent is to BE aggressive. This particular petty tyrant scenario IN MY OPINION takes two forms. The first (at least as it is acted out on this forum) takes the form: "I don't like something (anything... the particulars really don't matter) you said about me, in this case you calling me a cunt when I was acting like one. Therefore I invoke my God-given right to continue to act like a cunt and harass you any way I can think of until you apologize publicly." The second form of petty tyrant behavior takes the form: "I don't like something you said about someone else on this forum. I'm not *in the least* involved in this, but because I don't like you, I'm *still* going to continue to act like a cunt and harass you any way I can think of until you apologize publicly." You can thank me for expressing the whole scenario this succinctly and more accurately later. My work is done here. There is a tremendous advantage in working a "day job" all day and not being able (for the most part) to plow through all of this infantile FFL crap until I get home. Once I do get home, after dealing with adults all day, I'm really not in a mood to pussyfoot around and pretend that what I perceive as childish idiocy ISN'T childish idiocy. I call it like I see it. This is how I see it. Your mileage may vary, and if it does I really don't give a shit. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a > > "psychological rapist." > > > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step" > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely. > > > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your > > character. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part > > > of an apology. Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could > > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis > > > exchange. For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an > > > apology and this is where the cost comes in. And of course the cost or > > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences. Such as a > > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the > > > family savings for example. > > > > > > But the first step is to offer > > > apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person. > > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year. And it seems > > > we're not getting to it again. But I've made my offer and stand by it. > > > > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing. In those > > > days many people went to confession every week. Also I say it just in > > > case I've hurt someone's feelings. The better I know FFL people the > > > more I'll dispense with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE > > > > > > > > >  > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful > > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis > > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the > > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the > > > > semantics of that) > > > > > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and > > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference > > > to what Curtis said. > > > > > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you. > > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that > > > > > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including > > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when > > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best > > > *ambiguous*. > > > > > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin > > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's, > > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and > > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was > > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response > > > to your post about Barry, Ann. > > > > > > (snip) > > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite > > > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It > > > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to > > > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant. > > > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense > > > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate > > > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before > > > > they even have time to react. > > > > > > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone > > > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent > > > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what > > > will an apology from this person mean for something that > > > really requires an apology? > > > > > > If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to > > > the person to whom it is given. > > > > > > It would cost Share something to apologize for calling > > > Robin a psychological rapist. But she isn't willing to > > > give that much of herself to right the grievous wrong > > > for which she was responsible. > > > > > >
