--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > Hey Judy, > > I figured you'd play that angle. Acting as though I was > referring to Share. But no that was not the case. As to > the "psychological rape" accusation, why not solicit an > opinion outside this little microcosm as to whether that > might be an appropiate term.
"Appropriate term" for what? How could anyone outside this little microcosm know what the accusation referred to if they hadn't been following how it all unfolded? Among other things, they would need to know how it started. Here's what Share said to Robin to begin with: "Yes I will excuse your presumption if you excuse my not going down this particular rabbit hole again....So no problemo. Sigh, btw, I notice I'm feeling grumpy this morning. Blaming it on the sugar I ate yesterday. Somehow I've become very sensitive to sugar. Anyway, Robin, apologies for taking it out on you." Five days later, she said this to Robin concerning the same incident: "As for what my feelings were, I didn't suffer or feel insulted. Nor did I think you were being hurtful or cruel. I simply did not want to pursue the theme of whether or not I was being the real me. Nor the theme of my alleged hyper positivity." It wasn't until *four weeks later* that she came up with the "psychological rape" accusation: "Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post. Being psychologically raped didn't feel good then just as it doesn't feel good now." She's referring to the same incident in all three quotes. What accounts for the discrepancy, do you think? I've mentioned this before, as you know, but she has never seen fit to explain it. And BTW, from the outset, Robin repeatedly apologized to *her* for having said something entirely innocuous that *she had misunderstood in the first place*. > Then you might find some apologies might be in order, > going in the other direction. I don't think so, Steve. And her behavior was actually even worse than I just described. For a fuller (but still not complete) account, see this post of mine: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321880 > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > Oh my. I missed this earlier in the day. Barry, Barry, you > > > were right. It's not about defending x,y, or z. It's really > > > about a very demented, pinched, and unhappy person. My > > > compassion reaches out to her. > > > > I don't think she's actually *demented*, Steve. That's a > > little harsh. But if you want to help her get right with > > her karma, see if you can persuade her to apologize for the "psychological > > rapist" accusation. That'll be a big > > step forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks so much for your nurturing words feste. Big karmic burn > > > > > happening. > > > > > > > > About time some of the rotten karma you've accumulated > > > > here started burning you. Let's hope you learn something > > > > from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  All support appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: feste37 <feste37@> > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:24 PM > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S > > > > > VALENTINE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Accuracy" is only part of it, Ann; the rest is interpretation. > > > > > > > You can be technically "accurate" and still present a very > > > > > > > biased view of something. In the case in point, it is not at > > > > > > > all about "communicating," but rather about one person's desire > > > > > > > to win and prove herself right. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it's about one person's desire to expose the > > > > > > malicious motivations and deceptive behavior of another > > > > > > poster here as he tries to smear three other posters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an attitude that works against real communication. > > > > > > > If you look at any of this poster's responses to Share, > > > > > > > for example, they are nothing to do with being "accurate." > > > > > > > They are intended to browbeat and humiliate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, ain't it awful? After all, Share's posts are always > > > > > > shining examples of "real communication" and never have > > > > > > anything to do with winning and proving herself right. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, feste? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. I think Share does try her best to communicate. I think she > > > > > has tried to communicate with you. She has actually been quite gentle > > > > > and sometimes even playful with you, in spite of your persistent > > > > > nastiness and confrontational attitude toward her. You could learn a > > > > > lot from Share if you could free yourself from your obsessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
