--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > You've laid out your case, and I am not in a position, nor do I have the > interest in going point by point through it. It is Share's perogative to > describe her interactions with Robin as she feels is appropiate. And I think > if the issue where to go to trial, and she was accused of using an > inappropiate term, I think she would be acquitted. > > And I admit that I do find somewhat amusing the phrase you use (below)that > Robin is willing to push people "a little" in order to have a dialogue. I'm > sorry, but that hasn't been what I have seen, and that may also be the crux > of the whole issue. >
Scene: Courtroom, Share v. FFLife Archives Share: Defendant accused of using an inappropriate term. Steve: Attorney for the defense. Judy: Prosecuting attorney. Judge & Jury: FFLife Judy: Your Honor, the defense has testified that his client should be acquitted for using an inappropriate term on grounds that he is unwilling to rebut the facts of the case as put forth by the witness for the prosecution, FFLife Archives. Judge: It is the opinion of the court that an attorney has a responsibility to address the facts of his case, otherwise it is a dereliction of duty and reason for disbarment. The court finds that attorney Steve is in contempt of this court for accepting a case he was unwilling to defend. Steve: I object, your honor. The "truth" of any particular issue lies somewhere between the two viewpoints. Judge: Your assertion that truth lies in a magical balance between two viewpoints is an untenable stretch of imagination into the realm of truthiness, where because it "feels right" you can disregard evidence, logic and intellectual examination of the facts in the FFLife archives. Therefore, you have failed as Share's self-appointed defender. Fair and Balanced "truth" gives liars a pass and indolent idiots a free ride. That is the crux of the whole issue. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > Thank you Judy for laying it out again. I think one > > > thing you may miss is that interactions often start > > > out friendly. We often give one another the benefit > > > of the doubt. But then, often the exchange starts to > > > escalate and the more friendly banter becomes less so. > > > > No, Steve, I haven't "missed" this phenomenon. > > > > > So it is entirely possible that this is the case here. > > > > Actually not; it's irrelevant in this case. All the hoo-hah > > (as you should have been able to tell if you read the quotes > > from Share's posts) was about one single incident. > > > > > But over and above this, there are some that feel that Robin > > > has the skill of zeroing in on people's blind spots, or > > > unwillingness to acknowledge reality and "bring them around" > > > to a truer picture of things. And then there are others that > > > feel he is engaging in an unwelcome agenda of pushing his > > > notion of what is real, or the truth, with no real interest > > > in a dialogue. > > > > None of which would have been relevant in this case. (Read > > the other post of mine I linked to for more of the context.) > > > > My sense, BTW, is that such feelings about Robin are a > > function of the subconscious recognition of one's discomfort > > with reality. I do agree that Robin doesn't have much > > interest in having a dialogue with someone who refuses to > > acknowledge reality. But he's willing to push them a little > > to see if maybe he can get them to the point at which they > > *will* be interesting to have a dialogue with. > > > > But as noted, none of this would have been relevant with > > regard to the incident with Share. > > > > > And those people may feel that it was exactly what they > > > experiened first hand many years ago, > > > > Which would not have included Share. (And in the case of > > these other people, it *certainly* wouldn't have been > > "exactly" what they had experienced themselves. Those > > confrontations were no-holds-barred, much more intense-- > > and as Ann has pointed out, they were *two-way* > > confrontations.) > > > > > or may feel that > > > it seems exactly as they have understood it to be from > > > those many years ago. > > > > Which was not the case with Share at the time of the > > incident. Mild annoyance was the extent of her feelings > > then, according to her. And as noted, Robin had > > apologized extensively for having been inadvertently > > responsible for that annoyance (inadvertently because > > she was annoyed at what she had misunderstood him to be > > saying, not what he'd actually meant). > > > > What happened between those posts and the "psychological > > rape" accusation four weeks later? > > > > I think I know what happened. I think one of the Robin- > > haters got to her privately and talked her into seeing > > what had initially been only an annoyance as something > > far more serious. When she referred to the incident in > > that later post, notice that she claimed she had been > > very upset by the incident *at the time*. But that > > contradicts what she had said in the two earlier posts. > > > > > Robin has stated that he had come up with a sure fire, > > > infallable method of determining the reality of any > > > situation. Do you remember that? It turns out that it > > > was his entirely subjective determination of reality. > > > Does that alone not sound sort of weird, and raise some > > > flags? > > > > I don't think you read what he said in that vein very > > carefully. Yes, if what you describe were accurate, it > > would be weird. But his take was more complicated and > > subtle than that. > > > > > So, if you happen to be in the "other" camp, where you > > > think he may not possess such abilities, > > > > Remember that he wrote about this because he assumed > > everyone had the ability to do it if they had some idea > > of how to go about it. It wasn't a special ability of his. > > > > > then you may > > > wish to describe his confrontational approach as > > > "psychological rape". > > > > Don't think there's much of a connection here. In any > > case, his "How to Know Reality" posts were made quite > > some time after the incident with Share. And *he > > hadn't been confronting her in the first place*. That > > was *her* misunderstanding. > > > > See what I mean? You have been in this "little microcosm" > > all along, and *you* don't have much of a grasp of what > > went on. How would you expect someone who hadn't been here > > at all to render a meaningful verdict, as you suggested to > > start with? > > > > > And really, I don't understand why that would be such an > > > incendiary term. We fling a lot of insults at one > > > another. I don't know that this is so much worse than > > > the usual fare. > > > > Yet you think "some apologies might be in order, going > > in the other direction." Perhaps you need to think about > > all this just a little bit more; your thinking so far > > has been pretty incoherent. > > > > (BTW, in your post just now to Ann, I think you meant > > "maligned," not "misaligned.") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
