You are a funny lady Judy. As I said before, I'll let you run with your fantasies and delusions. It would not be in your best interest, at least in the short term, to disabuse you of them. Everything eventually comes out in the wash.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: She is in the know. On this point, as it happens, so am I. Of course neither of us is going to tell you anything about Robin's private life that he didn't divulge here; what are you, nuts? Ironically, though, as I told you before, he'd already written a number of times about his friend who "called him out on his stuff." But, hmmm, you didn't remember that, did you? So much for your great memory, eh? And that sure as heck isn't how you described the post. If that was what you'd said, I wouldn't have objected, because we already knew that. It was the "daily confessional" with a friend he met "almost every day at Starbuck's" that was off the wall. That's where you were mistaken, and it's not a discrepancy you can just paper over, much as you'd like to, especially when you insisted on it after I told you he'd never said that. And you most certainly do "operate that way." You did it in this very discussion, and you've done it dozens of times before, when you get asked for proof or examples of some claim you've made and refuse to provide it. If Barry hadn't dug this post up for you, that's how you'd have "operated" in this case as well. But even so, when Ann asked you to explain how you could claim your description matched the post, you refused to say. You know who else did it? Your hero, Curtis. And your favorite helpless damsel, Share, has done it. Vaj used to do it, big-time. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it isn't. All three people above used it as an illegitimate weapon against folks they were having conflicts with. Curtis's example was especially reprehensible. Anne, you are saying, "Trust me, because I know what is going on. I'm not going to tell you anything about it, but I'm in the know" Well, I don't operate that way, and I don't know many who do. So as they say, and I don't mean this in an impolite way, but put up, or shut up. There is really no other way to say it. As for being willing to admit a mistake. I need to be shown where I was mistaken, other than, "You are mistaken" ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote: Anne, This post was over a year old. In the body of the post at some point by one of the participants is mentioned "Starbucks". Now if you wish to fault me over this detail, or any other detail, no problem. But I stand by the my overall point that Robin had a friend that appeared to call him out on his "stuff". My apologies that I indicated the setting was at Starbucks, or that I called it a confessional. But I feel my recollection was close enough to what I originally indicated. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another. I know more about Robin past and present than anyone here and I know of whom he speaks when you mistakenly thought he meant some guy at Starbucks. It's fine, but why is it so hard for some of you here at FFL to admit you made a mistake? I, frankly, don't give a crap because I know who and what he was referring to that you got so badly wrong. But what is the deal with not being able to admit you made a mistake about this? This is a rhetorical question, BTW, I don't really need to know the answer to this but you might. Now if others wish to make a federal case out of it,be my guest. But you may have to try me in absentia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote: Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the record. Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty good. My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to predate his participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily confessional." My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, feelings. I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams of quotes notwithstanding. "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything remotely like that. Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly espousing a pseudo-humility. Sorta my take on the whole thing. On the other hand, we do have the "missing" years when he was substitute teaching. Could get some checks in the humility column for that. And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at Starbucks. Do I have that right?
