---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Ann, you can lump me with turq all you want but that will lead to inaccurate conclusions as it does here. I haven't thought about any of this in a very long time, certainly not about whether you're in Robin's cult and or have an attachment to him. Do I have to do an "Emily" and remind you in detail how you have referred to me as a cult member, a member of Robin's current cult? It may have not been this week or last month but you used to do this all the time. I don't care Share but you and Barry (lumping now) have asserted many false assumptions and opinions about me in relation to Robin. I merely find it silly and ill-informed and I only mention it here because you actually thought I would unfriend my friends if they hated Robin. On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:44 PM, "awoelflebater@..." <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Judy, the people who agreed with you were the ones who usually agree with you. Whereas the people from outside FFL who supported me purposefully came onto FFL to do so and had zero motivation to do so, other than to validate what I had said and thus offer support. I believe Ann remains friends with some of those people and I doubt she would do so if they had negative intentions towards Robin. As well, there are people on FFL who understood what I meant by my accusation and did not find it malign. I'll just clarify this one point, Share. It makes absolutely no difference to me how my friends feel about Robin, whether they love him or hate him, they are still my friends independent of their personal opinions about him. I believe that you and and Barry overestimate my attachment to this man. In fact, I know you both do since you think I am part of his "cult". On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:53 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: I'm sure you're confident, Share. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the picture. The people you spoke to knew Robin 30+ years ago, when he was quite a different person and did a lot of harm, and they had plenty of motivation to encourage you to believe he had mistreated you. We didn't see any such thing here, not even remotely; if anything, the reverse was the case. I stand by my contention that "psychological rape" was your malignant fantasy (as several others here asserted as well). << Judy, based on my own experience and the validation I received from several who experienced Robin in person, I am confident of the validity of what I accused Robin of. >> On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:14 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: OK. I'm not aware of any stories of sexual hanky-panky with Knapp, actually. I don't believe that was the problem Carol had with him. As I understand it, hers was more a matter of genuine psychological rape (as opposed to the kind Share fantasized from Robin). << I read plenty of his stuff and followed his troubles when patients began to complain - I watched him blame everyone but himself and he certainly did use Marshy's playbook in some respects to get his hands on women. >> -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 2/15/14, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... <authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@...> wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: John M. Knapp: Licensing Board Ruling To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, February 15, 2014, 7:15 PM You didn't know Knapp. He followed his own twisted footsteps. << not surprising that he would eventually follow in his form master's foot steps - there are others who have like Bob Fickes >> -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 2/15/14, j_alexander_stanley@... <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: John M. Knapp: Licensing Board Ruling To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, February 15, 2014, 5:48 PM Interesting... when you posted earlier this morning, I Googled around to refresh my memory, and the one thing that really stood out for me was the "defrocked therapist" self-description he uses to promote himself. I thought it very odd that a person would accentuate the consequences of his malevolence as some kind of badge of honor. Strange guy, that one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jchwelch@...> wrote: Thanks for the kind words Anne. Of course, there is a lot that happened between the lines of the brief outline.IMO (and others who were involved), Knapp's revocation is a good thing; he has harmed more than one person, including at least three ex-clients. From Knapp's online public displays, he has claimed he lost his license over at least a year ago (and that due to a lawsuit), though that isn't the case because the ruling wasn't made until January, 2014, and there was never a lawsuit. Regardless, Knapp seems to wear a lost license (or as he publicly describes himself as a "defrocked therapist") as a badge of being a rebel, or something. At least now, there is a public official ruling which will make it difficult for him to get licensed again if he ever would have an interest in doing so.Thanks again. Hope you and the horses are well. :-)
