[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > If you are honest, you'll have to acknowledge that you > > > have been doing precisely this since I called you on > > > your psychiatric pseudo-diagnosis of Robin last December. > > > > I haven't. > > Yes, navashok, you have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6kRqnfsBEc
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > > > As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about financial, or > > > > sexual impropieties with Robin. > > > > > > No? What then was the story with Caitlin and Matthew? Robins advances > > to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her evil power of seduction later, > > when she had refused to give in, when at the same time he had asked her > > husband Matthew to give up the marriage and become a priest, as he > > himself wanted to become. (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.) > > > > Sorry, didn't read the book. I am going by what's been reported on this > > site both by detractors and supporters. But even still, if this is your > > solitary example, it sounds a little weak. Usually the sexual > > improprieties tend to be a little more rampant. > > > I think you should read it, you can easily obtain a copy, I was trying to > spare you the details, because I don't want to get into another dog fight > here.Surely the sexual component was not the dominant with Robin, but what he > tried to do with Caitlin wasn't between two consenting adults, as far as the > story goes. But I wasn't there, I have to depend on what is written in the > book. Just if you say there is no accusation of sexual misbehavior, it is not > true, there is. I can pretty much tell you straight out that Robin was no sexual predator. There was no sexual exploitation, activity, innuendo, occurrence or suggestion between Robin and the rest of us. What he did behind closed doors with his girlfriend, later to become his wife, was private and confined to the privacy of his home. Not only did he not touch anyone physically I never caught a single vibe from him that suggested any sort of come on or flirtation let alone invitation to his boudoir. Sorry if that is not what you wanted to hear but that is that. Whatever occurred in that Chicago hotel room between him and the woman there will only truly be known to them and I think they have both moved on. It was at the end of days and was very out of character for the Robin we all knew. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > It would be interesting, for me at least, to know just how > > this played out, because so often, exposes such as this have > > little effect. I mean Andrew Cohen being one example. He > > seems to be doing okay as far as I know. You know, they > > chalk it up to disaffected students, who fell out of favor > > with the teacher. > > Robin had to close up shop and left town (Vancouver) after > the expose came out. > > Unlike Cohen, Robin had the courage and honesty to realize > he had gone off the rails--not immediately, but not long > thereafter. He then withdrew from all but one of his > former associates and friends and spent the next 25 years > working on himself with the assistance of this one friend, > an exceptionally painful process, according to him, that > he almost didn't survive. > > (This is all based on what he's said here in his posts.) > > He had come out of that isolation only a few months before > he showed up on FFL. > Ok, thanks for timeline.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
(snip)
> > > > > I think you should read it, you can easily obtain
> > > > > a copy, I was trying to spare you the details,
> > > > > because I don't want to get into another dog fight
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > You won't get into a "dog fight" by simply reporting what's
> > > > in the book. You *are* likely to get into a dog fight if you
> > > > insist what's in the book must be the objective truth and
> > > > use it to attack Robin (again, in his absence, one of your
> > > > particularly dishonorable tendencies).
> > >
> > > I only hint what is in the book and report it. Where on
> > > earth do I insist it is true?
> >
> > In your post to Steve, you reported the "Caitlin" incident
> > as if it were factual (although you backed off after I
> > pointed out that we didn't have Robin's side of the story).
>
> You have to first read what Steve wrote: Steve said: 'you do
> not hear complaints about financial, or sexual impropieties'
I know what Steve wrote. Here's what *you* wrote:
"Robins advances to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her
evil power of seduction later, when she had refused to give
in, when at the same time he had asked her husband Matthew
to give up the marriage and become a priest, as he himself
wanted to become. (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.)"
As I said, you reported it as if it were factual.
> Factually this is wrong because we hear about complaints
> of sexual improprieties in the book the CULT. That there
> are complaints IS a fact.
Right, I never suggested otherwise.
> If these complains correspond to the actual truth is up
> to everybody's belief.
Right.
> > > The book is there for all to read. It is your insinuations,
> > > pure fantasy by you, that is dishonest.
> >
> > Oh, which "insinuations" were those, navashok?
> >
> > > It can't be a taboo talking about this,
> >
> > Of course not. Nowhere did I suggest it was. I was
> > addressing your silly contention that you'd get into
> > a "dog fight" if you mentioned any details.
> >
> > > and I am not bringing it up from my site,
> >
> > ("Side," not "site.") Again, I didn't say you were.
> >
> > > I am just reacting to what Steve said. Nor do I get after
> > > you, as you continuously insinuate. If you are honest you
> > > will have to acknowledge this.
> >
> > If you are honest, you'll have to acknowledge that you
> > have been doing precisely this since I called you on
> > your psychiatric pseudo-diagnosis of Robin last December.
>
> I haven't.
Yes, navashok, you have.
> Just now, it was you responding to what I reported
That's right.
> and making a couple of unfounded insinuations, like my
> supposed antipathy toward Robin.
You need to check the meaning of "insinuation." I didn't
*insinuate* that you had antipathy toward Robin, I said
it right out. (Or perhaps you use the word "insinuate"
to falsely suggest sneakiness on my part.)
You haven't exactly hidden your antipathy toward Robin.
It's been evident for quite some time.
> Right now, and visible to everybody, it is YOU getting
> after me, just because I have dared to mention Robin.
It was because you described the "Caitlin" incident
as if it were established fact, not because you "dared
to mention Robin." Also because of your absurd claim
that you didn't want to start a "dog fight" by
mentioning details from the book, all the while hinting
darkly that about the terrible things that were in it.
> It is like you are ready to jump any time.
Only when you misbehave.
> > (And I don't "insinuate" this, I say it right up front.)
> >
> > > And yes, I have no reason to believe that Bill Howell is not
> > > saying the truth.
> >
> > You have no reason to believe he is telling the truth
> > either, other than your antipathy toward Robin.
>
> You have no reason to believe I have any antipathy toward
> Robin. I have no agenda with him, this is just your fantasy.
No, it's not. Your denial is dishonest.
> > > You may disagree, that's okay.
> >
> > Much more importantly, does Robin disagree?
>
> But he didn't even read so far, he stopped after page 80
> or so. There are hardly any revelations up to this page.
(He also read the Epilogue.) I'm not sure what "revelations"
have to do with this. That's a red herring you've thrown in.
> > When he commented on the book, Robin was surprisingly
> > generous toward Howell; he didn't accuse him of lying.
> > He did say his own memory differed from Howell's in
> > several factual respects (he didn't say what they were).
> >
> > But he also indicated he felt Howell's overall
> > presentation, albeit sincere, was significantly skewed.
> > I cited an amazing discussion between Ann and Robin in
> > which Robin gave his perspective on it all.
> >
> > Of course, far be it from you to read that discussion
> > for balance.
>
> We
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: (snip) > > > > I guess, luckily for everyone, Robin's deal blew up, or > > > > perhaps more accurately, petered out. > > > > No, it was blown up by a sensational expose in the local > > newspaper that was instigated by Ann in collaboration > > with several others of Robin's followers. > > It would be interesting, for me at least, to know just how > this played out, because so often, exposes such as this have > little effect. I mean Andrew Cohen being one example. He > seems to be doing okay as far as I know. You know, they > chalk it up to disaffected students, who fell out of favor > with the teacher. Robin had to close up shop and left town (Vancouver) after the expose came out. Unlike Cohen, Robin had the courage and honesty to realize he had gone off the rails--not immediately, but not long thereafter. He then withdrew from all but one of his former associates and friends and spent the next 25 years working on himself with the assistance of this one friend, an exceptionally painful process, according to him, that he almost didn't survive. (This is all based on what he's said here in his posts.) He had come out of that isolation only a few months before he showed up on FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> > > (snip>
> > > > I think you should read it, you can easily obtain a copy, I was
> > > > trying to spare you the details, because I don't want to get
> > > > into another dog fight here.
> > >
> > > You won't get into a "dog fight" by simply reporting what's
> > > in the book. You *are* likely to get into a dog fight if you
> > > insist what's in the book must be the objective truth and
> > > use it to attack Robin (again, in his absence, one of your
> > > particularly dishonorable tendencies).
> >
> > I only hint what is in the book and report it. Where on
> > earth do I insist it is true?
>
> In your post to Steve, you reported the "Caitlin" incident
> as if it were factual (although you backed off after I
> pointed out that we didn't have Robin's side of the story).
You have to first read what Steve wrote: Steve said: 'you do not hear
complaints about financial, or sexual impropieties'
Factually this is wrong because we hear about complaints of sexual
improprieties in the book the CULT. That there are complaints IS a fact. If
these complains correspond to the actual truth is up to everybody's belief.
> > The book is there for all to read. It is your insinuations,
> > pure fantasy by you, that is dishonest.
>
> Oh, which "insinuations" were those, navashok?
>
> > It can't be a taboo talking about this,
>
> Of course not. Nowhere did I suggest it was. I was
> addressing your silly contention that you'd get into
> a "dog fight" if you mentioned any details.
>
> > and I am not bringing it up from my site,
>
> ("Side," not "site.") Again, I didn't say you were.
>
> > I am just reacting to what Steve said. Nor do I get after
> > you, as you continuously insinuate. If you are honest you
> > will have to acknowledge this.
>
> If you are honest, you'll have to acknowledge that you
> have been doing precisely this since I called you on
> your psychiatric pseudo-diagnosis of Robin last December.
I haven't. Just now, it was you responding to what I reported and making a
couple of unfounded insinuations, like my supposed antipathy toward Robin.
Right now, and visible to everybody, it is YOU getting after me, just because I
have dared to mention Robin. It is like you are ready to jump any time.
> (And I don't "insinuate" this, I say it right up front.)
>
> > And yes, I have no reason to believe that Bill Howell is not
> > saying the truth.
>
> You have no reason to believe he is telling the truth
> either, other than your antipathy toward Robin.
You have no reason to believe I have any antipathy toward Robin. I have no
agenda with him, this is just your fantasy.
>
> > You may disagree, that's okay.
>
> Much more importantly, does Robin disagree?
But he didn't even read so far, he stopped after page 80 or so. There are
hardly any revelations up to this page.
> When he commented on the book, Robin was surprisingly
> generous toward Howell; he didn't accuse him of lying.
> He did say his own memory differed from Howell's in
> several factual respects (he didn't say what they were).
>
> But he also indicated he felt Howell's overall
> presentation, albeit sincere, was significantly skewed.
> I cited an amazing discussion between Ann and Robin in
> which Robin gave his perspective on it all.
>
> Of course, far be it from you to read that discussion
> for balance.
Well, Robin didn't even read the book which is all about him. He didn't really
care to know, how what he did was reflected in the lives of the people who
spend decades with him, and how they had to struggle to come to terms with it.
I wish him the best and peace nevertheless, but I will give him no special
credit over what others report here.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/326991
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327053
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327243
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327546
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327566
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327058
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327442
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327572
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > > > I don't think you could not be struck by the similiarties > > > of Robin's gig. > > Possibly more apparent than real. > > > > I guess, luckily for everyone, Robin's deal blew up, or > > > perhaps more accurately, petered out. > > No, it was blown up by a sensational expose in the local > newspaper that was instigated by Ann in collaboration > with several others of Robin's followers. It would be interesting, for me at least, to know just how this played out, because so often, exposes such as this have little effect. I mean Andrew Cohen being one example. He seems to be doing okay as far as I know. You know, they chalk it up to disaffected students, who fell out of favor with the teacher. > > > As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about > > > financial, or sexual impropieties with Robin. > > > > No? What then was the story with Caitlin and Matthew? > > One would think it would be a good idea to hear Robin's > side of this story. He was there; Howell was not. > > > Robins advances to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her > > evil power of seduction later, when she had refused to give > > in, when at the same time he had asked her husband Matthew > > to give up the marriage and become a priest, as he himself > > wanted to become. (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.) > > > > > It was mostly the "control" stuff, and emotional abuse. > > Just a reminder that this started happening only in the > final couple of years. > > For Robin's perspective on the ten years of this group and > his role in it, you can't do better than to read the > extraordinary dialogue between Robin and Ann that begins > with Ann's comments on posts of Robin to Xeno and raunchy. > To be fair to Robin, if one has read "Cult," one should > read this dialogue as well. It's quite long, but not nearly > as long as "Cult." > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/326991 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327053 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327243 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327546 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327566 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327058 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327442 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327572 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote:
> > (snip>
> > > I think you should read it, you can easily obtain a copy, I was
> > > trying to spare you the details, because I don't want to get
> > > into another dog fight here.
> >
> > You won't get into a "dog fight" by simply reporting what's
> > in the book. You *are* likely to get into a dog fight if you
> > insist what's in the book must be the objective truth and
> > use it to attack Robin (again, in his absence, one of your
> > particularly dishonorable tendencies).
>
> I only hint what is in the book and report it. Where on
> earth do I insist it is true?
In your post to Steve, you reported the "Caitlin" incident
as if it were factual (although you backed off after I
pointed out that we didn't have Robin's side of the story).
> The book is there for all to read. It is your insinuations,
> pure fantasy by you, that is dishonest.
Oh, which "insinuations" were those, navashok?
> It can't be a taboo talking about this,
Of course not. Nowhere did I suggest it was. I was
addressing your silly contention that you'd get into
a "dog fight" if you mentioned any details.
> and I am not bringing it up from my site,
("Side," not "site.") Again, I didn't say you were.
> I am just reacting to what Steve said. Nor do I get after
> you, as you continuously insinuate. If you are honest you
> will have to acknowledge this.
If you are honest, you'll have to acknowledge that you
have been doing precisely this since I called you on
your psychiatric pseudo-diagnosis of Robin last December.
(And I don't "insinuate" this, I say it right up front.)
> And yes, I have no reason to believe that Bill Howell is not
> saying the truth.
You have no reason to believe he is telling the truth
either, other than your antipathy toward Robin.
> You may disagree, that's okay.
Much more importantly, does Robin disagree?
When he commented on the book, Robin was surprisingly
generous toward Howell; he didn't accuse him of lying.
He did say his own memory differed from Howell's in
several factual respects (he didn't say what they were).
But he also indicated he felt Howell's overall
presentation, albeit sincere, was significantly skewed.
I cited an amazing discussion between Ann and Robin in
which Robin gave his perspective on it all.
Of course, far be it from you to read that discussion
for balance.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/326991
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327053
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327243
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327546
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327566
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327058
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327442
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327572
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > (snip> > > I think you should read it, you can easily obtain a copy, I was > > trying to spare you the details, because I don't want to get > > into another dog fight here. > > You won't get into a "dog fight" by simply reporting what's > in the book. You *are* likely to get into a dog fight if you > insist what's in the book must be the objective truth and > use it to attack Robin (again, in his absence, one of your > particularly dishonorable tendencies). I only hint what is in the book and report it. Where on earth do I insist it is true? The book is there for all to read. It is your insinuations, pure fantasy by you, that is dishonest. It can't be a taboo talking about this, and I am not bringing it up from my site, I am just reacting to what Steve said. Nor do I get after you, as you continuously insinuate. If you are honest you will have to acknowledge this. And yes, I have no reason to believe that Bill Howell is not saying the truth. You may disagree, that's okay.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: (snip> > I think you should read it, you can easily obtain a copy, I was > trying to spare you the details, because I don't want to get > into another dog fight here. You won't get into a "dog fight" by simply reporting what's in the book. You *are* likely to get into a dog fight if you insist what's in the book must be the objective truth and use it to attack Robin (again, in his absence, one of your particularly dishonorable tendencies).
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about financial, or > > > sexual impropieties with Robin. > > > > No? What then was the story with Caitlin and Matthew? Robins advances > to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her evil power of seduction later, > when she had refused to give in, when at the same time he had asked her > husband Matthew to give up the marriage and become a priest, as he > himself wanted to become. (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.) > > Sorry, didn't read the book. I am going by what's been reported on this > site both by detractors and supporters. But even still, if this is your > solitary example, it sounds a little weak. Usually the sexual > improprieties tend to be a little more rampant. > I think you should read it, you can easily obtain a copy, I was trying to spare you the details, because I don't want to get into another dog fight here.Surely the sexual component was not the dominant with Robin, but what he tried to do with Caitlin wasn't between two consenting adults, as far as the story goes. But I wasn't there, I have to depend on what is written in the book. Just if you say there is no accusation of sexual misbehavior, it is not true, there is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about financial, or > > sexual impropieties with Robin. > > No? What then was the story with Caitlin and Matthew? Robins advances to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her evil power of seduction later, when she had refused to give in, when at the same time he had asked her husband Matthew to give up the marriage and become a priest, as he himself wanted to become. (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.) Sorry, didn't read the book. I am going by what's been reported on this site both by detractors and supporters. But even still, if this is your solitary example, it sounds a little weak. Usually the sexual improprieties tend to be a little more rampant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: (snip) > > As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about > > financial, or sexual impropieties with Robin. > > No? What then was the story with Caitlin and Matthew? Robins > advances to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her evil power > of seduction later, when she had refused to give in, when at > the same time he had asked her husband Matthew to give up the > marriage and become a priest, as he himself wanted to become. > (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.) Navashok, yesterday: "It is just amazing what kind of drama is revealed in the book, going much beyond what we knew here, but I won't get into it, I don't want to stir up all the mud here once again." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/334705
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > I don't think you could not be struck by the similiarties > > of Robin's gig. Possibly more apparent than real. > > I guess, luckily for everyone, Robin's deal blew up, or > > perhaps more accurately, petered out. No, it was blown up by a sensational expose in the local newspaper that was instigated by Ann in collaboration with several others of Robin's followers. > > As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about > > financial, or sexual impropieties with Robin. > > No? What then was the story with Caitlin and Matthew? One would think it would be a good idea to hear Robin's side of this story. He was there; Howell was not. > Robins advances to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her > evil power of seduction later, when she had refused to give > in, when at the same time he had asked her husband Matthew > to give up the marriage and become a priest, as he himself > wanted to become. (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.) > > > It was mostly the "control" stuff, and emotional abuse. Just a reminder that this started happening only in the final couple of years. For Robin's perspective on the ten years of this group and his role in it, you can't do better than to read the extraordinary dialogue between Robin and Ann that begins with Ann's comments on posts of Robin to Xeno and raunchy. To be fair to Robin, if one has read "Cult," one should read this dialogue as well. It's quite long, but not nearly as long as "Cult." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/326991 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327053 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327243 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327546 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327566 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327058 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327442 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327572
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > I don't think you could not be struck by the similiarties of Robin's > gig. > > I guess, luckily for everyone, Robin's deal blew up, or perhaps more > accurately, petered out. > > As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about financial, or > sexual impropieties with Robin. No? What then was the story with Caitlin and Matthew? Robins advances to Caitlin were interpreted by him as her evil power of seduction later, when she had refused to give in, when at the same time he had asked her husband Matthew to give up the marriage and become a priest, as he himself wanted to become. (names in the book the CULT, pages 325.) > It was mostly the "control" stuff, and > emotional abuse. > > On the other hand, with Andrew, there wasn't any mention of the teacher > taking advantage of students sexually either. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > This time about Andrew Cohen: > > > > > > Making Sense of Post-Cult Trauma & the Relational System of > > > the Traumatizing Narcissist > > > > > > My Thirteen Years at EnlightenNext > > > by William Yenner > > > > > > > http://americanguru.net/news-and-reviews/making-sense-of-post-cult-traum\ > a-the-relational-system-of-the-traumatizing-narcissist/ > > > > > > > Amazing story, I wonder just how many groups like this there are > > at any one time? There ought to be a govt department keeping > > tabs on them all. If you include all the christian fundy cults > > there must be a significant shift of the nations money into the > > pockets of maniacs. > > > > Read a good book called "Spying in guru land" by William Shaw, > > he's a journalist who spent a year joining as many cults and > > secret religious/spiritual groups as he could find. Fascinating > > stuff, they range from multi-million pound organisations > > formed by early defectors from the TMO to a plumber and his > > girlfriend waffling shallow new age garbage in their council > > flat in Peckham. All of them have devoted members who will > > do pretty much anything to be near their teachers (and spend > > any amount of money). > > > > The cunning thing is the way they hide behind a screen of > > offering acceptable sounding relaxation techniques or just > > philosophy discussion classes and then they slowly reel you > > in to the belief system and the hidden Truth and before you > > know it you're standing on a hill at midnight waiting for > > UFO's, speaking in tongues with the master of the galaxy, or > > even hopping around on bits of foam thinking you are creating > > world peace! Nowt so queer as folk > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
I don't think you could not be struck by the similiarties of Robin's gig. I guess, luckily for everyone, Robin's deal blew up, or perhaps more accurately, petered out. As I've noted before, you do not hear complaints about financial, or sexual impropieties with Robin. It was mostly the "control" stuff, and emotional abuse. On the other hand, with Andrew, there wasn't any mention of the teacher taking advantage of students sexually either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > This time about Andrew Cohen: > > > > Making Sense of Post-Cult Trauma & the Relational System of > > the Traumatizing Narcissist > > > > My Thirteen Years at EnlightenNext > > by William Yenner > > > > http://americanguru.net/news-and-reviews/making-sense-of-post-cult-traum\ a-the-relational-system-of-the-traumatizing-narcissist/ > > > > Amazing story, I wonder just how many groups like this there are > at any one time? There ought to be a govt department keeping > tabs on them all. If you include all the christian fundy cults > there must be a significant shift of the nations money into the > pockets of maniacs. > > Read a good book called "Spying in guru land" by William Shaw, > he's a journalist who spent a year joining as many cults and > secret religious/spiritual groups as he could find. Fascinating > stuff, they range from multi-million pound organisations > formed by early defectors from the TMO to a plumber and his > girlfriend waffling shallow new age garbage in their council > flat in Peckham. All of them have devoted members who will > do pretty much anything to be near their teachers (and spend > any amount of money). > > The cunning thing is the way they hide behind a screen of > offering acceptable sounding relaxation techniques or just > philosophy discussion classes and then they slowly reel you > in to the belief system and the hidden Truth and before you > know it you're standing on a hill at midnight waiting for > UFO's, speaking in tongues with the master of the galaxy, or > even hopping around on bits of foam thinking you are creating > world peace! Nowt so queer as folk >
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
> > More Cult News > > Bhairitu: > The CW's new series "The Cult" starts on the 19th. > They've been running a short 15 second or so promo > during commercial breaks... > You guys seem to just love being in cults and reading about cults - obsessed with the comings-and-goings of the Maharishi. Go figure. You've started your own Cult Awareness Network' (CAN). LoL! "I'd be interested in hearing anything you might have heard in your studies about these guys and how they are regarded in comparison to other religions or belief systems of the time or in any time." - Unc
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
Yeah, the trick is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are tons of "teachers" out there, with the credence of infomercial hucksters. There is some value, IMO, in reflecting back on any spiritual context we are exposed to, and seeing it for what it is, or simply questioning everything that went on. After a while, though, it is the individuals, you and me, each of us, undertaking the spiritual journey, who are the central characters in it. So, if the objective in questioning a spiritual organization is a means to move forward in the journey, by all means, go for it. However, if the purpose of questioning a spiritual organization goes on long after one has left, perhaps the focus on such an organization, is no longer moving the person forward. Perhaps what was once a legitimate criticism of a past association, has now become a fixation, triggered emotionally - a screen preventing forward momentum on the spiritual journey. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > This time about Andrew Cohen: > > > > Making Sense of Post-Cult Trauma & the Relational System of > > the Traumatizing Narcissist > > > > My Thirteen Years at EnlightenNext > > by William Yenner > > > > http://americanguru.net/news-and-reviews/making-sense-of-post-cult-trauma-the-relational-system-of-the-traumatizing-narcissist/ > > > > Amazing story, I wonder just how many groups like this there are > at any one time? There ought to be a govt department keeping > tabs on them all. If you include all the christian fundy cults > there must be a significant shift of the nations money into the > pockets of maniacs. > > Read a good book called "Spying in guru land" by William Shaw, > he's a journalist who spent a year joining as many cults and > secret religious/spiritual groups as he could find. Fascinating > stuff, they range from multi-million pound organisations > formed by early defectors from the TMO to a plumber and his > girlfriend waffling shallow new age garbage in their council > flat in Peckham. All of them have devoted members who will > do pretty much anything to be near their teachers (and spend > any amount of money). > > The cunning thing is the way they hide behind a screen of > offering acceptable sounding relaxation techniques or just > philosophy discussion classes and then they slowly reel you > in to the belief system and the hidden Truth and before you > know it you're standing on a hill at midnight waiting for > UFO's, speaking in tongues with the master of the galaxy, or > even hopping around on bits of foam thinking you are creating > world peace! Nowt so queer as folk >
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
turquoiseb > More Cult News > "I studied with a guy who could turn huge rooms in convention centers gold, to the point where even the security guards saw it, but that never made me think he was enlightened, only that he could do cool things with light." - Unc LoL! > This time about Andrew Cohen: > > Making Sense of Post-Cult Trauma & the Relational > System of > the Traumatizing Narcissist > > My Thirteen Years at EnlightenNext > by William Yenner > > http://americanguru.net/news-and-reviews/making-sense-of-post-cult-trauma-the-relational-system-of-the-traumatizing-narcissist/ >
[FairfieldLife] Re: More Cult News
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > This time about Andrew Cohen: > > Making Sense of Post-Cult Trauma & the Relational System of > the Traumatizing Narcissist > > My Thirteen Years at EnlightenNext > by William Yenner > > http://americanguru.net/news-and-reviews/making-sense-of-post-cult-trauma-the-relational-system-of-the-traumatizing-narcissist/ > Amazing story, I wonder just how many groups like this there are at any one time? There ought to be a govt department keeping tabs on them all. If you include all the christian fundy cults there must be a significant shift of the nations money into the pockets of maniacs. Read a good book called "Spying in guru land" by William Shaw, he's a journalist who spent a year joining as many cults and secret religious/spiritual groups as he could find. Fascinating stuff, they range from multi-million pound organisations formed by early defectors from the TMO to a plumber and his girlfriend waffling shallow new age garbage in their council flat in Peckham. All of them have devoted members who will do pretty much anything to be near their teachers (and spend any amount of money). The cunning thing is the way they hide behind a screen of offering acceptable sounding relaxation techniques or just philosophy discussion classes and then they slowly reel you in to the belief system and the hidden Truth and before you know it you're standing on a hill at midnight waiting for UFO's, speaking in tongues with the master of the galaxy, or even hopping around on bits of foam thinking you are creating world peace! Nowt so queer as folk
