TYING UP SOME LOOSE ENDS- All along this dirt road, I have said things which did not contain certain bits of information which might allow for some to understand things better from my point of view. Since I think they should have been said, Ill say at some of them now, realizing that I could forget some of them now just due to the fact that Im trying to remember them, and have not list to work from. 1) No one is obligated to like anyone else in their family. It might or might not be okay with any other given person if they found out that you didnt like someone that was a close relative. My point here is to communicate that Robbie gets to like who she likes, and dislike who(m) she dislikes. If she doesnt like me, thats her prerogative, just like its anyone elses. This is the situation (or circumstance) we all are in. We all like who we like and dislike who we dislike. My issues with Robbie are not based on an understanding of her not liking me, for whatever reason she may have. Looking at this matter in order to understand how we felt about each other from our first meeting, I would say that neither of us took to the other in a special way. I would further say that both of us made efforts to get along with the other, and that those efforts seemed to work in favor of our continuing to have a workable relationship until approximately 9 years ago. From that point until my fathers death I would say that we both continued making those efforts required for us to continue on. Not immediately, but relatively soon after my fathers death, things changed. The changing of things was a series of events that took place between Robbie and myself, and were changes that she wanted to put into effect. I didnt react to her efforts at first, because I wasnt sure what was going on. My father was no longer there for her to argue with every night, and he was into the nightly arguments perhaps as much as she was. They also argued a lot during the day, but it did seem to me as though the evenings were scheduled for arguing. I initially thought that she was simply transferring her need to argue over to me. That thinking came to change with the advent of additional changes on her part towards me. So, lets just say that her dislike for me began to show, and that her dislike for me could hardly be contained due to what I saw as her clear dislike for my father. I believe Ive spoken to the issue of Robbie disliking every Stewart male, including my father, and that this was evidenced by my hearing only horrible depictions of the way my dad treated her and talked to her, and the same for any other living Stewart male at the time. In addition to the horrible side as expressed to me by Robbie, there was never one instance that Robbie conveyed one word of praise or credit she thought my father was due. I would like to say that its possible that she did on more than one occasion (I believe) compliment some aspect of his cooking and/or willingness to cook. That should be noted. I dont believe Ive included that in the past and was ready to overlook it here because such a compliment didnt address the type of remark which would serve to praise his personality or motivations, or interest in the world hunger issue. Her view was that he wasnt bringing in any money with WHARF, therefore it was basically a waste of time, and he should have gotten a job. I am inclined to agree with that view to some degree, but the uninclined to dismiss WHARF as a waste of time. Im sure I reminded her of my dad in many ways, and Im sure that those were negative reminders, not positive ones. So, disliking me was her right, and although bothersome to a degree did not mandate my speaking out, nor did it motivate my speaking out. I can see that it did not serve to inhibit my speaking out. This issue should be considered by anyone not already understanding things. Those things that she did based on her dislike, and the fact that she had been considering them for 8-10 years were things that she was legally entitled to do based on the trust. I dont have a problem with what the trust says in that regard. I understand it. Im repeating this because I still hear on occasion some statements wanting to know what part of the trust is it that I dont understand, referencing the leaving of all assets to her alone. That was not and continues not to be a point of contention with me, which is why I dont feel obliged to argue against it. So she can dislike me, disinherit me, pay no attention to her verbal agreements with my dad, and all of it is legal as I see it. My problem with people who harp on this point is that they dont understand my argument, even when theyve heard it more than once. I say heard it, but thats obviously incorrect. I would say that shes sensitive to having been exposed for what shes done by virtue of having lied about it all, from beginning to end. Not only has she lied about why Ive done what Ive done, but she has also denied doing what shes done. Although her lies have evidently worked out very well to date, I remain certain that the time will come when the truth is recognized as such, and the need to protect her will fall away in the only sensible conclusion to this episode is reached. Anyone who thinks that my exiting my position for my sake or anyone elses sake hasnt given this much thought at all, and that is clear to me on the face of it. Although it may be hard to see, Im not inclined to accept such a popular thought for some very compelling reasons which I can hardly believe others are unable to see on their own. Since I dont know what the number of family members who havent been able to grasp my position is, I cant say it. But to those of you who dont get my position, I will explain it so that you do, and so that you dont need to labor under the notion that Im just running my mouth, and cant accept whats happened. QUESTIONS ASKED AND ANSWERS GIVEN FOR CLARITYS SAKE AND THE SAKE OF SENSIBILITY FOR THOSE WHO CANT SEE THE SENSE- The first question represents the 2nd loose end referred to at the beginning of this bit and does contain a little repetition for those who like to ask already answered questions in case it was left out. Q.#1- Why is Castle holding on to whats happened, regardless of how or why it happened. ANSWER- This question has become perhaps the BENCHMARK OF OBTUSE QUESTIONS. It suggests that any of a number of things arent real in my telling of events, or that theyre not true, or that my motivations arent real, or that I just cant/wont accept responsibility for things Im clearly responsible for. Ill answer the question by asking anyone who thinks this way the following question... Are you telling me that I should just forget about the damage to my family and that there are many better things for me to spend my time on trying to reconstruct? I do plenty of other things than express myself on facebook. Some days more than others. I dont consider any of those other things to be more important than the effort Im making on facebook. Knowing full well that I could be hurting my own effort, Im going to call this type of thinking nincompoopish. My position seems obvious to me, and shouldnt need explaining. You and everyone else are entitled to see me as expressing a need to avoid looking at a loss as my motive for continuing on. I see this as the heart of obtuse. I have acknowledged everything thats been lost without hesitance. If anyone equates that with having lost, they need to think again. Furthermore, they need to look at their own inability to see whats clearly there, and their own inability to credit me with whats obviously been credited to Robbie, and that is my right to disagree legally with whats been done, and my right to speak out in defense of my family (which really is NOT something Robbys been credited with). Im free to speak the truth and Im going to continue, and there is nothing more important in my life than that. Its my issue and Im going to do it my way. My way has and will continue to include different ways of looking at things that have already been looked at. This is required so that anyone who couldnt see my point from an already given perspective might be able to see it from a new vantage point. Any given reader may reject anything I say for any reason they have, even Robbie would never do something like that (whatever that is). Im the only one doing my thinking, and sometimes it takes me a while to realize a new perspective. I pretty much have to allow for it as opposed to force it out. I feel confident that Robbys own behavior has been the most conspicuous tell-tale sign of her personal shame and need to be dishonest. Her behavioral omissions tell almost the whole story by themselves. I cannot convince anyone of anything if what I say is condemned before I say it. Look at all she hasnt done. Its her choice to do or not to do whatever she wants. Its that fact that gives her away. Its that fact that gives anyone away without them having to say a word. Its the additional lack of response on her part that makes it all the more telling. My telling should in no way impair anyones ability or willingness to apply those normal interpretations to Robby that are applied to others every day or our lives. I became involved in this because of something that was initiated against my family. Its my belief that anyone out there would do the same. Im not asking for it to become your issue. If my intent includes a tacit request from anyone out there, I will figure it out and report back to you regarding what it is. This idea has bothered me, and I will figure it out, admit it, and bring it out so that my agenda becomes even more clear. I think that I already have actually figured it out, but struggled with how to put it. It will probably be the subject of my next entry.
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:11:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015