Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / December 2006

> Raving wrote:
> > Bill in Co. wrote:
> >> Raving wrote:
> >>> Sarah Lister wrote:
> >>>> Okay, here's a fairly practical marriage problem for everyone to think
> >>>> about as opposed to Seeker's broad-based issues.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, well Seeker is an idiot and this group seems to have the greatest
> >>> of difficulty in figuring out the difference between a vagina and a penis.
> >>>
> >>> No surprise there, really.
> >>>
> >>>> One of the things that I do that drives my husband crazy is I leave
> >>>> things open, like cabinet doors, drawers, and (yesterday) the gate to
> >>>> the dog's fence.  Luckily our dog is a homebody and we just found her
> >>>> on the front porch, but my husband was really upset.  He made it clear
> >>>> to me that he wants me to work on this and it's very important to him.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone have any helpful hints on developing new habits of this
> >>>> type?  I'm ADD (hush, Bill) if it helps,...
> >>>
> >>> And Seeker's wife is an OCD type person.
> >>>
> >>>  Shrug. Who gives a rat's a.s.
> >>>
> >>> Not moi, any more.
> >>
> >> Well, why not?
> > T'would seem that whereas you prefer Stoicism (or Asceticism ?), I
> > favor the Epicurean approach.
> >
> >   Does this mean that you are an OCD type thinker, too?
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > Raving
>
> I'm not buying into most of these 3 letter abbreviations for today's world (of
> which there is a near-infinite supply.     Just recall how thick the DSM is
> TODAY.   Anything can be, and will be, classified as a disorder.
>
> Probably even reciting the Pledge of Allegiance out loud (and the possible
> consequences of such, on your mental state) is in there - today.
>
> It seems like almost everybody today has either ADD or ADC or SUB or XOR or EOR
> or ROL or ROR or NOT (or whatever - you fill in the blank), and has an excuse.
> And as a teacher, I was (occasionally)  forced to put up with some unbelievable
> nonsense today (this for the school's fear of a lawsuit - these days).     Most
> of this crap didn't exist before.    Hell, today, if you even look the wrong way
> at a student, or speak the wrong way (by trying to hold him accountable), there
> will probably be a lawsuit against the school.    So, Viva Le Age De
> Enlightemente.
>
> "You can't make me take that test, Teach!     *I* have ADD, and *I'm* excused
> from having to take your damn test (and learn how to spell or do arithmetic, for
> example).
>
> So give me the damn A, and let's be done with it already, or I'll sue your a.s
> and put your school out of business in the process.    Because *I* am special,
> and *I* am *exempt* (and I have a note saying so!) from ALL of your tests, and
> all of your measures of accountability, you meanie, you.

> Raving wrote:
> > Bill in Co. wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not buying into most of these 3 letter abbreviations for today's world
> >> (of which there is a near-infinite supply.     Just recall how thick the DSM
> >> is TODAY.   Anything can be, and will be, classified as a disorder.
> >
> > What were you expecting, eh?
>
> I was expecting more.
> Sigh, seems I'm always expecting more, and am constantly disappointed.
>
> > It's medicine. They are stuck with a pathological paradigm.
>
> So it seems....
>
> > I agree that it's all a huge stinking mess ... and getting worse,
> > quickly.
>
> EXACTLY!!!!!    No!   Say it isn't so!    We're just "discovering" things that
> didn't even exist before!     I understand!    Really, I do....!
>
> ......   /sarcasm off)
>
> >  It's time to set you right, Bill in Co.
>
> Good Luck.
>
> > These '3 letter abbreviations for today's world' describe the pathology
> > of what occurs when genetically determined 'Thinking Proclivities'
> > become dysfunctional.
>
> And isn't that just about everything TODAY?
> Come to think of it, I haven't met all that many completely "functional" people
> (i.e, not dysfunctional at least in some ways, or in some categories)
>
> > For a start; that which is being described is NOT the "Thought
> > proclivity" itself; rather it's the junk and crap that results from the
> > absence of an effective "Thought proclivity".
> >
> > Instead of recognizing and addressing the cause, which is productive
> > and effective, the physicians make the mistake of treating the symptoms.
> >
> > The symptomatology is caused by agents which are different than that of
> > the functioning 'Thought Proclivity'.
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > How does one describe a functional and effective ADD type thinker?
>
> You take a multiple choice test, and if you get 5 or more (out of 10) on it, you
> are ADD.    If you get 4, you aren't!!     So there!       :-)
>
> >    ... It isn't exactly ADD, is it?
> >
> > For starters, there isn't any problem.  One perceives a very effective
> > individual.
> >
> > Describe that "effective" individual, eh?
>
> An "effective" individual?    What the hell does that mean?    Effective at
> what???   No one is effective at everything.