 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / March 2007Offshoot of OP and OG
During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, having an affair, etc etc etc, I found it somewhat troubling. I posted more than I normally post and I've spent some time trying to figure out why I was so invested in the topic. I realized that some issue in the thread had to do with my marriage and I'll try to explain. A typical scenario in the LaMer household is me sharing how I feel about something, with my husband. A {slighty silly} example might be, "I feel frustrated when I leave the kitchen clean at night and then I wake up to everyone's dirty dishes in the morning and both of you expect me to be the only person to wash the dishes in our house." He'll respond with, "I washed my cup." And as we're standing there, I'm looking at his dinner dishes (from the night before) in the sink, his breakfast dishes next to the sink, his coffee cup on the table, etc. I then point out that those are all his dishes. "But I washed my cup AND I recycled my beer bottle from last night." I then have to change what I said to, "I feel frustrated when I feel as if I'm usually the only one to wash the dishes." Eventually, I might have to change it to "most of the dishes" instead of all of the dishes. He'll then remind of the day two weeks ago when he emptied the dishwasher. Maybe this isn't a good example but I can't think of anything that has happened recently. But a common pattern is that he will correct me when I'm trying to explain how I feel. The subject matter then goes from how I felt and what I was trying to share (in hopes of coming up with a solution or alternative!) basically into why I shouldn't feel that way (but more subtly. Often, the conversation gets caught up in defining, clarifying, analyzing and me restating it in a way that is acceptable to him. My husband gets caught up in DETAILS. I get caught up in wanting him to just try and understand how I FEEL. I often get frustrated, feeling as if I'm getting so far away from my original thought and I've often forgotten what my point really was. My original thought often gets lost, I feel discounted and the conversation has shifted to focusing on the word, the tense, the number...the whatever. I've tried to explain that it would be helpful if he could try and understand how I feel/ and focus on the matter rather than focus on every intricate and minute detail. I have often thought that he used this tactic to avoid the meat of the matter....or perhaps it's a way of diffusing the issue by avoiding it. I sometimes feel that his practice of correcting my use of a word, or pointing out that I was exaggerating, or this is his way of avoiding the real issue. Or is it just very different personality types? How to we find middle ground, if it's just a matter of personality types? I was wondering if debating in ASM is in any way related to how we conduct ourselves in our marriages. Here we are, focusing on the word "affair"....we may not agree upon the use of the word, but as we're going back and forth about what an affair "really" is, a lot of the time has been spent avoiding the real issue. Is this normal? Isn't the meat of the matter that the OP has been sneaking around and falling in love with someone else? Or am I just crazy for thinking that, thta is a HUGE DEAL???? Are we just an average group of folks who like to talk about everything until no sotnes are left unturned? Is it normal to do this in a marriage? Is it healthy? Do you think that people who are drawn to newsgroups are a certain personality type that simply like to debate? Win? Prove our point? Educate others? Learn? Do people really come in here to get help? Are people really here to help others? My husband is a major debator (I almost wrote master debator but that made me laugh)....he loves to debate and I am not a good debator at all. I get lost too easily, I have trouble focusing and remembering things. He is the king. I think that sometimes when I share something about how I feel, that he is too ready for a debate and all I want is for him to hear me. I found myself feeling a bit frustrated in the "affair" thread because it seems to me that a lot of the important issues related to this outside relationship have gotten lost in the midst of defining, re- defining and trying to come up with an agreed upon word for cheating. I feel the same kind of frustration when I try to talk about something important with my husband. That's what made me wonder if there is a relationship between denial, avoidance, changing the topic, enjoying debating.... I don't know. What I do know is that I think too much sometimes. Okay, most of the time. What I'd really like is to learn something about why I've been so invested in this thread and if there's something I can learn that will help improve my marriage. > A typical scenario in the LaMer household is me sharing how I feel > about something, with my husband. A {slighty silly} example might > be, "I feel frustrated when I leave the kitchen clean at night and > then I wake up to everyone's dirty dishes in the morning and both of > you expect me to be the only person to wash the dishes in our house." > He'll respond with, "I washed my cup." I'll answer but with the caveat that your styles and mine are really different. He's quibbiling......an honors violation in my little world. He knows exactly what you're tallking about and he's pretending that he doesn't and the game is afoot....and unfortunately, you take the bait and it goes round and round and his behavior doesn't change. And he wins! But a common pattern is that he > will correct me when I'm trying to explain how I feel. The subject > matter then goes from how I felt and what I was trying to share (in > hopes of coming up with a solution or alternative!) basically into why > I shouldn't feel that way (but more subtly. I think you'd have to ask yourself whether you really want to share your feelings or whether you want him to change his behavior. > Often, the conversation gets caught up in defining, clarifying, > analyzing and me restating it in a way that is acceptable to him. My > husband gets caught up in DETAILS. I get caught up in wanting him to > just try and understand how I FEEL. Do you reallly think he doesn't know that you feel bad, used, frustrated when he leaves his stuff in the sink? If he were to say, oh, poor baby, you must feel frustrated that would be enough, or do you actually want him to carry his dinner dishes into the kitchen before you clean up for the night? I have often thought that he used this tactic to avoid > the meat of the matter....or perhaps it's a way of diffusing the issue > by avoiding it. Bingo! and it's a pretty babyish passive aggressive game in my book. In my little world I don't discuss my feeling much. I come up with direct comments such as "WTF are these expensive clothes doing all over the floor. I'm coming back in here in 15 minutes and they will be neatly hung up in the closets or put into the hamper and you will be vacuuming the floor". However, this is a vignet that would have been used on one of my kids.....not my spouse. And....it would get a hup 2.....no quibilling, no discussion, no back talk. I have no clue on how you can get there from where you are, but you probably don't even want to go there. I was raised this way, my kids were raised this way and they are raising my grandkids this way. It's what passes as healthy where we live. And...btw....I used to have a white board in the kitchen and I wrote brief statements of what needed to be done before I came home. Please vacuum the living room and take the steaks out of the freezer to defrost. etc. there little friends would see things on the white board and comment that I was such a cool mother. go figure...I think it was because i was always one of the youngest moms. While we're at it.....I've noticed that the "you must an misunderstood, that wasn't my intention" is a theme that often comes up in your posts and rarely in others. Apparentlly this happens at your house, too. Something to thiink about. Grace not trying to bitchy but you did ask. I sometimes feel that his practice of correcting my > use of a word, or pointing out that I was exaggerating, or this is > his way of avoiding the real issue. Or is it just very different [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > about why I've been so invested in this thread and if there's > something I can learn that will help improve my marriage. > Grace > not trying to bitchy > but you did ask. God, I really am such a bitch, but i feel frustrated that you seem to put up with so much and are so unhappy with your results. And IIRC acts of service are high on your ways to feel loved and your family does so little for you. Hey....it feels like they don't even pull their own weight, which must leave you feeling really unloved. I tried to find an article I read for you. It was in the Jan 19th 07 The Economist entitled "Inculcating Culture: They Toyota Way"....p11 Survey of Company. I can't reference the link without being signed in with my full legal name.....so..... The highlights: in the Toyota corporate culture everyone on the team knows the way things are supposed to be done and they do them that way. If things aren't done there are consequences....they are off the team. The good of the whole is stressed over "I gotta be me" and each perons respects other team members and the contibutions they make towards having a smooth running highly productive enterprise. It was a good article. Perhaps we might all give some thought to what the corporate culture of our own households is....and how to get it to be what we want it to be. It's the changing horses while galloping that's the challange. Grace >anything that has happened recently. But a common pattern is that he >will correct me when I'm trying to explain how I feel. The subject >matter then goes from how I felt and what I was trying to share (in >hopes of coming up with a solution or alternative!) basically into why >I shouldn't feel that way (but more subtly. I do know what you mean here. I see that happening sometimes in this group, but it also happened to me a lot, on a much grander scale, when I was married. So I can totally empathize. >by avoiding it. I sometimes feel that his practice of correcting my >use of a word, or pointing out that I was exaggerating, or this is >his way of avoiding the real issue. Or is it just very different >personality types? How to we find middle ground, if it's just a >matter of personality types? I think that personality types have a LOT to do with it. It seems to me that the vast majority of people in this group are good, moral people with good intentions, but we do have different personality types and that has to enter into it. >I was wondering if debating in ASM is in any way related to how we >conduct ourselves in our marriages. Here we are, focusing on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >falling in love with someone else? Or am I just crazy for thinking >that, thta is a HUGE DEAL???? No, of course it's a huge deal. I don't think that anyone disagrees with that, but it seems to me that some people (and maybe you're one of them?) are feeling that those of use who are unwilling to slap a blanket label of 'AFFAIR' on every inappropriate emotional connection are wanting to minimize it! That we are unwilling to always call it an affair because we see it as no big deal. That's certainly not the case and I've tried to re-state that time and time again, but I don't feel that has been acknowledged. I'm just seeing comments that almost feel like pot-shots about how those of us who are less than eager to jump on the "affair" bandwagon are doing so because we want to minimize the situation. (To be clear, I'm not talking about anything that you've said in this post.....I totally understand that you're going off in a different direction and exploring an issue). >Are we just an average group of folks who like to talk about >everything until no sotnes are left unturned? Is it normal to do this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >really come in here to get help? Are people really here to help >others? I think there is a certain element of all of that in here, yeah. I was thinking earlier today that this has become kind of a contentious place, and I acknowledge my role in that. It seems that sometimes it's quiet in here.....too quiet!.....maybe because everyone is basically satisfied and happy with their lives. So when an exciting, interesting situation comes up, we pounce on it. >I found myself feeling a bit frustrated in the "affair" thread because >it seems to me that a lot of the important issues related to this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >there is a relationship between denial, avoidance, changing the topic, >enjoying debating.... Could be. I do want you to know that I understand why the words that were used are being used, but I don't feel that the opposing point of view has been well understood (or even attempted to be understood). So it kinda works both ways. >I don't know. What I do know is that I think too much sometimes. >Okay, most of the time. What I'd really like is to learn something >about why I've been so invested in this thread and if there's >something I can learn that will help improve my marriage. I understand this as well. I can analyze things to death and it drives me crazy sometimes, so I know it drives the people around me crazy! I'm trying to be better at it but I don't think it's working too well. Being overly-analytical is a great trait at work; not so great for social interactions. Lauri in WA > During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, having > an affair, etc etc etc, I found it somewhat troubling. I posted more [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > hopes of coming up with a solution or alternative!) basically into why > I shouldn't feel that way (but more subtly. <snipped> Know the scenario well. What I've gotten to work a bit better is to state at the beginning something along the lines of, "I need to talk to you about what I'm feeling. I need you not to start countering or defending yourself. This is about my feelings and about how we can deal with them so that I can work them through and they don't cause us problems." After a while, it does seem that some of the eggshells on the floor begin to disappear. :-) Kitten >> During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, >> having [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > After a while, it does seem that some of the eggshells on the floor > begin to disappear. :-) So I guess you've abandoned the whole "I let him know how I feel by showing him that I'm angry" tactic, huh? Good for you. I'm glad that I managed to get through to you after all. > During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, having > an affair, etc etc etc, I found it somewhat troubling. I posted more [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > usually the only one to wash the dishes." Eventually, I might have > to change it to "most of the dishes" instead of all of the dishes. Now that would drive me absolutely insane! At the "I washed my cup" I'd ask how he thought washing one item of many would result in the clean and tidy kitchen I wanted every morning and would continue bringing him back to that stated goal and how it was going to be achieved for me by the efforts of people other than only myself. Or not. But at the end of the conversation we would all be very clear that the "not" option would be by his choice and not mine. > He'll then remind of the day two weeks ago when he emptied the > dishwasher. Maybe this isn't a good example but I can't think of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hopes of coming up with a solution or alternative!) basically into why > I shouldn't feel that way (but more subtly. I don't think he sounds very interested in how you feel about a lot of things, La Mer, so I suggest you put more effort into identifying the goals and the routes to them that would result in you feeling better. > Often, the conversation gets caught up in defining, clarifying, > analyzing and me restating it in a way that is acceptable to him. My [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > falling in love with someone else? Or am I just crazy for thinking > that, thta is a HUGE DEAL???? It's a huge deal. :) > Are we just an average group of folks who like to talk about > everything until no sotnes are left unturned? Is it normal to do this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > really come in here to get help? Are people really here to help > others? I think personality type comes into a great deal. Obviously (you'll know this about be well enough!) I don't back away from all disagreements but I do tend to be selective about what ones I'll put a lot of effort into anywhere in my life, marriage, friendships or usenet. I reserve my hills to die on for my marriage and close relationships, though, and don't get a great deal from debates once everyone has made their position clear. Besides, I'm a pragmatist and I'd rather just get on with fixing whatever is wrong. > My husband is a major debator (I almost wrote master debator but that > made me laugh)....he loves to debate and I am not a good debator at > all. I get lost too easily, I have trouble focusing and remembering > things. He is the king. I think that sometimes when I share > something about how I feel, that he is too ready for a debate and all > I want is for him to hear me. I would find that very hard, too, especially as he is the the person it should be safest for you to reveal your thoughts and feelings to. If he can't listen to you with sympathy and an open heart then (and this is response is from my emotions and doesn't address *why* he might do that) he is robbing you both of something precious. > I found myself feeling a bit frustrated in the "affair" thread because > it seems to me that a lot of the important issues related to this [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there is a relationship between denial, avoidance, changing the topic, > enjoying debating.... I believe here is a continuum upon which people lie to do with being able to agree to disagree and our postion moves relative to that startng position depending on how important the issue being discussed is to us. :)) Some people start at one or other end but we don't tend to hear from those from the quiet end very often. > I don't know. What I do know is that I think too much sometimes. > Okay, most of the time. What I'd really like is to learn something > about why I've been so invested in this thread and if there's > something I can learn that will help improve my marriage. Good luck with that! Tai >> He'll then remind of the day two weeks ago when he emptied the >> dishwasher. Maybe this isn't a good example but I can't think of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >things, La Mer, so I suggest you put more effort into identifying the goals >and the routes to them that would result in you feeling better. I'm Tai on this. How would it play out if you simply said "I need/want you to wash the dishes more often/tonight?" More often being the general discussion, and tonight being the time sensitive one. I'm a literal person, and can see myself a little in your husband. There is a reason we have so many words in the English language, each has a nuance. I will debate the nuances, when in the mood. The above question removes almost all possibility of debate. You may get a "why". The simple answer back is "I washed the dinner dishes the last 4 nights and need a break". But I guess it depends on what your goal is. Him understanding you feel you do too much, or getting him to do more. The second is probably far more achievable. >I think personality type comes into a great deal. Obviously (you'll know >this about be well enough!) I don't back away from all disagreements but I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Besides, I'm a pragmatist and I'd rather just get on with fixing whatever is >wrong. Tai, your description of yourself sounds a lot like me. Tara Not that I could get Blue to wash a dish anyways since he's caught me one too many times rewashing most of them if he's washed them. Weird, someone who is bothered by hair (on the floor, his clothes), spider webs on the ceiling and dustbunnies anywhere can accept little bits of dried food from a previous meal on dishes. But as I've said before, he's more bothered with clutter, I'm more bothered by dirt and germs. >>> He'll then remind of the day two weeks ago when he emptied the >>> dishwasher. Maybe this isn't a good example but I can't think of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> I don't think he sounds very interested in how you feel about a lot of >> things, La Mer, so I suggest you put more effort into identifying the goals >> and the routes to them that would result in you feeling better. > > I'm Tai on this. How would it play out if you simply said "I > need/want you to wash the dishes more often/tonight?" From all she has said about it in the past, it wouldn't play out any differently. She's already said (in so many words) that it isn't all that important to him. > More often being the general discussion, and tonight being the time sensitive > one. > > I'm a literal person, and can see myself a little in your husband. You can be literal all you want, but if the other person isn't motivated, and doesn't care, what good is it? It doesn't accomplish the desired result. IOW, either you care enough about your spouse's needs, or you don't. > There is a reason we have so many words in the English language, each > has a nuance. I will debate the nuances, when in the mood. The above [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> I think personality type comes into a great deal. Obviously (you'll know >> this about be well enough!) I don't back away from all disagreements but I >> do tend to be selective about what ones I'll put a lot of effort into >> anywhere in my life, marriage, friendships or usenet. I reserve my hills to >> die on for my marriage and close relationships, though, and don't get a >> great deal from debates once everyone has made their position clear. >> >> Besides, I'm a pragmatist and I'd rather just get on with fixing whatever is >> wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dried food from a previous meal on dishes. But as I've said before, > he's more bothered with clutter, I'm more bothered by dirt and germs. >You can be literal all you want, but if the other person isn't motivated, >and doesn't care, what good is it? It doesn't accomplish the desired >result. IOW, either you care enough about your spouse's needs, or you >don't. Thanks, I didn't understand that part of the history. Tara > Not that I could get Blue to wash a dish anyways since he's caught me > one too many times rewashing most of them if he's washed them. Weird, > someone who is bothered by hair (on the floor, his clothes), spider > webs on the ceiling and dustbunnies anywhere can accept little bits of > dried food from a previous meal on dishes. But as I've said before, > he's more bothered with clutter, I'm more bothered by dirt and germs. I'm more bothered by dirt and germs as well and I'd probably rather wash the dishes myself if the alternatives made them look as if the cat had given them a good going over with her tongue and called them done. :) I have an embarrassing story about me and washing dishes from when I was 11. My father was transferred to another city with his job and in between packing up and leaving the old house and arriving in the new town he and my mother decided to take two week's holidays in a neighbour's caravan. I don't know what you call those - trailer campers, perhaps? Anyway, the neighbours wanted my father to tow the caravan to a camping ground at our final destination and were happy for us all to use it on the way. The first night on our journey I insisted on taking all the clean and not the least bit dusty plates, cup, cooking utensils and cutlery to the communal cook/wash house of the camp to wash them myself so they'd be 'fit' for our use. My parents thought I was totally nutty (they were quite right) but humoured me since I wasn't asking them to waste *their* time by helping. Fortunately, I grew out of most of my irrational germophobia but a few little kinks remain. Tai [interesting LaMer household pattern snipped] > Often, the conversation gets caught up in defining, clarifying, > analyzing and me restating it in a way that is acceptable to him. My > husband gets caught up in DETAILS. I get caught up in wanting him to > just try and understand how I FEEL. OK, I am going to bring my personal experience here, see if you can in any way relate. When your husband gets caught in details, is it at the *expense* of understanding how you feel or *in addition* to it? My husband and I often get into a discussions in which he goes in different directions from where my mind is going. Often when I try to bring him back to *the main point*, he tells me that he understands that, but finds these other things interesting too! In general, he is much more of a lateral thinker than I am, and feels confined and frustrated if I try to keep him on a strictly narrow track. > I often get frustrated, feeling > as if I'm getting so far away from my original thought and I've often > forgotten what my point really was. Yes, I understand that it can be difficult to keep focussed. > My original thought often gets > lost, I feel discounted and the conversation has shifted to focusing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > his way of avoiding the real issue. Or is it just very different > personality types? It's understandable that when you want to discuss something important you don't want anything to distract from it. It's not only that the topic of your interest needs to be understood, but at least for that limited period of time it has to be the *only* topic that's discussed, otherwise you feel its importance is diminished, am I right? At least that's the way I feel. > How to we find middle ground, if it's just a > matter of personality types? Well, the way my husband and I deal with it is to acknowledge our difference of personality and consciously try to accommodate each other. Of course I am not comparing our situation with yours, as our discussions (where we have these differences) are usually about interesting topics, but still can be frustrating because I want to focus on something and he wants to jump around other things. One thing that helps a lot is the understanding that neither one of us want to intentionally manipulate the discussion or avoid the other. It is *truly* a difference of style and personality, and acknowledging that goes a long way in helping us accommodate each other. > I was wondering if debating in ASM is in any way related to how we > conduct ourselves in our marriages. In my opinion the extent to which we get frustrated and bothered by the discussions here is indicative of our experiences in real life. For example, you and I may engage in a similar discussion, but I think it makes you more frustrated than me because both of us experience it the way our home discussions make us feel. > Here we are, focusing on the > word "affair"....we may not agree upon the use of the word, but as > we're going back and forth about what an affair "really" is, a lot of > the time has been spent avoiding the real issue. See, I don't see it that way at all! I think the real issue has not been avoided in any way. It has been opened up, analyzed, discussed, judged, and some great opinions and advice exchanged between all, including the OP. In the mean time, an interesting side thread about the meaning of the word "affair" and how different people view it has been going on. To me that has been a bonus! What do you think the avoided "real issue" has been? > Is this normal? > Isn't the meat of the matter that the OP has been sneaking around and > falling in love with someone else? Or am I just crazy for thinking > that, thta is a HUGE DEAL???? But how would you have wanted the "meat of the matter" to be discussed, and what had to happen to confirm that it's a huge deal? Let's take all the discussion about the word "affair" out of this thread. Now look at what is left. Is it anything but a discussion about what a huge deal this is, and how the OP should approach it? So you see, it's not that the side discussion has taken away from the central point of the thread, it has just added something else to it -- and that is a normal thing for a medium like this. A newsgroup discussion is different from one-on-one by nature. When multiple people are involved it's unrealistic to expect everyone to stay on the same track. > Are we just an average group of folks who like to talk about > everything until no sotnes are left unturned? Is it normal to do this > in a marriage? It is normal in my marriage. My husband loves turning every single stone! > Is it healthy? Absolutely. It is not talking about details that is unhealthy, it's lack of consideration for our spouse and not accommodating their needs. And that has nothing to do with discussing details or not. There are people who ignore their spouse's feelings by not talking at all, or shutting down every argument as soon as they can because they can't be bothered with details. > Do you think that people who are drawn > to newsgroups are a certain personality type that simply like to > debate? That makes some sense. > Win? Prove our point? Educate others? Learn? Do people > really come in here to get help? Are people really here to help > others? Probably all of the above in different doses for each individual. > My husband is a major debator (I almost wrote master debator but that > made me laugh)....he loves to debate and I am not a good debator at > all. You are, here! > I get lost too easily, I have trouble focusing and remembering > things. He is the king. I think that sometimes when I share > something about how I feel, that he is too ready for a debate and all > I want is for him to hear me. You two have different styles. This is similar to different love languages. It takes desire, determination, and practice to learn each other's style. > But a common pattern is that he >will correct me when I'm trying to explain how I feel. The subject >matter then goes from how I felt and what I was trying to share (in >hopes of coming up with a solution or alternative!) basically into why >I shouldn't feel that way (but more subtly. I'd be furious, for whatever that's worth. No, not furious. Frustrated as hell. I'm just going to do a teeny bit of rearranging of your post, so I can comment on this in the order I want to... First this bit... >My husband is a major debator (I almost wrote master debator but that >made me laugh)....he loves to debate and I am not a good debator at >all. I get lost too easily, I have trouble focusing and remembering >things. He is the king. I think that sometimes when I share >something about how I feel, that he is too ready for a debate and all >I want is for him to hear me. Remember my ex, the fantasy football guy? Well, I could have written that EXACT paragraph about him. It's not so much that I'm not a good debater as that I just really don't give a damn about debating. I don't want to win or lose; I want us to come to a better understanding of whatever the problem is and then work together to fix it. But with him, it was winning... not that he would have put it that way or that he even (I think) had any awareness that this was what he did, but it was sure the result. Eventually I simply stopped talking to him about a hell of a lot of thing. Well, eventually I stopped talking to him about anything, toward the end. So then this part.... >Often, the conversation gets caught up in defining, clarifying, >analyzing and me restating it in a way that is acceptable to him. My [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >personality types? How to we find middle ground, if it's just a >matter of personality types? I think it IS a matter of personality types. I think that my ex was never trying to be obstructive; it's just the way that he was. I think that likewise he was probably always frustrated because I wanted something from him that he did not/could not/did not know how to give, something like that. I think that it is *possible* to change this in a relationship, but I think it may well take a third party, and it has to take the strong efforts of both people. >I was wondering if debating in ASM is in any way related to how we >conduct ourselves in our marriages. Here we are, focusing on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >falling in love with someone else? Or am I just crazy for thinking >that, thta is a HUGE DEAL???? Yeah, it's a huge deal... but I think that some of the debate (although I admit to having worn out on it a while ago and totally lost interest) has to do with different spins on exactly what kind of a big deal it is... and that in turn may have something to do with how we define the relationship, in our own minds. >Are we just an average group of folks who like to talk about >everything until no sotnes are left unturned? Is it normal to do this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >really come in here to get help? Are people really here to help >others? Well, my husband and I are sort of no stone unturned kind of people. It's both the way that we are naturally, and it's kind of the way that we have to be, because we grew up in different cultures so the same words sometimes mean very different things to us. But there's such a huge difference between this and the kind of debates that I used to have with my ex, because I feel like we're on the same side. Trying to figure it out, not trying to win. I do think that people come here for help, or at least to vent. I think that people who post here do it in part to help and partly because they get a variety of things out of doing so. It's not all altruistic, but few altruistic acts truly are. >I found myself feeling a bit frustrated in the "affair" thread because >it seems to me that a lot of the important issues related to this [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >about why I've been so invested in this thread and if there's >something I can learn that will help improve my marriage. These days, it's pretty rare for me to get terribly invested in a newsgroup topic; I tend to walk away if I get frustrated, mainly because there's some point at which you just kind of have to agree to disagree, and as with many friendships, it's not important that we all see eye to eye on everything. But both in the rest of my life and in my earlier newsgroup days, the thing that would really get me was/is feeling misunderstood, feeling that the other person just didn't get what I was saying, and so it became terribly, terribly important to me that I be heard and understood. This is how I felt with my ex, too, and it's the reason that debating thing just drove me absolutely crazy. > During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, having > an affair, etc etc etc, I found it somewhat troubling. I posted [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > why > I shouldn't feel that way (but more subtly. I understand your frustration, but there is a reason why they recommend against absolutes like, "always," "never," "only" and "everyone." You're standing there telling him he never does anything, and so he feels the need to defend himself, even if his defense is rather weak. Last week DH and DD argued for five minutes over whether or not she "always" leaves her juice bottles on the floor. And inside my head I was screaming, "Who cares if she *always* does it? There's one there now, just tell her to pick it up!" In fact, I think one of the reasons he butts heads with her so often is that he always (<= hee hee, he's not here to see that!) says things like, "Why can't you ever...?" and "I'm sick and tired of dealing with this all the time!" What I'm trying to say here, is that I don't think it's about nit picking or details at all. I think it's totally about being on the defensive. So instead just say, "Will you please clean up these dirty dishes?" Perhaps followed by "I'd really appreciate it if you could do it before you go to bed at night so that I don't have to worry about it in the morning." It might not get any better results, but it might at least curtail the nit picking. > word "affair"....we may not agree upon the use of the word, but as > we're going back and forth about what an affair "really" is, a lot > of > the time has been spent avoiding the real issue. Is this normal? I don't know, but I do know that conversation was/is two-sided. > Isn't the meat of the matter that the OP has been sneaking around > and > falling in love with someone else? Or am I just crazy for thinking > that, thta is a HUGE DEAL???? Of course not. > things. He is the king. I think that sometimes when I share > something about how I feel, that he is too ready for a debate and > all > I want is for him to hear me. I can completely relate to this. > I found myself feeling a bit frustrated in the "affair" thread > because > it seems to me that a lot of the important issues related to this > outside relationship have gotten lost in the midst of defining, re- > defining and trying to come up with an agreed upon word for > cheating. Individual posts often spark general topics. I tried very hard to separate the discussion over the definition of an "emotional affair" away from the discussion about Jadite's situation in particular, but people kept forcing me to return to her situation and try to define *it* in particular. > I feel the same kind of frustration when I try to talk about > something important with my husband. That's what made me wonder if > there is a relationship between denial, avoidance, changing the > topic, > enjoying debating.... I think debates are generally two-sided. You're as vested in your side as he is in his. > I don't know. What I do know is that I think too much sometimes. > Okay, most of the time. What I'd really like is to learn something > about why I've been so invested in this thread and if there's > something I can learn that will help improve my marriage. Heh, well you don't want marital advice from me, so I'll just keep quiet here. Zorra >> During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, having >> an affair, etc etc etc, I found it somewhat troubling. I posted more [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > might not get any better results, but it might at least curtail the nit > picking. One of the things I agreed with Schnarch about in the workshop is that the reliance that has been placed on "communication skills", especially things like empathic listening, is overdone. As he said, do you really think he doesn't *know* that you are frustrated? Of course, he does. It isn't that he isn't hearing it, he just doesn't want to hear it, or care enough to do something about it. So, really, in most cases the whole idea that there needs to be better communication about the way folks feel is often not useful. LaMer, seriously, what is your goal here? I mean, would it make you feel better if he said: "Yes. I totally get that this frustrated the hell out of you. You want to scream every time you see it. It is part of the reason that you get cranky and naggy. I *totally* But, the bottom line is, I don't really want to change it. It seems to me that it is your problem, because I'm okay with dishes being in the sink, and since you are the one who seems to get your nose out of joint about it, it seems to me that you should be the one who changes. So, the long and the short of it is, no... I'm not going to change. Yes, I know it bothers you immensely, but, don't expect to see any change from me, because it just isn't that important to me."? Really, would that suffice? I'm thinking that would probably not go over any better with you. :-) I could be wrong, of course, but... that would be my guess. It seems to me that what you really want is not just to be able to discuss your feelings, but for him to change his behavior. And, you feel that if he *really* could empathize with how much it bothers you, then he would do it (which is what both of us were taught in grad school). I'm just not sure that it is true. I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) still ultimately feel that it isn't your responsibility to change that something to make them happy. Sheila >>> During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, having >>> an affair, etc etc etc, I found it somewhat troubling. I posted more [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >ultimately feel that it isn't your responsibility to change that something >to make them happy. Ultimately, we all have to make choices about what we will or will not change. I think that with my ex, who sounds a lot like LaMer's husband to me, I would have just appreciated a little honesty about it. For me, anyway... if he'd said what you say above, I think it would have gone over a lot better with me than either (1) blank stares, (2) quibbling over tangential things, or (3) idle promises to change with no real intent behind it. Then at least I would have known where I was. >>>> During the rather long thread on what is considered cheating, having >>>> an affair, etc etc etc, I found it somewhat troubling. I posted more [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> >> One of the things I agreed with Schnarch about in the workshop is that the >> reliance that has been placed on "communication skills", especially things >> like empathic listening, is overdone. As he said, do you really think he >> doesn't *know* that you are frustrated? Of course, he does. It isn't that >> he isn't hearing it, he just doesn't want to hear it, or care enough to do >> something about it. So, really, in most cases the whole idea that there >> needs to be better communication about the way folks feel is often not >> useful. >> >> LaMer, seriously, what is your goal here? I mean, would it make you feel >> better if he said: "Yes. I totally get that this frustrated the hell out of >> you. You want to scream every time you see it. It is part of the reason >> that you get cranky and naggy. I *totally* But, the bottom line is, I don't >> really want to change it. It seems to me that it is your problem, because >> I'm okay with dishes being in the sink, and since you are the one who seems >> to get your nose out of joint about it, it seems to me that you should be >> the one who changes. So, the long and the short of it is, no... I'm not >> going to change. Yes, I know it bothers you immensely, but, don't expect to >> see any change from me, because it just isn't that important to me."? >> Really, would that suffice? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> It seems to me that what you really want is not just to be able to discuss >> your feelings, but for him to change his behavior. Well yeah. That seems quite evident, and it's not all that unusual. I'm sure we can ALL idenitify with that! (It's almost a truism of life, I think). > And, you feel that if he >> *really* could empathize with how much it bothers you, then he would do it >> (which is what both of us were taught in grad school). I'm just not sure >> that it is true. I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot >> (2) totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) still >> ultimately feel that it isn't your responsibility to change that something >> to make them happy. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > change with no real intent behind it. Then at least I would have > known where I was. > I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) > totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) > still ultimately feel that it isn't your responsibility to change > that something to make them happy. I'm sure this is true -- I've even felt it myself -- but I have to say that I do still hold out hope -- particularly where my children are concerned. That is, that if I tell them, "Put your dishes in the dishwasher" 20,000 times, then perhaps it will become ingrained. Zorra >> I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) >> totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Zorra Probably when they exit teenagehood. :-) >> I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) >> totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > concerned. That is, that if I tell them, "Put your dishes in the > dishwasher" 20,000 times, then perhaps it will become ingrained. The whiteboard business Grace mentioned is good, though. In my case, after a fruitful discussion with DS11's therapist about his difficulty with cognitively processing things like complex sequences and nuances of meaning, we decided to use more printed lists (in some cases posted in prominent places) detailing the expectations and procedures of various core responsibilities. E.g., I've posted in several places the short list of "picking up after myself"-- did I: hang up my coat, put my backpack in my room, put my shoes on the shoe rack, take my dirty dishes to the kitchen, put my trash in the trashcan, hang up my towels on the towel rack, put my dirty laundry in the hamper? It creates less friction than telling them either "this place looks like a pigsty" or "put your dishes in the dishwasher." Likewise with lists for "cleaning up my room: did I?" and "doing my homework: did I?" In child-development speak, it "increases their sense of mastery." Ultimately, you want them to do these things not because mom told them to, but because it is on the list of things to do (whether that be a posted list, or eventually an internalized one). > The whiteboard business Grace mentioned is good, though. In my case, > after a fruitful discussion with DS11's therapist about his difficulty [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to, but because it is on the list of things to do (whether that be a > posted list, or eventually an internalized one). Good plan! How's it working? We did a brief list on a chart with gold stars when the boys were little. If they had enough gold stars they got the special privlidge of being able to play Atari games before school. it worked like a charm. Sometimes I have a tendency to zone out and let everything slide and when this happens I pull myself out of it by outlining idiot proof reality check lists on my Lotus Organizer...much like the one's you've outlined with your son. It works, especially when I see that I haven't even gotten it together enough to do half the list. It all rolls over to the next day. Grace > Good plan! How's it working? At least with the room cleaning, it seems to be helping a little. I'm such a scatterbrain myself that I am totally lousy with sticker charts and so on, so with room cleaning it's just a once-a-week "do it and you get your reward" thing. Except, there seemed to be a great deal of confusion, and potential for debating and quibbling, over what constituted cleaning your room. Plus both kids are easily overwhelmed by multi-step tasks. So, the charts make it easier for them to get started, keep track of what needs to be done next, and get their reward, without me nagging or popping in every couple of minutes to say, ok, now take all your soda cans to the recycling bin; ok, now put all those scraps of paper in the trash, etc. > > Good plan! How's it working? > > At least with the room cleaning, it seems to be helping a little. I'm > such a scatterbrain myself that I am totally lousy with sticker charts > and so on, Thanks for saying that. :-) Whenever anyone starts one of these threads about how it's really easy, you just have to keep track of every detail and appropriately reward each instance of good behavior immediately, I want to go hide in the corner, because I might as well try to fly to the moon on gossamer wings. > > > Good plan! How's it working? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > immediately, I want to go hide in the corner, because I might as well > try to fly to the moon on gossamer wings. Wow! Another Cole Porter fan! Grace >>> Good plan! How's it working? >> At least with the room cleaning, it seems to be helping a little. I'm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > immediately, I want to go hide in the corner, because I might as well > try to fly to the moon on gossamer wings. Oh, man, don't get me started. My daughter's therapist got me roped into doing a sticker chart for some of her emotion-work therapy goals, and the experience has left both DD and I feeling like miserable failures at times! >>>> Good plan! How's it working? >>> At least with the room cleaning, it seems to be helping a little. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > goals, and the experience has left both DD and I feeling like > miserable failures at times! Oh you poor women, don't feel bad! I think sticker charts are an enormous amount of fun. I've spent hours over the years creating them, making them beautiful and full of positive energy with appropriate rewards and with my heart singing with optimism over their hoped for success... and I think we've managed to stick to one of them for all of a fortnight, most never lasted a week. As far as I can tell their greatest value in our house has been as mother-child craft projects. :) Tai Plus both kids are easily overwhelmed by > multi-step tasks. So, the charts make it easier for them to get started, > keep track of what needs to be done next, and get their reward, without > me nagging or popping in every couple of minutes to say, ok, now take > all your soda cans to the recycling bin; ok, now put all those scraps of > paper in the trash, etc. This is exactly how I use mine on me. It helps to remind me and it also helps to show me how well I'm doing. I only use it in times when Shot Attention Span Theatre and procrastination has me by the throat. Grace > Plus both kids are easily overwhelmed by >> multi-step tasks. So, the charts make it easier for them to get [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I only use it in times when Shot Attention Span Theatre and > procrastination has me by the throat. I manufacture endless To Do lists - if I can put a line through half the tasks in a week I tell myself I've been a good girl. (It's only a small fib!) Tai > I manufacture endless To Do lists - if I can put a line through half the > tasks in a week I tell myself I've been a good girl. (It's only a small > fib!) Lotus Organizer IS my endless to do list! I like it because I can cross reference several categories, ie: Medical: calls, errands, appointments. The biggest benifit is that once i put something on the list i don't have to worry about forgetting it, and I can break it down. Grace >> I manufacture endless To Do lists - if I can put a line through half >> the tasks in a week I tell myself I've been a good girl. (It's only [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The biggest benifit is that once i put something on the list i don't > have to worry about forgetting it, and I can break it down. I still use a pencil and paper - when I tried to use Outlook the rotten thing kept harping on about the things I hadn't got around to doing so I silenced it. Tai >>> I manufacture endless To Do lists - if I can put a line through half >>> the tasks in a week I tell myself I've been a good girl. (It's only [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thing kept harping on about the things I hadn't got around to doing so I > silenced it. Don't you hate it when products do what they were designed to do? >>> I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) >>> totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > them to, but because it is on the list of things to do (whether that > be a posted list, or eventually an internalized one). I've used lists in the past with some success, and DD herself created a list recently that is working well. She wants a new pet. We have a family cat and dog, but she wants a pet of her "own." I've told her that she doesn't get a new pet until she can take care of it completely on here own. She asked how she could prove that, and I told her that she would have to take care of the family pets for 90 days with no supervision or reminding. It's day 6, and so far so good. I am skeptical that she will make it the 90 days, but I'm rooting for her. Zorra > It's day 6, and so far so good. I am skeptical that she will make it > the 90 days, but I'm rooting for her. You need to hook her in to Remember the Milk! (or, in my case, "Remember to Water the Plants (But Not Too Much)"). >> It's day 6, and so far so good. I am skeptical that she will make >> it the 90 days, but I'm rooting for her. > > You need to hook her in to Remember the Milk! (or, in my case, > "Remember to Water the Plants (But Not Too Much)"). Thanks, I made an account for her and will show it to her tomorrow. Zorra > I've used lists in the past with some success, and DD herself created > a list recently that is working well. She wants a new pet. We have a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's day 6, and so far so good. I am skeptical that she will make it > the 90 days, but I'm rooting for her. Good plan. Have you given her the option to ask for help if she has a scheduling problem, Zorra? I doubt that would be a problem for you but if she doesn't know that herself she might feel like she's failing when she isn't really. Tai >> I've used lists in the past with some success, and DD herself >> created [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > but if she doesn't know that herself she might feel like she's > failing when she isn't really. I hadn't thought of it because the kids already split "taking the dog out" duties, so the things on the list are mostly quick, easy, and not needing to be done at a particular time. I'll try to think of a way to let her know that she won't be penalized if it's out of her control though. Spring break is coming up and I may be sending her off to grandma's for awhile, so that would be a good time to bring it up. Zorra >>> I've used lists in the past with some success, and DD herself >>> created [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > though. Spring break is coming up and I may be sending her off to > grandma's for awhile, so that would be a good time to bring it up. That was the sort of thing I was thinking about because as adults we organise things like boarding kennels and catteries without thinking about it and know automatically that being responsible pet owners also means farming them out to other people occasionally. Kids have a narrower world view about such things, generally. I hope your lass succeeds with this, Zorra. Her wanting to take on the care of another creature is a lovely goal for her to have and now that's she's heading rapidly towards those years of maximum self-absorption it would reinforce and extend all those useful lessons she's been already learning that go along with pet ownership, quite apart from the joy pets bring, that is. Tai >> I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) totally >> understand that they are troubled by something and (3) still ultimately [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Zorra See this is wrong IMO. We have some fundamental principle difference. People who come to the FAMILY table ready to eat come to the table ready to participate in the preparation and the clean up. Not for MY sake as a HELP to me. But because it is their responsibility and in their best interest to become that kind of people. People who don't come to the table thus prepared don't eat at the family table. Children in the daycare who play, clean up. Period. And by repeating and repeating and hopting that eventually it will stick is basically saying it is NOT their responsibility it is YOURS. And thus they will never take it as their own responsibility. Period. >>> I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) >>> totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > See this is wrong IMO. What? You think the way I live my life is "wrong"? I never would have guessed.... > >>> I think it is perfectly possible to (1) love someone a lot (2) > >>> totally understand that they are troubled by something and (3) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What? You think the way I live my life is "wrong"? I never would > have guessed.... Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't say the way you led your life was wrong. She said that telling someone something 20,000 times wasn't going to get it ingrained. Of course I don't know if she is right about that, but it isn't a comment about how you lead your life. > Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't > say [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course I don't know if she is right about that, but it isn't a > comment about how you lead your life. Doug, I'm well aware of what she wrote and what she meant. I don't need you to come interpret for me. Zorra >> Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't say >> the way you led your life was wrong. She said that telling someone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Zorra No you don't. You think I have some major good time just come after you with a machete. >>> Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't say >>> the way you led your life was wrong. She said that telling someone [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No you don't. You think I have some major good time just come after you with > a machete. WHAT???? > > Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't > > say [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Doug, I'm well aware of what she wrote and what she meant. I don't > need you to come interpret for me. It didn't look like you knew what she meant. If you did, and in spite of that you pretended to interpret it as her telling you that you lead your life wrong, it doesn't speak so well of you. I saw you evidently misinterpreting something in a way which made you feel bad. It is natural to try to intervene, just as you do when you see something you don't like. In any case, is there a reason you get to put your oar in whenever you like, but you get snippy if someone else does so? >> > Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't >> > say [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > lead > your life wrong, it doesn't speak so well of you. If this were the only post in which she'd criticized the way I live my life, then I could see why you would think I was interpreting this single post that way. There have, however, been many such posts. Zorra > I saw you evidently misinterpreting something in a way which made > you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you > like, but you get snippy if someone else does so? >>> > Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't >>> > say [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > life, then I could see why you would think I was interpreting this single > post that way. There have, however, been many such posts. Criticize. Opine with the possibility that another avenue may be opened. Is grey area. But not for you. > Zorra > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> In any case, is there a reason you get to put your oar in whenever you >> like, but you get snippy if someone else does so? >>> > Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she >>> > didn't [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > this single post that way. There have, however, been many such > posts. GAWD, feel badly for your DH. You consistently do the very same things to others that you then complain makes you a victim if done to you. As a result, you'll always be the victim in your world, and never the victimizer. But what worse is that you cast things in terms of victimization that have nothing to do with that at all. I really do feel very badly for your DH, and for your kids. It's no wonder that your DH lives on the hair edge of absolute and total frustration every single day. > >> > Maybe you don't want to read what Stephanie wrote, but she didn't > >> > say [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > life, then I could see why you would think I was interpreting this > single post that way. There have, however, been many such posts. To em this sounds too much like "I've misinterpreted Stephanie in the past, so I shall continue to do so in the future." But whatever - it's your loss, not hers. >> If this were the only post in which she'd criticized the way I live >> my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > past, so I shall continue to do so in the future." I am aware that you are a big believer in very precise communication. You will analyze every word to understand *exactly* what was said. I, however, believe that there is much more to communication than what was said. In real life we have other cues to help us interpret the words. A lot of that is missing in written communication. Nonetheless, the fact that the cues are missing does not mean that the words, if sufficiently analyzed, tell the entire story. Furthermore, while some of the cues are missing (tone, expression, etc.) there are other cues available. Sometimes what was not said is as important as what was said. Word choice can convey a lot. Implication exists. Because you focus so intently on the words to the exclusion of everything else, I believe that you miss a lot of what is said. Therefore *you* will never convince me that I have misinterpreted someone, because I don't trust your interpretive skills. The OP can convince me that I've interpreted something wrong, but it depends on whether their clarification comes across more like "I didn't say that, you imbecile!" or "Oh, gosh! What I *meant* was...." Zorra > >> If this were the only post in which she'd criticized the way I live > >> my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I am aware that you are a big believer in very precise > communication. No. But I like to try to be precise myself. > You will analyze every word to understand *exactly* what was said. I'm not sure what you mean. If someone says something I'm interested in, I will certainly try to understand what they mean. My first guideline for that (on USENET) is the words they've written, as I can't see their body language or facial expressions. On the other hand, if they tell me they meant something else besides what I initially thought, and explain how they've been misinterpreted, then I'm happy to accept that. > I, however, believe that there is much more to communication than what > was said. On usenet, you pretty much ahve to start with what was said. If that doesn't reflect what was actually _meant_ it is possible to correct that. But you have to be willing to give the writer the chance to correct misimpressions, and you have to be willing to admit that you might have a mistaken impression of what was meant. This doesn't seem like a courtesy you are willing to extend to Stephanie. Again, your right of course, but your loss also I think. > In real life we have other cues to help us interpret the > words. A lot of that is missing in written communication. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Because you focus so intently on the words to the exclusion of > everything else, I believe that you miss a lot of what is said. I agree neither with your premise, nor with your conclusion. > Therefore *you* will never convince me that I have misinterpreted > someone, because I don't trust your interpretive skills. That's your right of course. It is funny though to have someone lecturing me on communication skills telling me that I could _never_ convince them they've misinterpreted something. I think balancing large chips on one's shoulder is a bigger obstacle to understanding than is my habit of trying to actually read the post. But that's all right. If you feel your method is working well for you then stick with it. Mine works well for me. > The OP can convince me that I've interpreted something wrong, but it > depends on whether their clarification comes across more like "I > didn't say that, you imbecile!" or "Oh, gosh! What I *meant* > was...." The OP (meaning the person who was misunderstood) tried in this case. But I guess in her case she must not have done it in the right form. >> >> If this were the only post in which she'd criticized the way I >> >> live [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No. But I like to try to be precise myself. You also appear to like to hold other people to their words, even when they tell you that they were not being precise. >> You will analyze every word to understand *exactly* what was said. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > misinterpreted, > then I'm happy to accept that. Or you argue with them and point out that it was not what they said. >> I, however, believe that there is much more to communication than >> what [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > This doesn't seem like a courtesy you are willing to extend to > Stephanie. Again, your right of course, but your loss also I think. That's not true. Stephanie hasn't particularly tried to correct my impression. She has said that I shouldn't be so sensitive or defensive, but that's not the same thing. >> Because you focus so intently on the words to the exclusion of >> everything else, I believe that you miss a lot of what is said. > > I agree neither with your premise, nor with your conclusion. Of course you don't. >> Therefore *you* will never convince me that I have misinterpreted >> someone, because I don't trust your interpretive skills. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > skills telling me that I could _never_ convince them they've > misinterpreted something. Well, let me rephrase that. You might convince me I've misinterpreted something that *you* said, but because I don't trust your interpretive skills, I have a hard time imagining you being able to convince me that I've misinterpreted something someone else has said. >> The OP can convince me that I've interpreted something wrong, but >> it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > case. > But I guess in her case she must not have done it in the right form. No, she didn't. Okay, so she did briefly say that she wasn't trying to say I was "wrong" only that there is a better way, BUT she quickly went on to defend her use of "wrong" and even went further in saying that the troubles that plague my family are proof that I am indeed doing things "wrong." So I clearly did *not* misinterpret the first post. Zorra >>> >> If this were the only post in which she'd criticized the way I live >>> >> my [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > impression. She has said that I shouldn't be so sensitive or defensive, > but that's not the same thing. Zorra. I also am who I am. Would you believe me if I told you I hold exactly the OPPOSITE of ill will toward you? If I sometimes reply in ways that seem attacking to you, that it is because they are things that have worked for me. Can you believe that in my life someone shook me by the collar and told me to stop being so freaking sensitive all the time; that we have enough oceans and my tears are doing no good? Would you believe that as much as you feel I don't accept you for who YOU are, that I feel you won't accept me for who *I* am? Can you understand that I don't like to be accused of lying in wait for weaklings to come along to pounce on, especially since you are the one who categorized me as strong as you as weak. It was never me. I am going to continue to be who I am. I am probably going to continue to respond to threads that are of interest to me. I am going to continue to wish you the best improvements in your life as you strive toward the happiness I feel you deserve. But I am not going to change who I am or the way I speak for you any more than you are going to do so for me. I would like nother better than common ground of communication, though I doubt that is possible. >>> Because you focus so intently on the words to the exclusion of >>> everything else, I believe that you miss a lot of what is said. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > skills, I have a hard time imagining you being able to convince me that > I've misinterpreted something someone else has said. I think you misunderstood what I said. I made an opinion about loading the dishwasher. You interpretted me to be saying that you were a crap and waste product of a mother. (Ridiculous language is my speciality!) I never thought it, so I can't imagine how I could ever have said it. >>> The OP can convince me that I've interpreted something wrong, but it >>> depends on whether their clarification comes across more like "I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > troubles that plague my family are proof that I am indeed doing things > "wrong." So I clearly did *not* misinterpret the first post. I did not say that. And I don't appreciate your lambasting me either. Thank you very much. > Zorra >> That's not true. Stephanie hasn't particularly tried to correct my >> impression. She has said that I shouldn't be so sensitive or >> defensive, but that's not the same thing. > > Zorra. I also am who I am. Would you believe me if I told you I hold > exactly the OPPOSITE of ill will toward you? I don't think you hold ill will towards me. I do think you don't respect me very much. >Would you believe that as much as you feel I don't accept you for who >YOU are, that I feel you won't accept me for who *I* am? Have I ever, even once, decided to come educate you on any aspect of how you live your life? > Can you understand that I don't like to be accused of lying in wait > for weaklings to come along to pounce on, especially since you are > the one who categorized me as strong as you as weak. It was never > me. Not strong and weak. I regret to the depths of my core that I ever spoke up in this newsgroup about my problems with my daughter. I did not know then what I was opening myself up for. I decided after that, that I would no longer bring any problems I have with her up again in this group. And I did not. I neither complained about her, nor asked for suggestions or solutions. It's too late though, because having admitted the problems in the past, the weak spot is there. If you don't think you exploited that weak spot, then I will point you to where you said things like, "You have a fair amount of frustration and disharmony in your family. How is that working for you?" You, on the other hand, consider yourself a perfect mom (and yes, I do believe at one point you said 100% consistent), a kick-a.s wife, a terrific day-care provider, and so on. Even if I wanted to, I could never come at you with "well you must not be very good at X because look at the results." It's great that your life is so very wonderful and just what you want it to be, but given that you are not experiencing any problems, and thus not leaving yourself open to being "educated" by people who feel they know more than you do, charges of being closed, over-senstive to criticism and so on come across as lobbing grenades from behind a barrier. >> No, she didn't. Okay, so she did briefly say that she wasn't >> trying to say I was "wrong" only that there is a better way, BUT [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I did not say that. And I don't appreciate your lambasting me > either. Thank you very much. That's what those, "How's it working for ya?" type statements read like to me. Zorra >>> That's not true. Stephanie hasn't particularly tried to correct my >>> impression. She has said that I shouldn't be so sensitive or [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Zorra Yup. And again, I'm reminded of that old adage, "there are none so blind as those who cannot see" (meaning, seeing WITHIN THEMSELVES, aka .. DENIAL). > Yup. And again, I'm reminded of that old adage, "there are none so > blind as > those who cannot see" (meaning, seeing WITHIN THEMSELVES, aka .. > DENIAL). You're in denial Bill. You actually cling to the notion that anyone on this Earth is better off with your presence in it. >>> That's not true. Stephanie hasn't particularly tried to correct my >>> impression. She has said that I shouldn't be so sensitive or defensive, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Have I ever, even once, decided to come educate you on any aspect of how > you live your life? I made an opinion on loading the dw. You do the same thing to me that you hate when other people do to you, tell you how you feel and attribute to you things you did not say. >> Can you understand that I don't like to be accused of lying in wait for >> weaklings to come along to pounce on, especially since you are the one >> who categorized me as strong as you as weak. It was never me. > > Not strong and weak. You said it. Not me. You said the thing you despise about usenet is strong peopel waiting around to attack weak people. You said that in specific reply to me making an opinion on a topic of interest to me. > I regret to the depths of my core that I ever spoke up in this newsgroup > about my problems with my daughter. I did not know then what I was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > amount of frustration and disharmony in your family. How is that working > for you?" I am sorry you feel that way. It is true that it is not a good idea to bring something up on usenet that you don't care to discuss. And I don't know why you think being asked how something is working is so offensive. I find it easy to imagine how someone's feelings might get hurt by being accused of stalking innocent victims. I'm sorry you feel that way. I am not going to lose any sleep over it. But it was rude and uncalled for. > You, on the other hand, consider yourself a perfect mom Bullshit. That is YOUR attribution, not mine. You are putting words in my mouth. I can think that it is your defensiveness tlaking, because what else can it be? I have never ever indicated that I am free of mistakes. Quite the opposite. And your putting these words and feelings on my is offensive. > (and yes, I do believe at one point you said 100% consistent), a kick-a.s > wife, a terrific day-care provider, and so on. Wow and I thought I was pissed off at you before Princess Abused and Victimized. > Even if I wanted to, I could never come at you with "well you must not be > very good at X because look at the results." It's great that your life is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Zorra Well princess, have a nice life. You've pissed me off and hurt my feelings enough for one day. I think I will go hang with my perfect husband and children now. >> Not strong and weak. > > You said it. Not me. You said the thing you despise about usenet is > strong peopel waiting around to attack weak people. You said that in > specific reply to me making an opinion on a topic of interest to me. I said "exposing a weakness" I believe strong people have weaknesses. I also didn't say strong, though I would agree you are a strong person. I think I'm a strong person too though. And I most definitely did *not* say anything remotely like "waiting around to". > I am sorry you feel that way. It is true that it is not a good idea > to bring something up on usenet that you don't care to discuss. I brought it up the first time because I didn't know discussing it would be so toxic. I did not bring it up this time. >> You, on the other hand, consider yourself a perfect mom > Bullshit. That is YOUR attribution, not mine. I'm pretty certain that you said you were 100% consistent, and that there was no excuse not to be. If you never said that and don't believe it, then I apologize for attributing it to you. > Wow and I thought I was pissed off at you before Princess Abused and > Victimized. Hmm... Well, I thought you were open to listening to me and what my feelings and reasoning behind them were. However, apparently instead you are only interested in becoming defensive and calling me names. Zorra |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message