 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / August 2007Why Is It?
Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do anything, that he doesn't want to change, that he'd rather continue to live in the same unhealthy way than to work with me on our marriage - he apologizes. But he doesn't do what his counselor is advising, as per Chewy's comments to me about not doing what his counselor says. He still hasn't arranged for joint counseling for us, even though that one is entirely in his lap - so he can't say I'm controlling things by choosing the counselor and scheduling the appts. But he still says I'm controlling things by putting it all in his lap. He still throws his temper tantrums, last night frightening a grown woman with the way he was talking to me. She called me later in tears, asking if I was OK. I wasn't nearly as bothered by his behavior as she was. And then he apologizes and says he's going to work on things. He pushes me away, then tries to pull me back. Then he gets upset when I say I need to *SEE* something different first. Good grief. Kitten > He still hasn't arranged for joint counseling for us, even though that > one is entirely in his lap - so he can't say I'm controlling things by > choosing the counselor and scheduling the appts. > But he still says > I'm controlling things by putting it all in his lap. Wow. That's some logic. T > Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do > anything, that he doesn't want to change, that he'd rather continue [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > He pushes me away, then tries to pull me back. Then he gets upset > when I say I need to *SEE* something different first. You can't go by his words, you can only go by his actions. Words are cheap. BTW, that temper thing happened to a friend of mine. He husband called up a friend of hers, raging mad wondering where she was. My friend was rather humiliated by the whole thing. It's rather sad when you get so used to something like that that it doesn't really register anymore. Zorra > He pushes me away, then tries to pull me back. Then he gets upset > when I say I need to *SEE* something different first. All signs - and not good one's; especially the "throwing temper tantrum" one. Reminds of children that use temper tantrums to attempt control of those around them.  SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) On Aug 25, 5:18 pm, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do > anything, that he doesn't want to change, that he'd rather continue to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Kitten But from his perspective you ARE controlling things. You've removed yourself from the family home for an indefinite period of time; your return is contingent upon your perception that he has made sufficient effort. In fact, no effort or action will be enough unless you decide it's enough. What is that if not control? Personally, I think you're travelling a very dangerous road with someone who has issues with anger, and is seemingly starting to identify you as the person pulling the strings. M. >But from his perspective you ARE controlling things. How do you know this?? are you assuming based on how you would feel in a similar situation? > What is that if not control? As much as your conclusion is correct if standing on it's own; its NOT when healthy behavioral "boundary's" are applied. Kitten is determining what type of person she want's to be involved with and what she's does NOT want in her life and reacting accordingly. I wouldn't put up with that type of woman. Where I see the struggle is her issues are reacting almost co-dependently in nature to his behavior, which is unhealthy overall. Sort of like arguing with someone that persistently wants to argue even when you know it's not solving the differences and leading in the wrong direction. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) >>But from his perspective you ARE controlling things. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I wouldn't put up with that type of woman. ??? Why not? Don't you think people have a right to determine what they want in their life? If you were the type of person she (not Kitten, but a generic woman) wanted to be with, then you might not realize that she had these boundaries, but if you did, wouldn't you respect her for not settling for less? And if you were not the type of person she wanted to be with, then it's probably a good thing that you wouldn't want to be with her either. Kitten has the right to decide what she can and can't live with, as does Chewy. Only the two of them can figure out whether they will end up together or apart. Zorra > Don't you think people have a right to determine what > they want in their life? If this question was meant for me? I don't care what any "generic" women or ASM posters choose. The "only" problem I might have is if said women visits ASM to complain about the results of such a poor choice. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) >> Don't you think people have a right to determine what >> they want in their life? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > women visits ASM to complain about the results of such a poor > choice. Well, she's not just complaining now, she's doing something about it. Zorra > >But from his perspective you ARE controlling things. > > How do you know this?? are you assuming based on how you would feel in a > similar situation? I should have used the word "maybe" or "perhaps". It's based on an assumption, yes. > > What is that if not control? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > her issues are reacting almost co-dependently in nature to his behavior, > which is unhealthy overall. Funny. The first of these two paragraphs reads to me exactly what you're suggesting you'd do in the first sentence of the second paragraph. If I take a more liberal reading of that paragaph and assume that you mean that she is demanding that her husband be reconfigured to suit her, then I say: you married who you married knowing that this is who he is, and what's changed is your attitude to who he is. Based on that reading, if I was in a similar situation, my wife's stuff would be in boxes on the steps of whereever she was staying. Not because I think I'm perfect as I am, but because (I think) it's controlling. M. > If I take a more liberal reading of that paragaph and assume that you > mean that she is demanding that her husband be reconfigured to suit > her, then I say: you married who you married knowing that this is who > he is, and what's changed is your attitude to who he is. Curious --- why? would you want to take a "liberal" unhealthy approach to that sentence... other then to confirm the obvious. But, to go with the hypothesis - it's very possible both parties were emotionally unbalanced when they met and married. One, later goes through a metamorphosis of sorts - finding more balance and understanding of what it takes to have a healthy relationship. At the same time begins seeing how the other persons behavior is subtly undermining progress and the relationship; so she/he calls for behavioral changes. When they don't come within a predetermined period of time - she/he should leave so they don't fall back into old habits. I want to focus attention on a "key" word you used "reconfigured." That word imply's becoming a completely different person from before; not remotely viable or likely when someone's in counseling; as is the case with Kitten. >Not because I think I'm perfect as I am, but because (I think) it's >controlling. Sounds like what Kitten's trying to do. I just hopes she sticks to her guns and doesn't fall backwards when facing the fears of unknown and moving forward. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > > If I take a more liberal reading of that paragaph and assume that you > > mean that she is demanding that her husband be reconfigured to suit [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > come within a predetermined period of time - she/he should leave so they > don't fall back into old habits. I take that approach because your post, as written, suggests that you would not put up with a woman who determines "what type of person she want's to be involved with and what she's does NOT want in her life and reacting accordingly". And that seems - at least to me - to be the opposite of the way things ought to be. So I'm inferring that you meant something other than what I thought you meant. > I want to focus attention on a "key" word you used "reconfigured." That > word imply's becoming a completely different person from before; not > remotely viable or likely when someone's in counseling; as is the case > with Kitten. I used that word quite deliberately, because I believe that's what's on the line. My assumption from Kitten's posts is that reconcilation will ultimately require treatment for bi-polar disorder, and a change in the way he deals with his daughter, various life stresses, and maybe other issues as well. > your post, as written, suggests that you > would not put up with a woman who determines "what type of person she [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ought to be. So I'm inferring that you meant something other than what > I thought you meant. Misunderstanding of my post - because, I am supportive of Kitten's actions 100% to the extent - she should walk away permanently. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) <snipped> > >Not because I think I'm perfect as I am, but because (I think) it's > >controlling. > > Sounds like what Kitten's trying to do. I just hopes she sticks to her > guns and doesn't fall backwards when facing the fears of unknown and > moving forward. But that's just it. I'm not afraid of the unknown and moving forward. I'm afraid of staying in that old pattern of abusive behavior. So I'm not going to. Kitten > But that's just it. I'm not afraid of the unknown and moving > forward. I'm afraid of staying in that old pattern of abusive > behavior. So I'm not going to. Me'zzz hope so... I've seen people in your situation before:-( One proactively in counseling looking for improvement and change with open heart; but, when they look forward and imagine life without their SO - accepting less change is easier to rationally swallow then facing forward on their own. The SO intermittently in counseling, very little commitment to the counseling process AND biding time. If you got it dats a goody thing;-) SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > On Aug 25, 5:18 pm, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe > <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > M. I don't think any progress is going to be made until he starts treatment for his bi-polar disorder. > > On Aug 25, 5:18 pm, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe > > <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > I don't think any progress is going to be made until he starts treatment for > his bi-polar disorder. I don't think any progress is going to be made in his treatment for bi- polar disorder until it's actually diagnosed by a doctor, not just by Kitten - being exactly like his daughter, who has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, is not a diagnosis. And then after that, I'd get a second opinion or two, because in my life's experience with my mother, doctors don't necessarily agree. M. >>> On Aug 25, 5:18 pm, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe >>> <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > M. Even if he's diagnosed for it, that ain't gonna cut it. He's also got to be willing to get on, and stay on, the meds for it, too. > I don't think any progress is going to be made in his treatment for bi- > polar disorder until it's actually diagnosed by a doctor, not just by > Kitten - being exactly like his daughter, who has been diagnosed with > bi-polar disorder, is not a diagnosis. Jumping to such diagnostic "assumption" when other illnesses could be involved is where ASM folks cross the line from offering simply healthy marital support and advice TO potentially creating detrimental feelings of concern surrounding gossip. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > > I don't think any progress is going to be made in his treatment for bi- > > polar disorder until it's actually diagnosed by a doctor, not just by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > marital support and advice TO potentially creating detrimental feelings > of concern surrounding gossip. Actually, this is not an ASM issue. The person who jumped to this diagnostic assumption (which I agree is problematic) is Kitten (that is, the wife of the diagnosed person). I think it is probably destructive for spouses to be diagnosing each other's mental illnesses. I have no idea if Kitten is right or not about Mr Kitten's supposed bipolar disease. If she isn't, then I think her diagnosis is problematic. But even if she _is_ right, I think that in a couple already at odds, no benefit is being served by one deciding the other has a mental illness. Imagine: you are fighting with your spouse, not getting along well, and she tells you that you have bipolar disorder. Is that going to make it more likely for you to get treated? >> > I don't think any progress is going to be made in his treatment for bi- >> > polar disorder until it's actually diagnosed by a doctor, not just by [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that you have bipolar disorder. Is that going to make it more likely > for you to get treated? Of course he needs to be seen and diagnosed by a competent psychiatrist. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt in regards to his supposed mental illness, because while there are good treatments for mental illness, there are none for being a mean, cruel, stubborn jackass. > Of course he needs to be seen and diagnosed by a competent psychiatrist. > I was giving him the benefit of the doubt in regards to his supposed mental > illness, because while there are good treatments for mental illness, there > are none for being a mean, cruel, stubborn jackass. I agree... sorry if I errored with your intrepretation. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > ASM folks Newsflash for ya, SD.. you're the third most prolific poster in this group this month. I think you need to reconsider your disdain for the "ASM folks": From googles pages: Top posters This month 314 Vickie 290 surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net 218 s...@2muchspam.com 150 ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com 147 zor...@comcast.net 137 h...@noway.net 122 Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe 120 ida...@conversent.net 104 tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid 70 calliope123rem...@remove.gmail.co On Aug 26, 11:11 am, "-Calliope-" <calliope123rem...@remove.gmail.com> wrote: > > ASM folks > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 104 tainuitidel...@gmail.com.invalid > 70 calliope123rem...@remove.gmail.co What the f.ck Cal?? You saying I got no life of something? How embarassing. Vickie > On Aug 26, 11:11 am, "-Calliope-" <calliope123rem...@remove.gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Oh never-mind. You got 444 posts mostly to tv.american.idol. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Vickie >> > ASM folks >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > What the f.ck Cal?? You saying I got no life of something? How > embarassing. Good grief Vickie, RELAX, for god sake. Unlike you I did not go seeking out any one individual poster, though I was curious about SD since he continues to make disparaging remarks about the "ASM Folks" or "ASM regulars". I thought it assuming considering that he IS one of us now. He's been assimilated Now go to this link which is where all I did was copy and paste: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.marriage/about?hl=en On Aug 26, 11:31 am, "-Calliope-" <calliope123rem...@remove.gmail.com> wrote: > >> > ASM folks > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I know, I know, I over reacted because I was embarrassed I posted so much. I saw what you were getting at after my first spastic remark. Sorry. Vickie > I know, I know, I over reacted because I was embarrassed I posted so > much. I think many of us can lay claim to have landed in the top spot a time or two.. I wouldn't worry about it too too much, at least not unless you stay there for months on end! LOL. > I saw what you were getting at after my first spastic remark. Sorry. Okay... Yeah.. I wasn't out to denigrate anyone for posting or for their quantity.. (though I was surprised to see I had 70 this month, I'm sure a large portion of them are this weekend! LOL).. My one and only point in that post was to get a little chuckle, considering how much SD likes to make comments about the ASM regulars, when he's one of the most regular there is.. perhaps even a chuckle out of him, as well.. I mean.. really.. how can one not find that even a tiny bit funny? On Aug 26, 11:43 am, "-Calliope-" <calliope123rem...@remove.gmail.com> wrote: > > I know, I know, I over reacted because I was embarrassed I posted so > > much. > > I think many of us can lay claim to have landed in the top spot a time or > two.. I wouldn't worry about it too too much, at least not unless you stay > there for months on end! LOL. Eeegads I hope I don't, but who know?? SAHM syndrome, I guess.... > > I saw what you were getting at after my first spastic remark. Sorry. > > Okay... Yeah.. I wasn't out to denigrate anyone for posting or for their > quantity.. (though I was surprised to see I had 70 this month, I'm sure a > large portion of them are this weekend! LOL).. More than likely, lol. > My one and only point in that post was to get a little chuckle, considering > how much SD likes to make comments about the ASM regulars, when he's one of > the most regular there is.. perhaps even a chuckle out of him, as well.. I > mean.. really.. how can one not find that even a tiny bit funny? Yeah, it is. I hope *he* finds it humorous. Although he could stop posting as much and that would be a bummer. I think he is a good guy. Vickie > Newsflash for ya, SD.. you're the third most prolific poster in this group > this month. I think you need to reconsider your disdain for the "ASM > folks": Being "prolific", says nothing other then numbers. I know, you don't care about "why?" I just don't get those that are so focused on being statistically right, they do and google search to see. FYI - most of my responses recently were to idiot argumentative NOT nice ASM posters. I do admit - not wise on my behalf; so I decided NOT to argue with anyone further... period the end. As soon as the post starts turning into an argument or a no win debate; I will stop. I've also included some in "delete" function script so their posts get deleted during download;-) I be happy. >> Newsflash for ya, SD.. you're the third most prolific poster in this >> group this month. I think you need to reconsider your disdain for >> the "ASM folks": > > Being "prolific", says nothing other then numbers. I know, you don't > care about "why?" My point is that you have become one of those 'regulars'... don't you see the humor in that? > My point is that you have become one of those 'regulars'... don't you see > the humor in that? LOL... I don't see myself as one of "those" regulars; but, I get your point - if numbers are the indicator. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > > Newsflash for ya, SD.. you're the third most prolific poster in this group > > this month. I think you need to reconsider your disdain for the "ASM [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > FYI - most of my responses recently were to idiot argumentative NOT nice > ASM posters. I just don't get how you can refer to other posters as being "idiot argumentative" and realize that _you_ are the one being "NOT nice" under than charactherization. >>> Newsflash for ya, SD.. you're the third most prolific poster in this group >>> this month. I think you need to reconsider your disdain for the "ASM [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > argumentative" and realize that _you_ are the one being "NOT nice" > under than charactherization. As Sheila said, stop being so condescending, Doug. > > I don't think any progress is going to be made in his treatment for bi- > > polar disorder until it's actually diagnosed by a doctor, not just by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > marital support and advice TO potentially creating detrimental feelings > of concern surrounding gossip. I really don't care whether or not he ever gets any particular dx, bipolar or otherwise. All I care about is that the yelling not be in my life. He can either get healthy, or not. His choice. My choice is to work toward a healthy life. Kitten On Aug 27, 1:46 pm, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I really don't care whether or not he ever gets any particular dx, > bipolar or otherwise. All I care about is that the yelling not be in > my life. He can either get healthy, or not. His choice. My choice > is to work toward a healthy life. > > Kitten Absolutely right Kitten! I had a co-worker once that use to go into crying jags whenever someone criticized her work or pointed out that she yells whenever she got upset. My boss would tell me she going thru a hard time at home. I would say I don't care, I don't like being yelled at and I won't tolerate another emotional outburst. I'm here to work and she should be too. she should take time off and adjust her attitude, not have everyone else walk on eggshell for her. You should tell people how to treat you and abusive language/actions are unacceptable. My mother use to use this type of behavior toward me. She would say VERY nasty stuff to me and because she was my mother, I was suppose to "accept it". After the last nasty e-mail to me, I wrote her back and said I was done. When you can talk to me like an adult and respect me, we can chat, AND after an apoligy. She called me two week later crying, saying what ever happened to that sweet little boy she raised. I said, "mom, I'm 47 and you can't treat me like a child or say nasty stuff to me, I'm just not going to put up with it. You make the choice, have an adult relationship with me or none at all." I know she was going there a rough time with medical problem and money, but that is no excuse to lash out at me when I'm trying to help and sending money. Stick to your guns. It's going to be a very rough ride. It always is trying to make people break distructive behavior that work for them for many years. EB > > "Michael" <mick...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I have to agree with this. Professional needs to do the diagnosing, but it is hard if said person is unwilling to look into it. Now he is going to a therapist. Wonder if he/she will pick up on it. You would think they would if it is truly the case. Vickie I dunno Kitten. You want the honest truth - the guy is what he is, and doesn't seem inclined to permanent change (may not be truly motivated, may not be capable). Given that, the time is close to accepting that and either moving on, or learning to live with what he is. Since I don't think you can do the latter, time to make some decisions about the former. M. > I dunno Kitten. You want the honest truth - the guy is what he is, and > doesn't seem inclined to permanent change (may not be truly motivated, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > M. Unfortunately, this is probably the truth, or so it seems. > Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do > anything, that he doesn't want to change, that he'd rather continue to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Kitten You are controlling because in that manner he can abdicated his responsibility, IMO. He wants to be able to continue to say what ails him and what ails you is not HIM, not his FAULT. That is paramount. Stand your ground and wait as long as you are willing to. Don't listen to I'm going to. When he starts, he starts. When he talks, it's just piss and vinegar. Again, IMO. And best of luck! On Aug 26, 12:18 am, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do > anything, .... he apologizes. > But he doesn't do [the things he should]... Well this is mostly speculation on my part, so please don't ask me to justify it but... I get the impression that when you married Chewy, he and his family were very, *very* needy. And that's one part of what attracted you to them, because you do have a feel for weak or damaged creatures who need your help. Chewy and his family were like a bunch of ornery orphan goats! But maybe that's how Chewy attracts women, by being extra-needy. Well- meaning but helpless and lacking self control, and *so* much in need of a strong loving woman to keep him on the straight and narrow. And now you are threatening to leave, well, he's falling back on that old strategy again. Hence the tantrums and the unreliable behaviour over the lift to church and not making the counselling appointments... it's one big "oh poor helpless me". And if that's so, then don't give in to it. Now you *do* want him to act like a grown up and acting like a baby will only drive you away, not hold you. And the point of being grown up is that you can't help him, the most you can do is not get in his way. Tell him that it doesn't matter who is in control, if he wants to make counselling appointments then he can do it, and you will judge what he wants by whether he does it or not. Good luck and stand for what you want! Cailleach > Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do > anything, that he doesn't want to change, that he'd rather continue to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Kitten Top posting because I don't want to delete anything. Kitten, I think Cailleach has a terrific understanding of what is probably going on for Chewy. And yes, you are being controlling but only in the sense of deciding what you need from him to continue your marriage, in that sense the control is in the "take it or leave it" message. Chewy still has his choice to make and _that_ you can't control at all, it's up to him. > On Aug 26, 12:18 am, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe > <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >> >> Kitten > Top posting because I don't want to delete anything. Kitten, I think > Cailleach has a terrific understanding of what is probably going on for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the "take it or leave it" message. Chewy still has his choice to make and > _that_ you can't control at all, it's up to him. And it *has* to be a "take it or leave it" message. The past few days, I've had to deal with his and YD's temperament issues again, if only briefly. Last night, I again experienced a severe reaction, even though I'm on twice the recommended dosage of the OTC I'm using to counteract the reaction. I've a dr's appt in an hour to see what can be done to alleviate these symptoms, and I'm in counseling to work on it from that direction as well. My health has been sliding for the past few years due to the stress. To *me*, if a person's actions are having a negative effect on another person's health, and the person *loves* the other person, s/ he works on doing away with the actions that are having the detrimental effect. But that's just me, I guess. Kitten > To *me*, if a person's actions are having a negative effect > on another person's health, and the person *loves* the other person, s/ > he works on doing away with the actions that are having the > detrimental effect. But that's just me, I guess. I see this as "idealistic" based on hopes; neither of which is practical or healthy in life depending of the behavior or action; regardless who's life were talking about. Just because your SO's behavior doesn't help your health doesn't mean it's his responsibility to change his behavior and the reverse it true regarding you. Expecting such leans upon co-dependant behavior. It's your responsibility to determine whether or not you can live with his behavior. As is the case for him - does he want to live with your behavior? Keep in mind, we're not talking about whether or not the toilet seat is up or down. Based on reading your posts, minor behavior changes are NOT the problem for either of you. You two have seriously deep seated issues that play off each other in unhealthy ways, overshadowing and dragging down what healthy interactions you share. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) >> To *me*, if a person's actions are having a negative effect >> on another person's health, and the person *loves* the other person, s/ [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's your responsibility to determine whether or not you can live with > his behavior. She already knows this, S.D. Come on, now. > As is the case for him - does he want to live with your > behavior? Keep in mind, we're not talking about whether or not the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" > My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > She already knows this, S.D. Come on, now. I don't like all the antics and piddling on each others toes in ASM; and don't have time for it. Your piddling with his remark and behaving just like those you supposedly detest. I learned in catholic school as a child - "if I can't say something nice - dont' say anything at all." Try being the better person. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) >> She already knows this, S.D. Come on, now. > > I don't like all the antics and piddling on each others toes in ASM; and > don't have time for it. Your piddling with his remark and behaving just > like those you supposedly detest. I wasn't trying to be piddling. I just found it kind of insulting for you not to believe that she didn't know this already! > I just found it kind of insulting for you > not to believe that she didn't know this already! Insulting --- What the hell do you have to do with her issues and my exchange with her regarding them (rhetorical) Go outside and do some gardening... I was in no way insulting her intelligence just responding to "HER" POST content based on my knowledge of the subject; and I might add; not in a judgemental manner! SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) On Aug 28, 1:13 pm, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> To *me*, if a person's actions are having a negative effect > >> on another person's health, and the person *loves* the other person, s/ [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > She already knows this, S.D. Come on, now. Yes, I already know I'm idealistic. ;-) Kitten > > To *me*, if a person's actions are having a negative effect > > on another person's health, and the person *loves* the other person, s/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or healthy in life depending of the behavior or action; regardless who's > life were talking about. Idealistic, perhaps, but idealism based on watching my grandparents care for each other, and on the way my mother's side of my family lives. I just don't have the same quality of marriage my grandparents had. > Just because your SO's behavior doesn't help your health doesn't mean > it's his responsibility to change his behavior and the reverse it true > regarding you. Expecting such leans upon co-dependant behavior. IME, when you truly love someone, you place that person's health as a priority. Sometimes that means giving up something unhealthy in one's own behavior. Even Chewy gets that, to a point. He gave up cigarettes because OS has asthma. He gave up drinking because it bothered OS and YD. That shows a great deal of care and concern for them. > It's your responsibility to determine whether or not you can live with > his behavior. As is the case for him - does he want to live with your > behavior? Keep in mind, we're not talking about whether or not the > toilet seat is up or down. Based on reading your posts, minor behavior > changes are NOT the problem for either of you. You're right. These aren't minor issues. > You two have seriously deep seated issues that play off each other in > unhealthy ways, overshadowing and dragging down what healthy > interactions you share. That's an understatement. Kitten On Aug 29, 1:56 am, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe <st_brigids_gate_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Idealistic, perhaps, but idealism based on watching my grandparents > care for each other, and on the way my mother's side of my family > lives. That reminds me of an argument I had with DH before our son was born, where he was talking about his sister and their husband who were kind of his ideal for parenthood. He wanted to copy them and I ended up yelling "Yes but we can't do that - *I'm* not Jenny and *you're* not John!" :-) > IME, when you truly love someone, you place that person's health as a priority. Well, up to a point, yes. But taken to an extreme, I wonder if health becomes a kind of substitute for love. "You aren't doing everything you could to keep me healthy, you can't love me". And I have been struck by how many demands you have put on yourself for other people's sake without regard for your own health. Maybe assuming that if you do enough for *their* health, they they will do as much for you in return - but what if that's how *you* love and not how *they* love? In any case, expecting other people to care more for your health than you do is IMO dangerous! So, keep on taking care of your own needs! Cailleach > > > To *me*, if a person's actions are having a negative effect > > > on another person's health, and the person *loves* the other person, s/ [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Kitten >Idealistic, perhaps, but idealism based on watching my grandparents >care for each other, and on the way my mother's side of my family >lives. I just don't have the same quality of marriage my grandparents >had. My catholic euro grandparents were married for 57yrs - so roll modeling holds great value to me; maybe more so, since they contributed a great deal to raising me. Notwithstanding, what you describe is a short of unhealthy expectations in this day and age. I wouldn't seek or expect any women to be like my grandmother was; and, I probably couldn't live up to my grand dad either; even though I try. Using such as a ruler for a quality marriage "today" touches upon unrealistic. > IME, when you truly love someone, you place that person's health as a > priority. True - but, each person has a "healthy" limit associated with priority. You make it sound a bit extreme, almost controlling; cause otherwise your fantasy ideal couldn't be met by those involved. >Sometimes that means giving up something unhealthy in one's > own behavior. Even Chewy gets that, to a point. He gave up > cigarettes because OS has asthma. He gave up drinking because it > botherered OS and YD. I wouldn't give up drinking to satisfy the demands of another; unless of course I was a alcoholic... which brings in co-dependant behavior. If my son or wife didn't like something or another that I was doing (which wasn't affecting them derogatorily) and wanted me to quit - I'd say - get a grip on reality; followed by I am not going to teach you such demands or wishes equate to "love", because they don't; they're nothing more then fantasy control issues. My son has asthma - I am not giving up cigars; I simply smoke them outside and while golfing where he's not present. I would suggest (if you haven't) to take this subject to your counselor and discuss realistic expectations based on yesteryear values. I love my wife and son, and would take a bullet for either. But, asking for or expecting unhealthy responses in the name of love is wrong on many healthy emotional levels. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) <snipped> > I would suggest (if you haven't) to take this subject to your counselor > and discuss realistic expectations based on yesteryear values. I love > my wife and son, and would take a bullet for either. But, asking for or > expecting unhealthy responses in the name of love is wrong on many > healthy emotional levels. I've discussed it just a bit, but not yet thoroughly, with my counselor. Part of the "healthy expectations," though, would seem to be that if a particular action causes another person to be ill, you don't do that action while around the person who becomes ill from that action. N'est pas? You said you don't smoke around your son, you do so outside your home, away from your son. You have his health as a high enough priority that you don't do things around him which you know may cause harm. Kitten > <snipped> > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > high enough priority that you don't do things around him which you > know may cause harm. That makes sense. But obviously it depends on the details. If I feel nauseated when my children crack their knuckles, does that count? Or what if I'm very vulnerable to stress induced illnesses. Does that oblige everyone who loves me never to do anything that I'll find stressful? I think these lines can be hard to negotiate, and aren't as black and white as one might think they are. On Aug 29, 10:50 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I think these lines can be hard to negotiate, and aren't as black and > white as one might think they are. Who thinks they're black and white or not open to negotiation? Are you implying that Kitten thinks so? Sounds like it. Naturally, it's context dependent. But, it can hardly be said to be a good or loving thing to deliberately continue an optional behavior that harms someone you claim to love. Some people claim to love everyone - or to love everyone equally - that changes the context a lot. But for people like me (I'm stingy with love), it's a core part of love - that yes, if someone is more sensitive or frail, I try to modify my behavior/ideas to be loving toward them - and if I can't, I admit I'm not as loving as I'd like to be, and put some distance into the equation, if necessary. In the child/adult knuckle-cracking example, I'd say that, since I believe "being loving" is a learned behavior (among other things), that children often are not as good at this part of loving as an adult would be - so I don't think it's very loving to expect a child to remember one's nausea. In fact, I don't think it's very loving for a parent to use their discomfort as a brokering tool in leveraging a child's behavior. If all goes well, though, I do believe that a loving child will eventually notice and accept that some of his/her behaviors could be changed in order to be more loving - or, do what children do - and admit they don't love their parents quite THAT much (to change the behavior) and go out into the world, to find people who do love them despite their knuckle-cracking (if in fact, a parent were unable to change their nauseated response - which I find incredibly non-adaptive on the part of the parent, but it could still be the case). And sometimes, we find that the people who love us best of all still can't love *everything* about us. In some families, that's an acceptable manner of continuing onward - and for many of us, we aren't going to find "total love" in any one relationship. Also, if a person has a behavior that they really can't change - which is driving their loved ones crazy - negotiation is only a small part of the long, hard road they're travelling together. And there are lots of people travelling that road. It matters to me, as well, whether I have made an internal commitment to loving the particular person - and whether they have heard me express that commitment (and not just with words). A. > On Aug 29, 10:50 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Who thinks they're black and white or not open to negotiation? I don't know. Maybe no one. > Are > you implying that Kitten thinks so? No - I have no idea what she thinks. She stated them in black and white terms, of course, but that doesn't mean she sees them that way. > Naturally, it's context dependent. But, it can hardly be said to be a > good or loving thing to deliberately continue an optional behavior > that harms someone you claim to love. Agreed. > On Aug 29, 10:50 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Who thinks they're black and white or not open to negotiation? Are > you implying that Kitten thinks so? Sounds like it. LOL... I attempted negotiation so much that I wound up being not myself, and none of us was happy with the result of what they'd tried to turn me into. Now, I'm being *me* again. Kitten On Aug 29, 12:50 pm, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote: <snipped> > > I've discussed it just a bit, but not yet thoroughly, with my > > counselor. Part of the "healthy expectations," though, would seem to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I think these lines can be hard to negotiate, and aren't as black and > white as one might think they are.- Hide quoted text - Doug, suffice it to say that there were a number of incidents where I could have had his son arrested, as well as other incidents. Some of them are in the ass-p archives, as I mentioned to SD. I was looking there for input from other step-parents who might have some insight on how to heal things, even when I first started posting there about 7.5 years ago. I had that old "mother hen syndrome" going full bore. I wasn't going to "abandon" them like others had done before me. I made that choice, and now I have to figure out where I am going from here. I've drawn the lines of what behavior I will and won't live with. It's up to them to determine whether or not it's worth it, to them, to co-exist with those lines. FWIW, I'm thoroughly enjoying the peace and quiet of the moment. :-) Kitten > On Aug 29, 12:50 pm, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > how to heal things, even when I first started posting there about 7.5 > years ago. It's OK - I'm not asking for an explanation. I just don't think it is necessarily straightforward. Maybe you don't either, but the way you wrote >if a particular action causes another person to be ill, you >don't do that action while around the person who becomes ill from that >action. sounded more straightforward than the world I live in usually is. > I had that old "mother hen syndrome" going full bore. I wasn't going > to "abandon" them like others had done before me. I made that choice, > and now I have to figure out where I am going from here. I've drawn > the lines of what behavior I will and won't live with. It's up to > them to determine whether or not it's worth it, to them, to co-exist > with those lines. That all sounds good. >Part of the "healthy expectations," though, would seem to >be that if a particular action causes another person to be ill, you >don't do that action while around the person who becomes ill from that >action. Sounds good, even rational --- ;-) however, for such a statement to hold substance, it must have measured perimaters. You failed to state what that action is and what type of "illness" results from that action. Without such information, I can't respond to what then becomes a broad idealistic statement with no value. > You have his health as a high enough priority that you don't do things around him which you > know may cause harm. That's true --- However, my actions in relationship to his diagnosed condition are measured so as not to cause harm to him and not to be adversely negative for me to accommodate. Without stipulating being more specific regarding those requests or demands, and who's requesting them and why? You're leaving so much to the imagination, a rational measured response can't be considered. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > >Part of the "healthy expectations," though, would seem to > >be that if a particular action causes another person to be ill, you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > demands, and who's requesting them and why? You're leaving so much to > the imagination, a rational measured response can't be considered. It's simple. Aggressive yelling at the drop of a hat instead of calmly discussing things that are troubling. After 6.5 years of dealing with that from Chewy and his 2 younger children, I nearly wound up in the hospital due to stress. Check the archives in ass-p. That's where I went to vent and to try to find new, more effective ways of dealing with things. Kitten > Aggressive yelling at the drop of a hat instead of > calmly discussing things that are troubling. Thanks for clarifying... I agree - yelling is NOT good for 99% - but, I thought based on your earlier some what dramatic verbiage; you were going to reference more deeply rooted intrusive behaviors. >After 6.5 years of dealing with that from Chewy and his 2 younger children, I nearly > wound up in the hospital due to stress. You put up with this for that long from both he and his kids --- not good. I am of the mind - I'd put my foot up the kids azzzzz for disrespecting you or any other adults - and your SO should think that way as well. >Check the archives in ass-p. That's where I went to vent and to try to find new, >more effective ways of dealing with things. Sorry Kitten - don't have the time nor inclination to research your history or anyone else's. I'll leave that to your counselor. There is NO special trick for coping with yelling from anyone, or making it easier to face regularly..period; only option is to rid yourself of those types of people; they have no boundary's. Many years ago, I recall this women I dated for a month - beautiful, intelligent women that most thought, including me, she was down to earth calm sweet person; until you got to know her and her hidden ways. She would come loose at the seams attempting control over the most minor issues; screaming her lungs out - moving closer and closer until I felt the wind from her yelling. I put up with it about 3 times. She was rude, abrasive and often out of control in her attempts to gain control; thinking she could intimidate me into capitulating to her desire. The last time I told her that kind of behavior is why some women get knocked on their azzz, and followed that comment with there's the door - "take a hike" and don't let the door hit ya in the backside. I won't tolerate anyone getting in my face or yelling at me, including my wife or any kid; it's just disrespectful. I will leave the room, area, or ask them to leave; or if at work fire them abruptly. Since this subject is NOT solveable here - I will just say - have a great day and leave it there. SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) > > Aggressive yelling at the drop of a hat instead of > > calmly discussing things that are troubling. > > Thanks for clarifying... I agree - yelling is NOT good for 99% - but, > I thought based on your earlier some what dramatic verbiage; you were > going to reference more deeply rooted intrusive behaviors. Verbal and emotional abusive behaviors were most of what's gone. Think being Gomer Pyle to a bigger person's Sgt Carter-style yelling, on a daily basis in the beginning. It wears a person down. The cake was iced with his children's behavior, but their behavior wouldn't have been an issue - if he'd not modeled it for/to them their entire lives. No amount of mothering can heal them, without them wanting to be healed. Kitten > Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do > anything, that he doesn't want to change, that he'd rather continue [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > He pushes me away, then tries to pull me back. Then he gets upset > when I say I need to *SEE* something different first. Taking all of this at face value, I agree with him that you are controlling, although I think he just can't express what he really means, and I would disagree that he has any right to complain about it. The bottom line is that you're still complaining to him that he's not doing what you want. He's still finding things in his lap that you put there. You're letting him decide what to do with what's in his lap, but you're the one putting it there. You may not be making the appointments for him, but you're insisting that he does. It's my guess that he resents that as much as anything because it's still you calling the shots. The bottom line to this is simply this: You're not giving him credit for knowing what you want. After all of this time, every poster here knows what you want, and so unless you're lying to someone, he knows it too. Agreed? If you agree, and it's obvious that you've tried everything, then now you've got to once and for all leave it up to him, and then you've got to make some decisions too. Stop trying to change him. For as long as you're interested in him, all you can do is to monitor what he's like, and if he's changing, and if ever what you want in him coincides with what he is; and if at that time, he wants you too, then get together. If he never gets there, then it's over If he does, but by then, he doesn't want you, then it's over. But for as long as you keep each other in this no man's land where you live under the fantasy of wanting each other, but only if you each change, then you're both doomed to stay in this no man's land. To answer your question as to why he does what he does? I think it's because he's confused. He's living at two different levels, one that he understands, and one that he doesn't. Take the councilor bit. At one level, he knows that he needs counseling, and he knows that he's got to take the advice of the councilor. But then he tells you what the councilor says, and you tell him to do it, and because he resents you for controlling him, even telling him that he's got to do what someone else tells him to do evokes a rebellious response in him, and so he doesn't do it. So then you get mad at him for it, he then gets mad at you for it. But he then in his mind, he concludes that he's got no justification for getting mad at you for telling him to do what the councilor told him to do, and he feels sorry, and apologizes without realizing that he really can't deal with you telling him what to do, and so the vicious cycle starts again. Until he can take a certain amount of you 'suggesting' to him what he's got to do, and until you can take letting him do a certain amount of what HE deems appropriate for him to do, it'll always be this way. IOW, until he feels that he can decide to be late for supper without suffering the humiliation of being publicly punished for it, then nothing will change. Top-posting -- I don't want to delete any of the conversation below, but it's so long, I don't want to intersperse my comments. AY had one very interesting observation, Kitten: "The bottom line is that you're still complaining to him that he's not doing what you want. He's still finding things in his lap that you put there. You're letting him decide what to do with what's in his lap, but you're the one putting it there. You may not be making the appointments for him, but you're insisting that he does. It's my guess that he resents that as much as anything because it's still you calling the shots." REALLY letting go means that you focus on what *you* need to be emotionally healthy. It's not contingent on anyone else doing anything. If Chewy makes choices that don't support emotional well-being -- for you, for the family -- then you let Chewy figure out what he needs to do to change that. Counseling might be one of those choices, but he's far more likely to embrace that choice when he makes it for himself. The hardest part for you? Staying out of it and not giving him direction. By the way, from what you've shared here, I believe you're a lot closer to doing this -- to saying, "This is what I need" and allowing Chewy to figure out how what *he* can do (or change) to ensure the two of you can remain together. Barb >> Every time I get settled into the idea that he's NOT going to do >> anything, that he doesn't want to change, that he'd rather continue [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >suffering the humiliation of being publicly punished for it, then >nothing will change. > Top-posting -- I don't want to delete any of the conversation below, > but it's so long, I don't want to intersperse my comments. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Barb Barb, AY totally misinterprets anything I write and is very confrontational about it, which is why I ignore what he posts. His observations are totally off. I don't tell Chewy what to do, or how to do it. I've told him that we both need to get healthy, that I'm going to get myself healthy, and that it's up to him whether or not he decides to do the same. The closest I've come to telling him what to do is to tell him that if our marriage is to survive, we need to start over from scratch and we need to get joint counseling. I told him it's up to him to make the decision of whether or not that's done. I don't ask him about it, I don't remind him about it, I don't mention it - unless he brings it up. I *have* told him he's sending me mixed messages by saying he wants to fix things but then doing nothing I can see to accomplish that, and worse, by doing things to further undermine our relationship. I now live in my friend's guest house. I take care of myself. Period. I only interact with Chewy when necessary. If he wants more than that, it's up to him. I even kept my mouth shut when we lost one of the pet goats because he didn't worm the animals until a week-and-a- half after I mentioned to him that I'd seen indications that it was needed. Kitten [snip] >AY totally misinterprets anything I write and is very confrontational >about it, which is why I ignore what he posts. His observations are >totally off. I don't tell Chewy what to do, or how to do it. I've >told him that we both need to get healthy, that I'm going to get >myself healthy, and that it's up to him whether or not he decides to >do the same. I realize you and AY have an unpleasant history, and understand you don't feel he has anything worthwhile to say to you. One of the hardest things for me is accepting that sometimes, someone I intensely dislike can say something worth my listening to. It's easy for me to project what I've lived through in a lot of what you say, which is why I spoke up to say I thought there was some truth in that particular paragraph. At the same time, I wanted to acknowledge the huge strides you've taken to disengage from the unhealthy aspects of your relationship. In any case, I wish you well, Kitten. Barb > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > intensely > dislike can say something worth my listening to. Barb, I have tried so hard to listen to and accept the things that AY says, but no matter how hard I try he gets furious at me for getting it all wrong. With some people, it's not as much about whether or not they have anything worthwhile to say, as it is about whether or not you have the ability to communicate with them. Zorra >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >they have anything worthwhile to say, as it is about whether or not >you have the ability to communicate with them. Zorra, I know you and AY have a history as well. And I remember that I also had a lot of difficulty with his posts back when it all began. At that time, I didn't like the way he talked to a *lot* of people here, including you. In the past several months -- since he had a conversation with Sheila -- the tone of his posts are significantly different than they used to be. I don't always agree with his opinions but I find his style much more agreeable. (Sorry to talk about you in 3rd person, AY.) I'm not trying to deny your difficulties with him or tell you that you "should" listen to him. From where I sit, I don't perceive fury coming from him, but it does seem you both feel some frustration about not being able to communicate. When it comes to communication, I think it's one of the hardest things in the world to right things when they go off the tracks. That's because once we've formed an opinion of the other(s), it can be incredibly hard to change it. I see how this plays out in this group, at my workplace, and in my own interactions with other people. Barb >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > group, > at my workplace, and in my own interactions with other people. You are missing my point -- it's not that there is anger in either direction. It's that I don't think he's ever thought that I "got" what he was saying, no matter how hard or how often I try. I simply cannot have a fruitful discussion with him no matter how much effort I put into it. I don't know whether or not Kitten feels the same frustration with him, or something different. But based on my own experience with him, and her comment above that "AY totally misinterprets anything I write," I think it's likely. In which case it has nothing whatsoever with her deciding he has nothing worthwhile to say simply because she dislikes him. Zorra [snip] >You are missing my point -- it's not that there is anger in either >direction. I am? I was responding to this from your first response to me: >>>Barb, I have tried so hard to listen to and accept the things that >>>AY >>>says, but no matter how hard I try he gets furious at me for getting >>>it all wrong. >It's that I don't think he's ever thought that I "got" >what he was saying, no matter how hard or how often I try. I simply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it has nothing whatsoever with her deciding he has nothing worthwhile >to say simply because she dislikes him. OK. I'm feeling that same frustration at the moment -- like I'm not effectively communicating what I'm trying to say with you and Kitten. So it's probably better if I just stop now. Barb > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>getting >>>>it all wrong. Right, but the main emphasis was on the "getting it all wrong" not on the "furious." >>It's that I don't think he's ever thought that I "got" >>what he was saying, no matter how hard or how often I try. I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Barb Let me try. It's as if I'm speaking in Urdu and AY is speaking in German. Neither of us can understand the other. If Kitten feels the same way, then it would not matter how worthwhile AY's advice might be, or how open she was to accepting it. Zorra > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > same way, then it would not matter how worthwhile AY's advice might > be, or how open she was to accepting it. Doesn't help matters that he writes as if I'm some relation to the Wicked Witch of the West. lol... I really don't have time to read posts where I'm demonized. Kitten >> Let me try. It's as if I'm speaking in Urdu and AY is speaking in >> German. Neither of us can understand the other. If Kitten feels [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wicked Witch of the West. lol... I really don't have time to read > posts where I'm demonized. Okay, so truth be told the anger *does* have something to do with it! But I do feel like he's so angry because I refuse to understand German! Zorra >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > much > more agreeable. (Sorry to talk about you in 3rd person, AY.) I don't mind because I find you to be very fair. > I'm not trying to deny your difficulties with him or tell you that > you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Barb > but no matter how hard I try he gets furious at me for getting > it all wrong. Sadly, that's because of control issues with anybody that doesn't agree with his thinking or can't understand it. >With some people, it's not as much about whether or not > they have anything worthwhile to say, as it is about whether or not > you have the ability to communicate with them. Zorra - you hit nail on head of "what might I call it?" .... ;-) SignatureSD:) "Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.(A.E.)" My disclaimer: I can say, but can't make you see...(S.D.) >> but no matter how hard I try he gets furious at me for getting >> it all wrong. > > Sadly, that's because of control issues with anybody that doesn't > agree > with his thinking or can't understand it. That was rude, insulting, and totally uncalled for. >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > whether or not they have anything worthwhile to say, as it is about > whether or not you have the ability to communicate with them. One of the reasons that we have a hard time getting along is that you persist in telling lies like this about me. I am the only one to know if I get furious, and even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant that it seems as though I get furious at you, even that is a lie. I am never furious at anyone at all, much less the virtual people on Usenet. It's unfortunate for you that you sink to these levels. Once again, I challenge you to provide evidence e of where I've ever been furious at you, and once again, I am sure that you will respond with some generality, but no substantiation whatsoever. >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > One of the reasons that we have a hard time getting along is that > you persist in telling lies like this about me. One of the reasons that we have a hard time getting along is that you persist in characterizing the things I do as telling lies, making accusations, and other deliberately antagonistic things. > I am the only one to know if I get furious, and even if I give you > the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant that it seems as > though I get furious at you, even that is a lie. I am never furious > at anyone at all, much less the virtual people on Usenet. It sure seems like it! > It's unfortunate for you that you sink to these levels. Once again, > I challenge you to provide evidence e of where I've ever been > furious at you, and once again, I am sure that you will respond with > some generality, but no substantiation whatsoever. This is true. Because this is a discussion, not a court of law. I have not leveled charges against you. It isn't leveling charges to judge the emotional state of a person you're talking to. It is human nature, the way we interact with each other. Zorra >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > you persist in characterizing the things I do as telling lies, > making accusations, and other deliberately antagonistic things. It is a flat out lie to claim that I got furious with you about anything you've ever posted.. There's simply no room there for any difference in interpretation. It's a lie. >> I am the only one to know if I get furious, and even if I give you >> the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant that it seems as >> though I get furious at you, even that is a lie. I am never >> furious at anyone at all, much less the virtual people on Usenet. > > It sure seems like it! That's not good enough when you take the step of making comments about me. It's just too self-serving for that. >> It's unfortunate for you that you sink to these levels. Once >> again, I challenge you to provide evidence e of where I've ever >> been furious at you, and once again, I am sure that you will >> respond with some generality, but no substantiation whatsoever. > > This is true. Because this is a discussion, not a court of law. It is more than reasonable that when you post vile things about someone, that you should be able to substantiate them. Once again, for the record, it is you who have posted a vile thing about me, and it is you who cannot back it up, but I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the reason we do not get along. Shame on you. > I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the reason > we do not get along. Yes, I will, because yes, it is. >> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the reason >> we do not get along. > > Yes, I will, because yes, it is. Me: "Once again, for the record, it is you who have posted a vile thing about me, and it is you who cannot back it up, but I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the reason we do not get along. Shame on you. " I'm glad to see that you've admitted that despite the fact that you posted a vile thing about me which you cannot substantiate, that you'll continue to claim that I am the reason we cannot get along. You're one step closer to recovery. >>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the >>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you'll continue to claim that I am the reason we cannot get along. > You're one step closer to recovery. No, see, I didn't admit that. I didn't admit that I posted a vile thing. Nor that I cannot substantiate the vile thing that I supposedly posted (for the record, I think that most of the things you ask me to "substantiate" are matters of opinion, and so "substantiation" has no meaning for them). So the only thing I admitted is that I believe you are the reason we cannot get along. Which of course, I would. Just as you believe it's me. Human nature. Zorra >>>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the >>>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > admitted is that I believe you are the reason we cannot get along. > Which of course, I would. Just as you believe it's me. Zorra, We can keep going in circles like this forever, and accomplish nothing. But there are a few facts that are pretty evident here. The first is that you say many negative things about me with very little care or desire to be sure that they are true. Even in the above post, you admit as much. For instance, you claim, with no qualification or lack of certainty, that I get furious at you for 'getting what I say all wrong'. Yet, just in the above post, you now admit that it's just a matter of opinion. Whether or not I've gotten furious is not a matter of opinion. It's either true, or it is not. Yes, you can have the perception that I got furious, but then IF that's the case that you have that perception, you need to say that it's your perception, and you should be prepared to substantiate where you've gotten that impression. But you do none of those. Instead, in many cases just like this, you say things of a very negative nature about me, and then imply that I'm being unreasonable for challenging you to substantiate your claims, which you've stated as fact without any ability to know if it's true (i.e., me being furious). That, and refusal to accept what I actually say, and substituting what you want to read into what I say (despite multiple attempts by me to correct your misinterpretation of what I said), are two of the most significant reasons why I cannot ever get along with you. I have very little respect for people who engage in such tactics. Those kinds of things go right to someone's character, and to attempt to assail someone's character is very serious, and should not be done as callously as you do it, at least wrt me. In fact, 'callously' is too generous a term IMO. Given these last few days of exchanges, it seems more to me that you do it purposely. >>>>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the >>>>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > qualification or lack of certainty, that I get furious at you for > 'getting what I say all wrong'. That's not a negative thing about you. > Yet, just in the above post, you now admit that it's just a matter > of opinion. Right. > Whether or not I've gotten furious is not a matter of opinion. It's > either true, or it is not. Yes, you can have the perception that I > got furious, but then IF that's the case that you have that > perception, you need to say that it's your perception, and you > should be prepared to substantiate where you've gotten that > impression. What I say is always my perception, just as what you say is always yours. It's pointless for me to try to substantiate what I feel. > But you do none of those. Instead, in many cases just like this, > you say things of a very negative nature about me, and then imply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > what you want to read into what I say (despite multiple attempts by > me to correct your misinterpretation of what I said), I don't believe that I do this. > are two of the most significant reasons why I cannot ever get along > with you. I have very little respect for people who engage in such > tactics. Now see, you've just said that you have very little respect for me (using the transitive property that I engage in these tactics and that you have little respect for people who do). That's much more negative than anything I've ever said about you. > Those kinds of things go right to someone's character, and to > attempt to assail someone's character is very serious, I have never attempted to assail your character. > and should not be done as callously as you do it, at least wrt me. > In fact, 'callously' is too generous a term IMO. Given these last > few days of exchanges, it seems more to me that you do it purposely. You've assigned intent to me that was never there for a long time now. Zorra >>>>>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the >>>>>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > That's not a negative thing about you. Of course it is. It's a negative thing to get furious at all, but to get furious at someone for being misinterpreted is a very negative thing. >> Yet, just in the above post, you now admit that it's just a matter >> of opinion. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What I say is always my perception, just as what you say is always > yours. It's pointless for me to try to substantiate what I feel. Zorra, there are things that are matters of opinion, in which case, it's not necessary to state that it's an opinion. For instance, if I say it's a nice day out today, then clearly, because whether or not something is nice IS a matter of opinion, there's no need to say IMO...... However, there are other things that are matters of fact. For instance, if I say today is Tuesday, then whether or not today is Tuesday is either true or it is not. If I say it's Tuesday, then I'm saying that I know, for a fact, that it's Tuesday unless I qualify that statement by saying something like "It feels like Tuesday". When you say something that is a matter of fact (i.e., he gets furious at me), and whether or not I'm furious is a matter of fact, then you have a responsibility to either know that you know it to be true, or you have a responsibility to qualify your comments as your perception. You can not say things like that about someone so carelessly. But even if you refuse to accept any of that, and want to cling to the notion that it's all a matter of perceptions, you still have a responsibility to be able to demonstrate how you came to such a negative perception of me. If I ask for substantiation of it, you most definitely have that obligation by any reasonable standard of decency. >> But you do none of those. Instead, in many cases just like this, >> you say things of a very negative nature about me, and then imply [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't believe that I do this. I've shown you where you do that. I've shown you where you totally misrepresent what I've said, and where I've been able to show you that I did not use any words that are consistent with your interpretation, and where I've denied the inference you've drawn from my actual words, and you've insisted on clinging to your interpretation anyway. If you can't point to the words I've used to show that I said exactly what you've claimed I said, then it's a matter of interpretation. This means that while it might be reasonable to misinterpret what I say, it's not reasonable to continue to cling to your interpretation of what I said once I clarify and explain what I meant by the words I posted. Once I do that, then clinging to any other interpretation is tantamount to calling me a liar in a situation where I am the only one who can know the truth. >> are two of the most significant reasons why I cannot ever get along >> with you. I have very little respect for people who engage in such [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that you have little respect for people who do). That's much more > negative than anything I've ever said about you. You're comparing apples and oranges. How you feel about me is your opinion of me, and I have no issue whatsoever with you stating that. It is what it is. It's when you've said that I've done negative things that I have not done that I have a problem with. >> Those kinds of things go right to someone's character, and to >> attempt to assail someone's character is very serious, > > I have never attempted to assail your character. I've just shown you where you have, and so I will not repeat it all. As you just said to someone else, go back and read. >> and should not be done as callously as you do it, at least wrt me. >> In fact, 'callously' is too generous a term IMO. Given these last [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You've assigned intent to me that was never there for a long time > now. Then there can be only one other explanation for your very bad behavior toward me, and I'll not lower myself to say what it is. Draw your own conclusions. > When you say something that is a matter of fact (i.e., he gets > furious at me), and whether or not I'm furious is a matter of fact, No it isn't. Anger, like all other emotions is a matter of degree and opinion. There is no definitive boundary between furious and angry, angry and annoyed, annoyed and calm. Furthermore, we make judgements about each other's emotional state all the time. "I've never seen her so angry before!" "Aw, look how happy she is!" "Why are you so down in the dumps today?" > But even if you refuse to accept any of that, and want to cling to > the notion that it's all a matter of perceptions, you still have a > responsibility to be able to demonstrate how you came to such a > negative perception of me. If I ask for substantiation of it, you > most definitely have that obligation by any reasonable standard of > decency. No, I don't. Your posts to me are consistently filled with what comes across as anger. All the "challenges" and accusations of accusations, and everything else put together. If you want to say you're never angry, that's fine. I won't believe you, but I can't see why that would matter to you. > Then there can be only one other explanation for your very bad > behavior toward me, and I'll not lower myself to say what it is. > Draw your own conclusions. Oh, is there where you call me stupid again? Or more accurately, where you *refrain* from calling me stupid again? Zorra Top posting to say that your snipping has come to the point where what you leave behind is taken totally out of context with what I actually said. You claim not to purposely misinterpret what I say, yet here we have proof that by snipping the context of what I said, you're doing exactly that. It's rude, insulting, and I'm asking you to be more fair is your snipping. Of course, as always, the choice about whether or not to be fair is up to you. >> When you say something that is a matter of fact (i.e., he gets >> furious at me), and whether or not I'm furious is a matter of fact, > > No it isn't. At any given moment, I am either angry, or I am not. > Anger, like all other emotions is a matter of degree and opinion. Degree, yes. Opinion, no. > There is no definitive boundary between furious and angry, angry > and annoyed, annoyed and calm. Furthermore, we make judgements > about each other's emotional state all the time. "I've never seen > her so angry before!" "Aw, look how happy she is!" "Why are you so > down in the dumps today?" But you are not the one who gets to decide if I am angry. Only I know if I am angry. >> But even if you refuse to accept any of that, and want to cling to >> the notion that it's all a matter of perceptions, you still have a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, I don't. Your posts to me are consistently filled with what > comes across as anger. And if you're going to accuse me of being angry, then you have a responsibility to substantiate that accusation by pointing to something I said, and making a case for why it shows anger. The key word in my last post was decency. Decency demands substantiation in the case of accusations. > All the "challenges" and accusations of accusations, and everything > else put together. If you want to say you're never angry, that's > fine. I won't believe you, but I can't see why that would matter to > you. A challenge for you to substantiate an accusation is most certainly not any evidence of anger. I guess maybe in your world, a demand for fairness by you is a display of anger, but in my world, it's no more than common decency. And when I do accuse you of something, I do it decently because I substantiate it. >> Then there can be only one other explanation for your very bad >> behavior toward me, and I'll not lower myself to say what it is. >> Draw your own conclusions. > > Oh, is there where you call me stupid again? Or more accurately, > where you *refrain* from calling me stupid again? No. You're projecting again. > Top posting to say that your snipping has come to the point where what you > leave behind is taken totally out of context with what I actually said. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > No. You're projecting again. In Zorra's "opinion" I did not like her. You would think *I* would know who I did and did not like. If you persist, maybe she will continue long enough until you are angry, as her protestations of my dislike finally became the reality, >> Top posting to say that your snipping has come to the point where >> what you leave behind is taken totally out of context with what I [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > continue long enough until you are angry, as her protestations of my > dislike finally became the reality, And in your "opinion" I hated your guts and AllYou's too. You would think *I* would know whose guts I did and didn't like. Zorra >>> Top posting to say that your snipping has come to the point where >>> what you leave behind is taken totally out of context with what I [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Zorra Steph also at one point (like Cal) thinks I hated her, too (because of the disagreements, I gather) If you ever figure it out, let me know. >>>> Top posting to say that your snipping has come to the point where >>>> what you leave behind is taken totally out of context with what I [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > Steph also at one point (like Cal) thinks I hated her, too (because of the > disagreements, I gather) I thought you hated me? I don't remember that. I certainly don't think that now. Anyway, all you would have to tell do is tell me it isn't so! I have no reason not to believe you. >> Top posting to say that your snipping has come to the point where >> what you leave behind is taken totally out of context with what I [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > continue long enough until you are angry, as her protestations of my > dislike finally became the reality, I just don't know why some people engage in such nonsense. I can see if zorra said something like 'you were angry at me last week', and then, because I know that I wasn't angry about anything, I ask her to show me where that was so. If she did, and could provide even the slightest reason what she came to that conclusion, I could then either explain why what I said should not have been taken as an angry statement, or I could even apologize for being careless with what I wrote. But in her case, she takes a request to show me where I was angry as some sort of insult, or further evidence that I'm angry. And if I finally do get from here what she's talking about, and I try to explain what I meant, she'll skip over all of that and insist that I was angry. As you said, I am the only one who knows if I am angry. But that's a concept that zorra doesn't want to accept. So much grief could be avoided if people were just honest with each other, and if they'd just take other people at face value. But this insistence that perceptions are reality, and will remain reality no matter how much evidence and testimony is provided to the contrary is such a huge waste of time, energy, and potential pleasantness. AY, I'm finished. You have exhausted me again. You have "accused" me of being rude, unfair, purposely misinterpreting things, and you made a vague reference to something even worse that you could say, but are restraining yourself from. In return you say that I've "accused" you of...what? Being furious at one point and getting angry when I don't follow your advice? I'm sure you think you've proven all of your "charges" beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that mine are completely baseless. This whole thing seems so utterly ridiculous to me, that I'm tempted to call for a reality check in the form of a poll, except that I suspect the responses, if there were any, would fall along "friend" and "enemy" lines, and as I have so many more enemies than friends at the moment, I will save time and just declare you the "winner." So, congratulations! Enjoy. See you around. Zorra > AY, I'm finished. You have exhausted me again. You have "accused" > me of being rude, unfair, purposely misinterpreting things, and you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lines, and as I have so many more enemies than friends at the moment, > I will save time and just declare you the "winner." Christ that's sad. I can understand you seeing friends and not-friends (and friendly and not-so-friendly acquaintances) but what kind of a world do you live in that you see *enemies* in a discussion group? Time after time the people you categorise as being your enemies post supportive and comments intended to be potentially useful to your situation and with one paragraph you relegate them to enemy status because they can also see things you do that don't help you or others, and say so. We'll never be friends but I have only ever wished the best for you and your family and that will never change, either. I have assumed you felt similarly about me but perhaps I was being an a.s about that as well. (Michael, if you are reading this I want you to know I am wearing my donkey's tail with due humility...) As far as the conversation you and AY are having my perception is that you are both irritating each other about equally and misunderstanding each other about equally, as well. Some of it appears to be deliberate but most of it seems to be to do with your different ways of thinking; or more specifically, the different emphases you put on your interests and your hot buttons, but mostly AY's hot buttons in this case. Later when I get to it I'll be addressing a similar sort of difference in emphasis I have with AY in another thread, myself. However, if he (waves to AY) starts going on at me about how rude I'm being - and we all know I *can* be very rude! - when I don't think I am, I will withdraw from the conversation earlier than I might have done. So, I think it's completely reasonable for you to choose to disengage from your conversation with him at this point. *my apologies to anyone I may have offended with my blasphemy, it's rare for me to do so in public because it is offensive but I needed that word to achieve the tone I wanted to convey. >> AY, I'm finished. You have exhausted me again. You have >> "accused" [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > rare for me to do so in public because it is offensive but I needed > that word to achieve the tone I wanted to convey. That's a fair assessment because I regard it as sincere. I disagree with the 'equally' part of your comments, however. I also think that when you say that you'll simply disengage if I start going g on about you is a little disingenuous in that IIRC, you took the time to try to 'out' me here, and you participated in the cross posting to which I referred to earlier. However, I know that I was a bit aggressive back then, and that I misunderstood one of your posts, and replied very, very poorly, for which I now apologize. And so I know I have no ethical platform on which to stand with you. > That's a fair assessment because I regard it as sincere. I disagree > with the 'equally' part of your comments, however. Of course you do, and it's not something I'd stand on, anyway, because I've been skimming only and it's not all that interesting to me either way. > I also think that when you say that you'll simply disengage if I start > going g on about you is a little disingenuous in that IIRC, you took > the time to try to 'out' me here, No, I didn't. I have no interest in who you are in the sense of your identity. However, I do like hearing about your relationship and the odd times you say something chatty about your life and I have said that, in effect, in the past. (ref. the story of your engagement.) I did think you were using a sock puppet early on a couple of times and that is what I was referring to in those conversations. I don't think narrowing someone's location down to a city is going to do much to out them! I can guess you live on the east coast of the USA by your posting times, anyway. I can't prove that you did have one or more sock puppets and it's rare for me to make an unsubstantiated statement based on fact but I remember that I thought I was right and will have to accept being told I am wrong not to apologise as a fair comment, and to take my licks. (Or kicks, probably.) > and you participated in the cross > posting to which I referred to earlier. I may have responded to a post that was already crossposted but I don't approve of crossposting or following people to other groups where you don't already post with the intention to pound on them or summon up support in other corners of usenet. In fact I told Atalanta that doing so was tedious when it came up another time. I have certainly agreed with others that you have been too harsh with some posters at times (even Bill in this current Bill Thread) and said so and it could have been in a cros-posted thread. I don't know what other groups you post in except by the comments made in here by other people who do research you. If I was interested enough I would go a-googling but I don't do that for anyone very often and haven't with you except in the first couple of weeks of your posting in ASM. However, I would not like to swear that I didn't follow a google link if one was posted when all that crossposting went on because I very well could have. >However, I know that I was a > bit aggressive back then, and that I misunderstood one of your posts, > and replied very, very poorly, for which I now apologize. And so I > know I have no ethical platform on which to stand with you. Thank you again, but I really didn't and don't mind, AY. Truly. :) Our personalities don't mesh very well and it's kind of hard to say why without getting into those tactless details I'm not particularly interested in discussing right now. (I'm actually in the middle of writing to my mother. lol) I suspect they will come out over time quite naturally! I am wary of you and just taking talking to you again day by day. I think we can have productive and interesting conversations but probably not always. > > AY, I'm finished. You have exhausted me again. You have "accused" > > me of being rude, unfair, purposely misinterpreting things, and you [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > them to enemy status because they can also see things you do that don't help > you or others, and say so. Tai - I know you didn't address this to me - but there's something really amiss with this entire set of communications between you and Zorra. Surely you didn't mean she was actually going to kill herself for Bill when you said "like a martyr." You were, I believe, being somewhat figurative. So is Zorra, I think, with the word "enemy." As for what kind of world one could live in that they'd see "enemies" in a ng - well, I think if you could get your head around how one might use that word, you'd understand Zorra (and Bill - and maybe others) a little better. Can't you see it from both perspectives? Yes, it sounds silly to have "enemies" in a ng - but T writes that he finds Bill problematic because Bill reminds him of his father, which isn't a pleasant association. Sheila has used metaphors similar to "taking the gloves off" with Bill - or something like that. really trusting and rarely see enemies - other people are much more likely to see enemies. She put the terms in quotes for a reason. I've been calling the two groups "High Numbers" people and "Low Numbers" people (and I also see a group of non-partisans (non-combatants?) But to me, the fact there's some kind of conflict going on in this ng seems patently obvious. You don't see it? There are people who say they don't want to ever post again because of the mano-a-mano person-to-person conflict they see here - which they say they didn't used to see as much. I wouldn't know, because as far as I can tell, it's been here since I arrived. And I do think people tend to vote their respective party lines when attempting to decide what's proper behavior or who they are going to support - many times. I knew exactly what Zorra was talking about, anyway. You've seemed rather peeved at Zorra on several occasions (this is one of the worst, actually) - do you really think you're seeing things from her point of view when you're peeved at her? You're certainly not required to, of course, but now you seem to be questioning her sanity or her upbringing or something. Are you still beating around the bush or do you just want to say that Zorra is out of touch with reality? > We'll never be friends but I have only ever wished the best for you and your > family and that will never change, either. I have assumed you felt similarly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > specifically, the different emphases you put on your interests and your hot > buttons, but mostly AY's hot buttons in this case. But - do you really think it seems that way to *them*? While they're at it? And that it's unusual for two people to get embroiled in such a communication difficulty - a difficulty that goes deep into their very ways of thinking and being, as far as I can tell? Why do so many people here think that by pointing out their third- party point of view (and somehow thinking that the middle ground is the best ground to recommend) that two people who are disagreeing are going to just suddenly see it differently? If that's what you're thinking should happen (that both AY and Zorra should see that they're irritating each other and equally wrong/right, etc.) - I can see why you'd be irritated and frustrated, too. People just don't work that way (most of 'em don't). > Later when I get to it I'll be addressing a similar sort of difference in > emphasis I have with AY in another thread, myself. However, if he (waves to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reasonable for you to choose to disengage from your conversation with him at > this point. Sure - and it's also reasonable to choose any number of other strategies. Making the place comfortable for AY when he's in one-up mode, so that the convo quiets down, is one tactic (and a good one, really - I'm trying, I really am, I do have to stay away though - but when I come back, things never seem any more peaceful than before - so is it working?) Your waving at AY and implying Zorra is, well, crazy - sort of sounds partisan to me, btw. If you don't like Zorra and you like AY, that's fine - maybe now that's out in the open, Zorra will in fact be able to ignore some people better - sure makes the situation seem black and white. I'll wait to see if, while you're speaking to AY on that other thread, you decide to wave to Zorra (if her situation comes up or is implied). I've never known you to be very rude, Tai - not even now. You sound frustrated, but not rude. You are definitely one of the least rude people here - and so, pardon me, but if AY has ever said you were particularly rude in the past - well, I think you must be questioning his grasp on reality as much as you would Zorra's. And, if you were more rude to AY than you have been to others, and AY is complaining about it - well, you know what I think about that. I don't see the above dialogue between Zorra and AY as a mere miscommunication, btw. I hope you're able to remain friends with AY - you seem to have given up on Zorra. One of Zorra's points, recently, has been that - if two people are friends to begin with - some kind of slack gets cut. That's my definition of friendship too. You don't treat family and friends as if they are other people who are not family and friends. If you were never able to make friends with Zorra, then naturally, you're not going to see the situation the way someone who is her friend would see it. I have no idea why some people become friends. Friendships can be one- sided, they are very diverse. I can be loyal to a friend even if I currently dislike them - and I can be brutally honest even when I love someone very much. And sometimes, I'm quite capable of offering silent support - depends on the friendship. I have my little set of beliefs about how I come to be friends with people - but I can barely explain my own friendship choices to myself, I can't explain anyone else's. I do not in fact know what other people believe in their hearts, what various feelings they can have from moment to moment, and I do know that language is quite linear and limited. With a friend, I often feel (and they affirm) that I can read between the lines (and vice versa). In an extremely unfriendly situation, I pretty much come to believe that the other person can't even see me, much less understand me. If such a person then claims to understand me better than others do - better than I do, myself, I'm not only skeptical - I have my private reasons for listening to some internal alarms go off. It's intrusive - just for starters - to have a non-friend, quasi-acquaintance give you some kind of makes-sense-only-to-them psychic eye reading. And, if someone in that category really decides to insist they know better than I do what I actually am perceiving and feeling - or even worse, they decide they are going to critique my morals and call me to account to them - when I don't even know or like them - I just think they're barking up the wrong tree. If they continue barking, I usually have no problem with letting them know what my perceptions of them are. If my perceptions of them are unflattering or bother them - then maybe they stop the barking. BTW, it saddens me to see you and Zorra on the outs. You're both cool - and very articulate - people. In very different situations, though. I think Zorra needs support, I believe you have intended to be supportive - but you seem to get pretty impatient with her too. OTOH, I trust both of you, especially when it comes to finding the correct route through a problem - different routes, of course, different problems too. Zorra has said in the past that she's slow - something I've said about myself, too, many times - especially IRL. I'm not sure that others really get just how sloooow some people can be - especially if they're the quicker types. Zorra and I could have a slooow contest - I'll print out the Slow is Good Too T-shirts and bumper stickers. A. Atalanta, I've read your post and I appreciate you are trying to help and the nice things said about me below. I started to respond to your comments individually but I just feel as if you have made so many incorrect assumptions about my motives in writing, plus one or two errors in fact such as it is not T who has the father issues that was someone else, that I just feel overwhelming weary. I waved to AY because it is one of his hot buttons to be talked about in the third person and I was trying to be even handed and not give him the impression I was talking about him behind his back, that's all. As for the rest, my post was in response to being told that Zorra thinks that the most important factor anyone has here on whether they will agree with her opinion or not is if they fall into the camp of "friend" or "enemy". And these are camps Zorra has determined herself, regardless of whether the other people would think themselves in either one or any themselves! That is actually quite an offensive thing to say. I don't particularly care that Zorra regards me as an enemy but I dislike being told that because *she* thinks I am (I don't see her the same way, btw) it affects my judgement in any particular way. I left the Bill thread and won't be drawn on that again for now. >>> AY, I'm finished. You have exhausted me again. You have "accused" >>> me of being rude, unfair, purposely misinterpreting things, and you [quoted text clipped - 171 lines] > > A. > As for the rest, my post was in response to being told that Zorra > thinks that the most important factor anyone has here on whether [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > being told that because *she* thinks I am (I don't see her the same > way, btw) it affects my judgement in any particular way. 1) As Atalanta pointed out, I put "friend" and "enemy" in quotes for a reason. 2) I don't at all get what you mean by, "And these are camps Zorra has determined herself, regardless of whether the other people would think themselves in either one or any themselves!" Sure I believe that there are those who seem to ready to jump on me at any opportunity, but I haven't put them anywhere, and certainly can't reach out over the net and force them to respond the way I think they will. 3) It seems rather silly to be personally offended by a general statement that might or might not even apply to you. Zorra > >>>>>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the > >>>>>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > get furious at someone for being misinterpreted is a very negative > thing. So, since you believe "furious" is always negative - the rest of us must now use the word in the way that you prefer? Why is that? It's fine to be furious - but people can and will judge you (or imprison you) depending on what you do with your fury. We've had this argument umpteen times - and you still think that Zorra (and the rest of us) are going to agree with you that saying someone is angry or furious is a terrible thing? > >> Yet, just in the above post, you now admit that it's just a matter > >> of opinion. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > saying that I know, for a fact, that it's Tuesday unless I qualify > that statement by saying something like "It feels like Tuesday". The fact that you appear furious to several of us - is that an issue of fact - or of opinion? By now, your argument has gotten so convoluted (that would be a contorted bent-out-of-shape circle-like thing), I have no clue what you mean. Are we really all in a better place if we say, "I feel that AY is furious"? Isn't denoting one anothers' feeling states ALWAYS a non- factual thing? It's a GUESS at best. > When you say something that is a matter of fact (i.e., he gets furious > at me), and whether or not I'm furious is a matter of fact, then you > have a responsibility to either know that you know it to be true, or > you have a responsibility to qualify your comments as your perception. > You can not say things like that about someone so carelessly. But we can - and do. You didn't choose a specific adjective, but you just called Zorra "careless." So that's way better than saying someone is furious? How is YOUR opinion (that she's irresponsible and careless) MORE factual than her opinion that you're furious? Where are your facts? Give me some data. How is Zorra careless (using your own hurt feelings isn't a fact). > But even if you refuse to accept any of that, and want to cling to the > notion that it's all a matter of perceptions, you still have a > responsibility to be able to demonstrate how you came to such a > negative perception of me. If I ask for substantiation of it, you > most definitely have that obligation by any reasonable standard of > decency. You know, if I believed that you actually followed reasonable standards of decency - I'd actually agree. But I'm not there yet. I would need, oh, about another 10 years of very decent, kindly posts from you (ones that didn't call people out about their careless - ones that didn't use words like "cling to" or "any reasonable standards" as if you are the only one who has such a thing) before I would trust you. In the meantime, I'd do just what I do with any creature that is in my viewfinder - I look at it, build opinions about it, and make observations. To me, you look angry - a lot. The fact that you love to tell Kitten she's angry makes me grin sometimes, and sometimes it makes me angry. I can't tell in advance which mood I'll be in. We are allowed to have moods, right? (That was a trick question - I'm not about to ask your permission for anything). You'd be the last person I'd consult, btw, about what constitutes a "reasonable standard of decency," and insofar as I have any standards of decency (perhaps I don't - maybe I'm a heathen child or a misanthropist) - I don't feel any compulsion to treat all humans I meet with my highest standards. I have a sort of medium-level "standard of decency" that I use in regard to people I don't know well - and as you know, I use a very different standard if I find that the person in question is not decent to me - or to others that I happen to find decent. Human nature. Get used to it. Those of us who fail to use your own (highly culturally bound) notions of decency aren't going away. > >> But you do none of those. Instead, in many cases just like this, > >> you say things of a very negative nature about me, and then imply [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > and where I've denied the inference you've drawn from my actual words, > and you've insisted on clinging to your interpretation anyway. If you'd actually shown her - she'd see it. You're just insisting, over and over, that you're right, like going "neener neener neener." > If you can't point to the words I've used to show that I said exactly > what you've claimed I said, then it's a matter of interpretation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tantamount to calling me a liar in a situation where I am the only one > who can know the truth. Yep. Precisely the problem I had with you - and I asked you politely to stop telling me what I felt, when only I could know that. You did not. You would not. Pot. Kettle. Black. Chickens. Home. Roost. Welcome to the world of homo sapiens, AY. Turns out - you're involved too - it's not everyone else, all the time (it's not always AllUs - sometimes, it's You). > >> are two of the most significant reasons why I cannot ever get along > >> with you. I have very little respect for people who engage in such [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > behavior toward me, and I'll not lower myself to say what it is. Draw > your own conclusions. Would be really interesting to know the explanation for the very bad behavior - whatever it is, according to AY (would explain a lot about his bad behavior). A. (I know I'm bad - but I don't know that I'm that much badder than everyone else) >>>>>>>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the >>>>>>>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > You know, if I believed that you actually followed reasonable > standards of decency - I'd actually agree. ROFLMAO !! Too funny! > But I'm not there yet. I > would need, oh, about another 10 years of very decent, kindly posts [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > behavior - whatever it is, according to AY (would explain a lot about > his bad behavior). !!! ROFLMAO !!! > (I know I'm bad - but I don't know that I'm that much badder than > everyone else) Right! You bad a.s, you!! > >>>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the > >>>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > We can keep going in circles like this forever, and accomplish > nothing. So only things that go in lines accomplish something? The planet goes in circles - and if it stops, we'll be sorry. Nothing at all wrong with circles - and nothing has to be "accomplished." Since I strongly believe that you and Zorra have completely different goals in mind when you try to communicate here, it isn't surprising that nothing that you, AY, wishes to see accomplished gets accomplished when you interact with Zorra. Since it's Your Way or the Highway - the only way to "accomplish" something would be for Zorra to give in to your views - you certainly aren't going to give in to hers. Well, I don't think she's going to. And you can post to her till you're blue in the face and I really don't think she's going to start suddenly sharing your sense of "accomplishment" in life - whatever that is. I am completely mystified, as always, as to what you think you can "accomplish" on a ng - especially this one - anyway. But whatever it is, attempting to substitute some other shape for a "circle" isn't going to solve this particular problem. Another circle will open up - right in front of you. But there are a few facts that are pretty evident here. The > first is that you say many negative things about me with very little > care or desire to be sure that they are true. "True" is a strange word to use about someone's subjective viewpoints. A person's inner viewpoint is their own - it isn't objective nor subject to proof or validation. Sure, we could all spend time revising our past cherished memories of what you, AY, are like - but why should we? Maybe Zorra will - but I doubt you've hit the right keys on your keyboard to get her to do that. This parallels Zorra's real life in an interesting way - she has moved to a point where she views her marriage (and her husband) in a particular way. She also views you in a particular way - and she may not find it a really high priority to rethink that point of view. Even in the above post, > you admit as much. For instance, you claim, with no qualification or > lack of certainty, that I get furious at you for 'getting what I say > all wrong'. Yet, just in the above post, you now admit that it's just > a matter of opinion. Whether or not I've gotten furious is not a > matter of opinion. It's either true, or it is not. Really? The word "furious" could include YOUR experience of being furious OR it could include other peoples' perceptions of your emotional states. You have repeatedly insisted that you know better than some other person what they are feeling (as you did with me, repeatedly) and so, you decided that the "truth" was that "Kitten is angry" or "A. is furious," or that "So and so is causing harm to their spouse because they are angry" - and on and on. Getting a taste of your own medicine back is never your cup of tea. Zorra can assert that the way she views YOUR feelings (and their expression) is opinion - and she can assert that it seems true to her, at the same time. No one is bound by the narrow notions of consistency that you (and others) seem to think work. It's not working for you right now, apparently, because you aren't "accomplishing" whatever it is you think is supposed to be accomplished (I can't even imagine what that something is - I think you're confused about why you argue with people, and that if you think you're doing this for Zorra's own good, I think you are wrong - but I'm not sure if you're lying to yourself about it - I don't get to see inside your mind, the way you pretend you can do with others) (Example, stating with certainty that Vickie "obfuscates" - which requires that you know her inner state of knowledge and intention). If I were Zorra, I'd be having a lot of fun running you in circles. In fact, if I knew better how to do that, that might be what I would try to "accomplish" in my communication with you. Since you dislike anger so much and try to avoid it at all costs, it would be interesting to see whether you could admit that running in circles makes you angry - and therefore, your posts come from a place of anger, not a place of attempting to communicate, get along - or "accomplish" anything - since you have stated repeatedly that anger accomplishes nothing). But of course, I'm sure you're not angry. Yes, you can have > the perception that I got furious, but then IF that's the case that > you have that perception, you need to say that it's your perception, > and you should be prepared to substantiate where you've gotten that > impression. Why? Why does she have to do this? Whose rules are these? If you don't like Zorra's "substantiations" or lack thereof - then just stop trying to dialogue with her. NO one has to prove their own inner perceptions to someone else - and ANYONE who is reading can comment on their views about someone else - that's just the way it is. Your own stupid sigline states quite clearly that you believe EVERYONE ON USENET is fictional in some sense - so why now, all of a sudden, does Zorra have to substantiate? Read your sigline - you've already said it's all opinion. How many times, btw, are you going to pull that particular card out? Why can't you (and there are others here who do it, too) simply realized that EVERYTHING we post is merely our own viewpoint or perception. DUH. > But you do none of those. Instead, in many cases just like this, you > say things of a very negative nature about me, and then imply that I'm > being unreasonable for challenging you to substantiate your claims, > which you've stated as fact without any ability to know if it's true > (i.e., me being furious). Does it bother you to be unfairly characterized? Hmmm. How about that. Does it bother you when people state things as fact that you think are not? Hmmmm, again. Does it bother you when people imply that you're unreasonable? Why would that be? Why do you care? You either know yourself to be reasonable - or not. > That, and refusal to accept what I actually say, and substituting what > you want to read into what I say (despite multiple attempts by me to > correct your misinterpretation of what I said), are two of the most > significant reasons why I cannot ever get along with you. Ah, turnabout is fair play - even in the quasi-adult world of ASM. I'm glad that Zorra has discovered and is exploring this particularly tactic, one you mastered years ago and employ at will. Perhaps she learned it from you - I know you really helped me learn way more about this particular form of verbal tactic. Why would Zorra want to get along with you? I think you burned a lot of bridges a long time ago. Only Zorra would know whether you burned that particular bridge, though. I have very > little respect for people who engage in such tactics. Those kinds of > things go right to someone's character, and to attempt to assail > someone's character is very serious, and should not be done as > callously as you do it, at least wrt me. In fact, 'callously' is too > generous a term IMO. Given these last few days of exchanges, it seems > more to me that you do it purposely. Hahahahha. Bwhahahahahha. OMG. This is too funny, actually. BTW - Zorra isn't being callous. She's actually been exceedingly patient and sensitive - especially when compared to the reactions you evoke from others. But there is a point at which people cross a line, with another person - and they can never go back to making as nice as they did before. It can happen in a marriage - or any other relationship. NG relationships should not be as important as one's marriage - and ngs are a great place to practice our limits, tolerances, patience, tactics - and so on. Of course, if you view NGs as an important part of your reality, you won't like the "playground" across to ng's that so many take up - but that's all part of usenet and its various subcultures. Now, we can step back for the rest of the day and watch people take sides - agai It will end up being a "high number" of regulars on one side (the side with AY) and a smaller number on the other side. So many people have joined this thread with such strong views, so as to commit themselves to one side or another - it'll be fascinating to watch just how everyone intends to go on (for example) offering kindly advice without some of the advisees being quite aware that the other person either disdains them - or willfully misunderstands them. Since so many people insist, at this point, that they are being willfully misunderstood or mischaracterized by some other person (who can be called evil, wicked, demented, sick, unhealthy, amoral, unprincipled, nonrational, in denial, pointless, lacking in accomplishment - or whatever other negative the particular individual wants to bring up) - and the ammunition being spent seems to fly in so many different directions (way easier to confine one's usenet battle to one person at a time), when things settle down, some people will remember that friendship played a role in their behavior - and others will realize just the opposite. Friends and enemies, offering each other advice and telling each other endlessly what to do. What happened to the advice about "ignoring"? (Not the advice I give - as you know, it's pretty low on my list of preferred ways of dealing with conflicts/misunderstandings - but it was the advice that you, AY, gave so many - and so many others give it, too). Funny how the advice (to ignore) doesn't work so well, if it isn't issued by an authority - and there's no totalitarian mechanism to make everyone obey, isn't it? Funny how people saying things about us that we think are wrong or we don't agree with makes it hard for us to be silent, too. A. >>>>>> I'm sure it will be you who continues to claim that I am the >>>>>> reason we do not get along. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > suddenly sharing your sense of "accomplishment" in life - whatever > that is. I think I know. It's just participating in that football kiddies newsgroup, where he plays his one-upmanship game, and tries to score points. They apparently have contests in there, to see who can insult each other the most! Clearly, as evidenced by his large number of posts, he has no life (not that I would know about that!) :-) But he'll deny that too, like everything else. On Aug 29, 3:07 pm, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> "zorra" <zor...@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > (not that I would know about that!) :-) > But he'll deny that too, like everything else. But why would anyone think that those locker room skills would transfer well to other groups? And for the record - I've seen AY on several other groups where I've been a participant before he ever came along. He was on ASM way before me - but I didn't know that when I first started posting. OTOH, he doesn't know my other SN's (at least, not the one I use on sci.physics or certain other groups where I've seen him around) - so he has the impression I just popped up out of thin air in a couple of places ( I did just pop up at misc.taxes and the football groups - after he dared me to). I do think he's trying to shed a little bit of the blustery persona that he developed in the football group - it hasn't served him well in sci.physics or some of his other groups - despite massive numbers of explanatory posts trying to get people to see things HIS way). But if anyone has a tendency to zero in on someone and attempt to pester/prey upon them (I'd use "pester" - but I can see that with AY one must often use hyperbole, just to stay even - and I can play hyperbole better than I can play football) - it's AY. I was not, however, resorting to hyperbole when, long ago, I begged AY to leave me alone and told him why I wanted him to leave me alone. However, when he didn't - I got used to it. Wanting him to iggy me made him post more and more to me - banging his head against his own posts on the tax and football group (I have a knack for irritating AY, apparently it's one of my gifts) - that did it. He iggied me. It seems he has un-iggied Kitten (rather suddenly) - but I'm not sure he has the courage to do that with me, yet. I do believe he was one of the "if you iggy someone you mustn't then talk about them when they can't respond" moralists - perhaps he has changed his values or has a different notion of sin, this week. A. > On Aug 29, 3:07 pm, "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> (not that I would know about that!) :-) >> But he'll deny that too, like everything else HE does: "I'm not responsible!" > But why would anyone think that those locker room skills would > transfer well to other groups? I don't know. You'd have to ask him, LOL. > And for the record - I've seen AY on several other groups where I've > been a participant before he ever came along. He was on ASM way [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sci.physics or some of his other groups - despite massive numbers of > explanatory posts trying to get people to see things HIS way). I'm impressed to hear he's in some other group besides that stupid football newsgroup. A physics group? You mean he has actually had some courses in Physics? Or it's just a side interest? > But if anyone has a tendency to zero in on someone and attempt to pester/prey > upon them (I'd use "pester" - but I can see that with AY one must > often use hyperbole, just to stay even - and I can play hyperbole > better than I can play football) - it's AY. LOL. > I was not, however, resorting to hyperbole when, long ago, I begged AY > to leave me alone and told him why I wanted him to leave me alone. I remember that. But .. he can't. > However, when he didn't - I got used to it. Wanting him to iggy me > made him post more and more to me - banging his head against his own > posts on the tax and football group (I have a knack for irritating AY, > apparently it's one of my gifts) - that did it. He iggied me. It > seems he has un-iggied Kitten (rather suddenly) - but I'm not sure he > has the courage to do that with me, yet. Probably not. No big surprise, though. > I do believe he was one of > the "if you iggy someone you mustn't then talk about them when they > can't respond" moralists - perhaps he has changed his values or has a > different notion of sin, this week. > > A. !!! ROFLMAO !!! <snipped> > So only things that go in lines accomplish something? The planet goes > in circles - and if it stops, we'll be sorry. I'm wondering what would happen if it did... just stop, I mean. It might prove an interesting experiment. Kitten > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:18:30 -0700, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > hardest things for me is accepting that sometimes, someone I intensely > dislike can say something worth my listening to. Noone can communicate anything worthwhile to someone while s/he is demonizing that person. > It's easy for me to project what I've lived through in a lot of what > you say, which is why I spoke up to say I thought there was some truth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In any case, I wish you well, Kitten. Gracias. I truly appreciate it. Kitten >> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:18:30 -0700, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Noone can communicate anything worthwhile to someone while s/he is > demonizing that person. And that's exactly what you have done to me since our first exchanges, and continue to do to me to this day. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.