On Tuesday 29 May 2007, cstargio wrote:
> Hal,
>
> I will apologize for hurting your feelings or offending you in any
> way. That was not my intention.
Yes, it was. You quote posts from several months ago, but can't
remember what you wrote this morning. It was quite a strong post with
emotionally loaded language. As one person wrote here, "You can
tell in their emotionally charged language that they can get
absolutely furious." (By momluvseliana, I hope it's okay to use it
here.) You were using quite charged language. The only purpose to
that is to direct invective at the person listening (or reading).
I'm saying that as a writer, as someone who will soon be running a film
production company and has been invited in to discuss stories with a
national TV show. I know words and understand them. The language you
use was definitely loaded and that does not happen unless a person
intends on throwing negativity at someone.
> I will not apologize for what I said or how I said it (although I do
> agree with John Linthicum that I could have worded my original
> subject line more succintly) but will apologize for misinterpreting
> your communication style.
>
> Hal, in responding to you I was simply using the style and manner in
> which you have used to respond to many a post in this group. The
> threads I remember most that left me agape were with the
> bardsleyclan, remember them? Around the mid February to early March
> time frame (i.e., posts like 45346 "Need some advice" and
> 45421 "confused by this group)? You literally ripped those people
> apart. They responded by stating they were hurt and offended but
> instead of apologizing or acknowledging their feelings you quickly
> wrote them off with "...This woman, whatever her name is,
> wants a magic pill she can use to stop her husband and paint the sky
> her favorite shade of blue."
I do find it interesting that my words I wrote then had such a strong
impact on you that you could easily look up the references and quote
them again. While I don't remember the post, as a writer, I do have to
thank you for the flattery.
Note, in the following, not any sarcasm, not any emotionally loaded
speech, but just a focus on the facts. This is what I try to do here,
but I can see why some would take it as sarcasm (which I'll address
later).
I spent the better part of 10 years working with the emotionally
disturbed and teaching and working in group and residential treatment
facilities. By teaching, I mean spending some of my classroom time in
in instruction and a large part in working with the social workers and
psychologists to deal with the problems of my students.
I've learned when to watch for people that can deal with their issues
and those that cannot or will not. One of the hardest things I found
to learn was that tender treatment does not help people face their
issues. It enables them. I spent most of the time I worked in
treatment trying to be gentle with the patients, as is much more my
nature. It doesn't work.
People follow the path of least resistance. If they are deluded then
they will stay deluded as long as that is easier than facing the truth.
It is only when someone is confronted or has to face their delusions or
what they are denying that they can finally come to terms with it and
confront it.
In the case of the Bardsley Clan, I did what close to a decade of
experience and training taught me to do: not enable the person, not
coddle them and basically draw the issue up and show it to them quite
clearly. That's all an outsider can do: show them their issues. Then
they can either run or face them. In my experience, and in the guides
and books I've read, gently pointing out the issues does not help.
You may also notice that I usually (not always) start with a focus just
on facts and my responses get stronger as what I'm replying to gets
stronger.
There is one time several people, including friends, did tell me I was
way to hard on someone. I stared dealing with MLM people (like my
ex-gf) by trying to be gentle and did that in some ways here. Someone
had come here and was about to start selling her MLM candles. I was
quite hard because I felt that person was not going to listen to gentle
comments and felt the only chance there was of waking her up was to
literally shock her enough that she would have to reevaluate her
situation. It didn't work and, honestly, if it came up again, I'd
handle it differently, knowing it was someone who would not listen
anyway.
> Although I agree with you that it's better for people to discover
> their own answers I thought the tone and manner you used with them
> harsh and inappropriate. From many a post I've seen, other members
> have admitted taking offense to your tone but I've never once seen
> you so much as attempt an apology. Thus, I assumed that you
> understood a point best when articulated in a sarcastic, mouth-
> dropping fashion. Guess I was wrong and whenever I find myself
> wrong (which is more often than I'd like;-) I offer heart-felt
> apologies.
I use the tone my experience indicates is necessary in each situation.
I focus on the facts, which are often quite cold and unemotional. Some
consider that sarcastic. Some don't.
> So, again, sorry for misinterpreting your communication style and
> hurting your feelings. However, I still don't see how a request for
> a review on a product became a business review. Something I guess I
> never will understand.
I did not trim this and I included my responses to what you've said
because I am not going to let anyone think I'm going to dodge
criticism. While I feel these criticisms have nothing to do with the
topic at hand, I've addressed them. I'm not hiding from them. Still,
they have nothing to do with the current topic and I'll explain why
below.
Now, to return to the original topic...
I will point out, though, that the focus was not ME, but YOU. Brief
history:
- You make a post about Amazon.
- I step in, quite calmly, and point out the situation
- You reply, quite sarcasticly and emotionally and go after me
- I point out the response was sarcastic
- You respond by saying I'm quite sarcastic, in a "mouth dropping
fashion"
Here I'll bring up John's tagline: "Faced with the choice between
changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost
everyone gets busy on the proof." - Galbraith
There are two concepts I learned about while working treatment that
would be appropriate here. The first is projection. It took me a good
while to understand this, but here's an example. Say you're dealing
with a patient/student (the kids I worked with were both at the same
time) who lies habitually. He doesn't accept this and literally
doesn't see it in himself. Then he starts dealing with a counselor and
the counselor forces him to confront what he is doing and directly
confronts him with his lying. What happens? Often the patient starts
accusing the counselor of lying and, rather than face his own lying,
focuses on how dishonest the counselor is. In other words, instead of
owning his own problems, it's easier for the patient to not see what
he's doing, deny his own issues, and project those issues on other
people and blame them.
The second concept is fair fighting. If you find any layman's guides on
relationships, it often comes up in those. The point is that there are
fair ways to argue and debate and discuss. One is that you don't dig
up old baggage. The other is that when you do have a problem, you
bring it up instead of letting it fester. If you do let it go, then
drop it. When an argument erupts, bringing up an issue that could have
been handled months ago does not deal with the issue at hand and, more
than helping, ambushes the other person and shifts the focus from the
current issue to another topic -- one that the person doing the
shifting feels he or she can win.
Again, I'll point out that you talked about logic, but yet you don't
realize your own emotions and how they drive you and force you to do
what you accuse others of doing. When I confront you because I feel
I've been offended, your response is to dredge up old news and focus on
that. In other words, instead of dealing with the issue at hand, you
elect to shift the focus to other issues. Interestingly enough, what
you do, instead of dealing with you being sarcastic (you skirt that),
is to accuse me of being sarcastic.
And also note that all the above is about logic and facts, not about
sarcasm or using emotionally charged language. That is my normal
style.
I've gone back over our exchange. I've taken time to think it over. Am
I doing this because I'm overreacting? I don't think so. I wrote it,
thinking that maybe I was being sarcastic and would have to edit it. I
basically used the normal style I use on this forum. I expected, from
what you've said about my sarcasm, to have to edit out a lot of
language, but I didn't have to.
There is no question your response to be was quite emotionally loaded.
Do you acknowledge that? No? Do you accept that you wrote a sarcastic
response? Instead, you focus on and blame me. You may acknowledge it,
but you do so by saying it is my fault. You are projecting on me.
I said I could see how what I say is taken as sarcasm. When one person
has strong emotions about something and another focuses on just the
logic, it can feel like they're being sarcastic because they may be
saying what the other person does not want to hear.
I include all this because it is something that may give you quite a bit
to think about it.
If I have not apologized about exchanges it is because I take the time,
before I write an e-mail, to evaluate what approach is needed and do my
best to gauge accurately. Anyone one who knows me well can tell you
that I am continually reevaluating who I am and my relationship with
the world and do apologize when I make a mistake. There are times when
I apologize, but I also make sure my intent is clear before each
response because I'd rather be clear than have to back up and
re-address a situation.
I will not respond again on this topic, except to other posters. In my
judgement, the first response to me was emotionally charged, showing an
emotionally strong reaction and this e-mail does a lot of redirecting
and topic changing, indicating I'm dealing with someone who feels so
strongly about issues related to these posts that the emotions are
speaking more than than that person's dispassionate reason.
Hal
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment