GOD BLESS TEXAS!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

I already knew she was darn-near perfect...

Has to be...

she's a "left-coaster!!"

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Nerly, has anyone told you you are just about crazy? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Susan <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Worse than crazy, she is a left coaster.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

A PROUD left coaster,,,and a nearly crazy one!!

Suz,, if you want to tell just exactly HOW crazy I am,,you'll need to get in line. Take a number and the line forms to the left,,no pushing or shoving or you'll lose your place in line!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Melody. We have been through this before. You would not respond to my arguments then and you are steadfastly refusing to respond to them now. You are twisting my words and evading my points. You and I agree that being forthright and disrespectfully judging are not the same thing.

I am not trying to enforce my standards. The standards that I'm trying to support are the standards set forth by this website as an effective way to deal with interpersonal relationships.

And why in the world do you keep accusing me of trying to control anybody?


Ok, let's use the word principles. Thank you. And yes, they are to be used in marriages. I personally find many of them to be excellent examples of a good general philosophy to be applied to all my interpersonal relationships. A Disrespectful Judgement is just that and it's going to get me no further with a stranger or my cousin than it will with my own wife.

I believe that many of these principles are good ones to adopt as a general code of behaviour in all ones interpersonal relationships.

And you are most certainly right. We do not agree on the application of these principles. That being said, I've largely tried to keep my own feelings out of this and rely on Harley's description of how they should be applied. I made my own feelings quite clear last time we discussed this subject, but I'm respectfully trying a different tact this time.


Hmmm. Well, in a reasonable effort to be clear, I've previously quoted the specific parts of the post that I supported. I believe I also disclaimed enough of my replies that it's pretty clear I don't support Jimmy's critique of any specific posters. As for Jimmy's personal standard of sensitivity, well, what can I say? I agree with him on this particular point. Harley agrees with him. The Bible agrees with him. Plenty of other posters feel he's got a point. As for the rest of his personal philosophy... dunno. Sorry.

How 'bout this?

Hey JimmyMac... over here a sec, if you please. If I may be so bold as to offer a bit of advice... (which is something I sometimes do on this board)

I think as a matter of etiquette and to avoid undue conflict between board members perhaps in the future, if you take exception to a particular posting style, you could generalize your comments accordingly. If you have an issue with a particular poster or particular reply, there might be a more polite and effective way of addressing the issue.

Just a suggestion. Thanks for listening.


As I posted before, I've been here too long to point out any individual statements or call anyone specifically to task for it. Not only that, but the log in my own eye makes it tough to see the speck in my brothers. What I'm doing here is posting in support of a concept. A principle, if you will.

Furthermore, I do not sympathize with the WS. I empathize, yes. There's a difference. I can relate to them, yes. I have the unfortunate experience of having walked enough miles in both sets of shoes. I'm wondering if you had a point here or if you were just taking shots at me...


Please allow me to restate my base position in this discussion.

Disrespectful Judgements are not only ineffective, they are a form of abuse.

I can't make it any simpler. They apply to everyone. You, me, the originator of this post. The originator of this website... everyone. I personally try to implement these principles in all aspects of my life. A DJ is just as unhelpful at work as it is at home or on a forum for that matter.


One of the key traits of ALL governments is suppression of opposing speech. LOL. I have a vision of Musellini's troops taking crash courses of MB principles as part of boot camp...

dewt

Most judgements are not abusive or disrespectful, they are simply perceptions, beliefs or opinions formed by reading the words presented by the poster. If a person does not like the perception of their readers, they have all the power to change it rather than whine about it.

Harley refers to DJ's as both "sophisticated" and "stupid" strategies. How's that for a mixed review?

I actually see very few real DJ's on this board. Most perceived DJ's are actually pretty accurate assessments.

MelodyLane,

I read your 6:35pm post shortly after you wrote it. It touched me, especially the last two paragraphs. I teared up--tears of gratitude for those who have helped me with what I needed instead of what I wanted.

I have reflected on your post throughout my evening--the serene kind of reflecting that happens when you know that someone's post was God's way of talking to you in plain English. Thank you ML.

Dewt, I think you have it backwards, you seem to have ignored my points and are simply saying the same thing over again. You may not have liked my response to your post, but I did respond and you have ignored it. Which part exactly do you feel I missed? Please post exactly what you mean because all I see here is a rehash of your last argument that I refuted in my last post.

However, I think we disagree on what constitutes a "disrespectful judgement" and what constitutes forthrightness. You appear to lump most truthful statements into the former category which is probably what causes you so much trouble. There is a huge difference that you seem to not understand.


Again, you mean your interpretation of said standards. No one disagrees with those standards. You are tying to enforce your interpretation of said standards. It is the application of said standards on which there is disagreement. And of course, the application of those standards would change dramatically according to one's audience and one's understanding of the principles. For example, application of those standards would be much different in a marriage than in a friendship or casual acquaintance. And even more so on an internet support board.


When you attempt to dictate your own style of communication on others, AS YOU DO BELOW when you even go so far as to suggest what "words" I should use when approaching Jimmy,<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> that is called controlling. Or rather, a failed attempt at controlling. Lecturing others on their communication styles is exactly that. It is very condescending as it presumes you are in a postion to do so, you are not.


Sorry, but according to Harley - and YOU - what he is doing is clearly a disrespectful judgment. It is a lovebuster to judge the communication styles of others and attempt to educate them. The Bible does not agree that one is not supposed to be forthright. Jesus himself rebuked others when necessary and encouraged others to do the same. I doubt that Jesus would have lived up to your personal standards when he called people "vipers," "hypocrites," "your father the devil," etc. He never hesitated to call something exactly what it was. So please don't play the Bible card to support your personal interpretation of Marriage Builders principles. It is most unseemly.

Love is not found in parroting nice words at the expense of the truth, but rather in truth and deed. Nice words are never a substitute for the truth. 1 John 3:18 "Little children, let us love not with word or tongue, but in deed and truth."

Or....as we say in Texas, talk is cheap! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />


How bout this, Dewt? I communicate in the manner which suits MelodyLane and you communicate in the style that suits Mr Dewt. Would that be alright with you? I won't arrogantly suggest that you adopt my style [a lovebuster] and if you don't mind, I won't adopt yours. Thanks, but no thanks. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

With all due respect, yours is not a communication style that I find desirable or effective. It is certainly suitable to you, and that is just fine, but it wouldn't be a style I would ever personally admire. I am quite happy with my own style, thank you. I won't begrudge you your communication style, if you don't begrudge me mine. How's that, Dewt? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />



You must not have heard of America. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Thank you so much for the kind words, LB. I learned that lesson the hard way through the School of Hard Knocks. If loving, compassionate people at AA had not cared enough to tell me the truth when I so desperately needed to hear it, I don't think I would have ever drawn a sober day.

When I went into AA I was so full of crap, excuses, blame and bitterness that it took a few 2x4s to get through to me. A few 2x4's from a little tiny Dominican nun named Sister Anne, who was my first sponsor in AA. [since deceased]

I thank God that she didn't buy into this "sensitivity" nonsense and loved me enough to tell me what I NEEDED TO HEAR instead of what I wanted to hear. That old broad just flat REFUSED to accommmodate my delusions in any way, shape or form! And sure, I was so mad at her sometimes, but deep down I always knew she was right so I would put up with it. And I wanted to get better so bad that I would tolerate anything! And here I am almost 20 years later. My last drink was April 27, 1985. I am not a rotten, lying stinking drunk anymore because of the grace of a merciful God and that feisty little nun.

And it's funny, I remember the people fondly over 20 years who cared enough to shoot straight with me,[even the ones who made me mad!] but I don't ever remember the people who just told me what I wanted to hear. They didn't care if I got better. I meant nothing to them and they are long erased from my memory. I have heard others in AA say the same thing.

OK I'v esaid my piece on thsi thread but I will also comment that the truth isn't a disrespectful judgment told accurately.

I did a GOOD plan A, yet when the topic arose I referred to my DEAR Squid as a liar, an adulterer and an abusive mother.

This wasn't DJing her,it was FACT.

Squid tells me now that she would get angry THEN cry later in misery and realisation when I said such things in gentle tones.

Some of the FWS on this site would have me say :
"much of what you say is factually challenged, you have sought solace with a person outside our marriage and our children are not thriving in the current climate of our marriage" but such is [censored] during life events such as adultery.

Truth said in love and gentleness is not a DJ. In fact avoidance of such in our M previously contributed to our inability to deal with some issues that Squid used to justify her affair.

To mince words to one who needs to look their actions face-on is to enable an affair.

Mel and Pep are VERY forthright here, but MANY MANY FWS as well as FBS thank them daily for their loving candour.

This is NOT an excuse for DJing peope, but such should not go so far as to obfuscate the truth IMO.

I know what you're talking about. For me, it was Alanon back in the 80's. One time someone knocked on my head like you would knock on a door and called Hello? Hello? Is anyone in there yet? Yep, I was working on doormat issues <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> .

Unfortunately my H went into a dry drunk and when he got so miserable that he either had to go back to AA and start recovering again or start drinking again, he chose to drink (after 10 years). That started the chain of events over the past few years.

Your last paragraph of that post about the bottom line is so true.

I'm saying the same things over and over because you don't seem to be 'getting it'. If these were MY opinions, perhaps I could be a little more creative, but I've been mainly trying to support what Harley says about DJs, MB principles and their application.

In the last post (and in this discussion in general) I do not feel that you have actually refuted anything I had to say.

You said that being forthright is not a Disrespectful Judgement. My stance is that honesty is important AND we should not engage in Lovebusters. Nowhere do I suggest that we should lie to or mislead fogged out people who are fresh here. What I do suggest, in support of (parts of) the original post is that we should practice what we preach and not drive them away with LBs.

Then you infer that I'm trying to enforce my standard on others.

Then we reach a minor agreement in that we both feel that we disagree on the application of these principles. And we also agree that we have different ideas in regards to what 'helpful' is. You do not address the issue that the ideas that I'm supporting are not really entirely my own but drawn directly from this site's philosophy.

Then you again imply that I'm trying to force others to comply to my style.

Then you inform me that I'm not in a position to dictate my style to others. Again.

Then you try to draw the argument totally off course by bringing the argument back to Jimmy and the idea that being honest is equal to lovebusting. Two positions which I refuse to defend or even to discuss any further because neither is anything I've ever claimed to stand behind.

Then you reiterate your position that we are not married to the posters here and that BS get just as much, if not more, gratuitous sniping.

Ok. We are not all married to each other. That does not address in any way my argument that ALL Disrespectful Judgements are ineffective and hurtful. The fact that BS get sniped at too does not support or detract from either of our positions.

You say no one has any control over who stays or who leaves. That it is entirely their decision. I say what we do and what we say is going to have consequences. This site is mainly about education and support and if we are going to call ourselves MBers I feel we should make a commitment to promoting those ideals.

Then you veer off from the discussion we are having to take shots at Jimmy again and shots at me for not taking shots at him and then another shot at me for 'sympathizing' with WS as if to detract from my credibility. The purpose of my posting is not to take sides or call anyone specific out. The purpose of my posting is to support the MB principles and it is these principles that I refer.

Then you invite me to apply these principles to everyone, which I do and which I've been very clear about right from the start. The tone of your statement makes me feel like you have not read the page in question. I wish you would, because it expresses what I'm trying to get across to you way better than I apparently can.

I've gone back and reread and I really don't see that you've refuted anything I've said. But even though you won't/can't refute my arguments, you've steadfastly clung to your own without supporting them with anything other than your own value system and your experience with AA.

In regards to your last post, the pattern is continuing. This is causing me to dispair of coming to some sort of reasonable conclusion with this discussion. You are saying I'm lumping statements into categories, but I've referred to no such statements. I've chosen a philosophical side of an argument. The specific posting habits of specific posters are NOT what I'm here to discuss, but rather the principles involved. If we could stick to this, perhaps we could get somewhere. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I would like to say that I have taken offense to your statement:


That was a very mean and rude way to open a statement.

If we are really going to introduce scripture into this discussion, I suggest we refer back to this thread (Topic: revised to: ML ..... please check this out.) where we already kind of tackled this discussion. This was back in November and I was defending the same principles, but based on scripture rather than MB articles.


Melody, I think I see where we are going wrong. I am not suggesting that you specifically, nor anyone else adopt my posting style. I'm supporting the position that we should be circumspect in our posting in general. That we all make an effort, as MBers, to support and apply MB principles. I don't see that as arrogant. If I have come across as arrogant in my posting, then I must sincerely apologize. I've made every effort to be forthright without lovebusting and if I've crossed the line, I beg your forgiveness.

Thus far I've said nothing at all about your posting style. To mix my own feelings in this would be to detract from my points and my stance. I do have a personal opinion, yes, but I have not been asked about it, it is not relevant to this discussion, and I don't feel the need to express it.

dewt

[color:"navy"]Dewt, I agree with everything you just wrote.

And also, this is a marriage building site and has nothing whatsoever to do with recovering alcoholics.

They may both be catagorized as 'addictions' but they are
Completely Different.

There is a tale about the Wind and the Sun....The wind tries to get the man to remove his coat by blowing harder and harder and the man just wraps his coat tighter...Whereas the sun 'gently' shines on the man and the man WILLINGLY removes his coat.

I believe it is that way here with people asking for advice.
Backing anyone into a corner by arrogant pushing words, does just that.
BACKS THEM INTO A CORNER.

And when they are tightly surrounded, what they do is just stop posting!

"A soft answer calms wrath and harsh words stir up anger."

That is what has happened here on this thread.
Lots of harsh words.

The 'helpers' that are kind yet FIRM in their replies, are like outstretched hands saying:
"Come with me, I will help you escape from the destructivness of this affair."

JMO and Sincerely, Julie
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Julie. I like the reference to the wind and sun.

As an interesting aside, (and suddenly I'm going to offer my personal opinion) I'm currently dealing with a pot addiction and of all the posters on this forum who I'd go to for advice on this subject, MelodyLane would be my first pick. In my one and ONLY reference to her specific style of posting, I want to acknowledge publicly that very often I appreciate her forthrightness and no-nonsense approach and would seek it for myself.

dewt

Post deleted by Tiggy

This thread seems to have become a slugfest. In my experience, there are two key reasons why arguments degenerate in this way. First, because the basic premise has not been properly defined (so everyone is working to a different argument). Second, because debaters are working to assumptions which, in fact, are not held by everyone.

So could we get this discussion back on course? There are a number of genuinely useful points being ignored here.

First, I believe that the very first post presented several flaws which went unchallenged. In it, Jimmy Mac made the assumption that there is a 'bad' way to handle the first-time WS poster. Rather than justify that assertion, he instead gave examples of posts which he considered 'bad'. Further, he showed that he was working to an assumption that the purpose of responding to such a WS poster was 'to get the guy to listen to us'.

(Jimmy, this is not a dig at you. You made your point in good faith. The fact that it has descended into name-calling is simply a testament to our weaknesses in debating.)

Since that first post, no-one has challenged the original assertion, although it is highly subjective. How would we evaluate the success or failure of 'styles' of response? Have we collected statistics on the number of WS posters who disappear forever following a 'brisk' response? Would we measure that by whether they posted again (although they could still be lurking anonymously)? Or by whether they posted a hostile response? Do we have empirical feedback on the number of xWSs who report that they were glad to have been told brutal truths?

If we haven't got a firm basis to judge the reactions of new WSs, then any assertions we make are purely subjective, based on our own feelings and how we think we would respond in that situation. It is erroneous to assume that all WSs would feel as we do, convincing though it may seem to us. If we have no basis to know what approach has been 'effective', there is little point in debating levels of effectiveness.

Second, I think that we are all working to a different set of assumptions about what the purpose of a response to a WS is. Jimmy asserted that the purpose was 'to get the guy to listen to us', and no-one has questioned that. But what does it mean? To get the guy to engage in dialogue until he feels safe enough for harder truths? To be hit with hard truth straight up when the shock factor might work best? And what's the PURPOSE of getting him to listen to us? To save the WS? To save the marriage? To protect and support the BS? To seduce him into MB dogma whether the marriage survives or not? I suspect that we are each working to a different set of intentions.

In posting to ANYONE on MB, I work to the assumption that I am simply presenting a viewpoint and opinion based on my own experience, which the reader can evaluate, accept, ignore as he / she wishes. I do not assume that it is my responsibility to effect change in the reader. I don't see how an ad-hoc, anonymous, non-professional, unaccountable community like this can work any other way.

We're not a service. We're not trained professionals. We're not charging money. No-one has a right to depend on any poster for support. If a therapist goes under a bus, the client knows about it and can make other arrangements. If one of US goes under a bus, all that will happen is that they won't post for a long time. We don't spend hours evaluating our 'client' to get their history and make observations of their person and their presentation. We have no 'service standards'. Even if every person posting today was to agree a set of guidelines for dealing with a specific problem, at 6am tomorrow there will be a new member joining who knows nothing about those standards and has every opportunity to jump into a thread and lambaste a new WS. All we can ever be is a bunch of disparate and highly personal opinions, presented in a highly personal style. We might as well accept that.

But there is one standard that I think we should all incorporate as a matter of life management. We should observe proper boundaries. That means, we do not JUDGE others. We do not pin labels on them. We do not reach across their boundaries and try to control them. We can present our own experience and opinions of what happens in such situations, we can ask uncomfortable questions, we can express our own anger at our own sitch WITHOUT projecting that onto others. We can behave decently (and, believe me, I am aiming this advice at myself first).

So, can we get this discussion back on track?

TogetherAlone

But there is one standard that I think we should all incorporate as a matter of life management. We should observe proper boundaries. That means, we do not JUDGE others. We do not pin labels on them.

totally disagree

too nebulous

I will continue as always to call a spade a spade...
I will not cowtow to political corectness of fear of offending....
I will not jump on the slippy slope of changing the definition of reality to meet some sappy standard of not offending...
I will over and over risk the chance of being labeled mysef as that new terrible horrible bad bad word..

JUDGER

I will adhere to the rules as set by the owners of this board
I will not call people names...(unless they are already named melodylane and are from Texas..then I know they can handle it....)

But i will not change my advice even at the risk of someone thinking they are being judged...

I have always stuck to this standard..and while people may find my OPINIONS tough at times...
they are only that
OPINIONS
and
people can always take and leave what they choose...
as they should...

and people these days love self labeling ..
pop psyche mumbo jumbo most of it..
sex addict
co dependant
abusive
etc...
all over used over played words to defend poor choices and poor actions
self victimization....bleeech....

we are the generation of accept all bad behavior because we might be called a judgemental...
and label everything to give the excuse needed...

ARK^^

Hey Ark,

I would like to point out that you have been doing this for as long as I've been reading your posts. And without fail, you implement this paradigm WITHOUT being disrespectful.

Your posts are powerful, honest, thought provoking and challenging and what's more, they are consistently so and yet I've never ever read a post in which you come across as disrespectful or judgemental in a disrespectful way.

You are honest and forthright without ever being rude.

I dunno how to wrap this reply so I'll just say that I'm glad you posted.

dewt