Well, since I am the one that was called out on this thread, I would like to address this. It was NOT her statement in Idiotville that we should be careful of getting attached to others that I had an issue with. Not at all. I agree COMPLETELY and have said so. So can we drop that? None of you know what prompted me to post what I did there, so let's have it from the horses mouth.

Pep posted a valid concern... the Idiotville "clan" for want of a better term, to an outsider, is a little too familiar appearing. Especially "mini-Idiotville" which I am not a participant of and BobP just left. VALID VALID VALID. She made the statement the she thought an EA had ocurred. Her opinion. VALID VALID VALID.

Robby13 posted this:


(Aside: I erroneously saw the FL at the top, and thought it was her post, an error on my part. Sorry FL)

Then Pep popped in and put this:


And I put Pep's words in blue. My problem was not with her calling out the fact she thought it was risky behavior.

My issue is:

1) If she knew of an EA and it was dead, why drum it up? To me it smacked of sensationalism. (She later came on and said she was pointing out the riskiness. And I was fine with that explanation. I then understood why she brought it up, and would only say that would not have been MY choice.)

2) Look at her word choices above. She did not say, "Yes Robby, it is true, and you all should be on guard or you are going to fall." In my OPINION, her choice of wording did not align with something as serious as she said she was trying to convey. In my OPINION the above from Pep reads like a school girl saying "I've got a secret and you don't" as a taunt.

So I said I was disappointed in the how of what she said. And I was.

THAT is what spawned this whole discussion, which, to my knowledge, has not been about Pep being right, wrong, or purple, but a discussion of the fact that:

DO THOSE WHO ARE REGARDED FOR WHATEVER REASON AS BEING THE WELL RECEIVED AND GENERALLY HIGHLY REGARDED ADVICE GIVERS HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW AND WHAT TONE OF ADVICE THEY GIVE SEEING AS HOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HANG ON THEIR WORDS!!??!??!

Pep said, heck no, I didn't ask for it.

I said, tough, you may not have, but you got it.

And here we are.

Pep, Mr and Mrs W (and others like me) weren't as disturbed by the poor timing of your advice as we were by your CURT reply and lack of empathy in his situation when the police put a RO on him.

Your reply was like: "HAHA, you lose, so be it! You did too little too late, now YOU can pay the consequences for following MY advice."

Not a nice and helpful response!

By the way, one of my FAVORITE posters (I have many others) that really gives outstanding AND kind advice is LovingAnyway. So I guess she would be up there on the: Remarkable Advice Giver Throne.

Mel. I am right there with you. When Pep came back to my concerns with her asking me to define "some" and "careful" and "impact" I couldn't do it.

It would take a wiser man than me to put down a set of rules of what goes into a post.

I also knee-jerked and was disappointed be Pep's not meeting my expectations. Which I have said is MY issue.

But it still made the knot go in my stomach. And when this thread started, I was wanting to:

a) Answer what Pep asked
b) Explore the ramifications of what we say and what "it" means to those who read.

To me, this is like a grenade going off nearby. Nobody has died, nobody is hurt, but we sort of all should be stopping and saying "Jeez. That ALMOST hurt somebody. Let's make sure we understand what happened so in the future it doesn't hurt somebody."

And if through this it comes out that "hey, all the responsibility is on the reader and none on the poster," well, there we have it.

I, for one, don't think that is the case - or at the very least can be used as an excuse to be uncautious or hasty in what we write.

I undertand the message in the humor above what I didn't copy, Aph. And your advice is sound. Take this stuff with a grain of salt.

But does one ASSUME everyone is?? Like I said before. People come here because they don't know what to do. We are not writing movie reviews.

Strange to me. (And Aph, not saying you are doing this, just using your post because I am already typing here). We are going round and round on this and only a couple of people have actually said -

Ya know, we probably should remember to be careful what we write.

This here is a watershed thread.

No wise heads will offer any advice any more from now on. And the boards will be about 500% less effective.

What a very damaging week this has been for so many reasons.

Ah well, off to bed. I have to fly to Germany early in the morning.

Very sad though. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Folks,

I have been sitting here reading this thread rather than getting some work done. I know I have been bothered more by some other threads on this site, but I sure cannot remember when it was, or what it was about.

I think Mr. W's comments are in fact a situation where "our ability to measure exceeds our ability to understand." GF did what he should have done if she was bothering him. If he felt he needed legal advice in his bedroom, he should have had his lawyer with him, and her order of protection could and should have been thrown out based on the phone records alone, much less the rest of that mess.

As for "undue" influence and our need to measure our words, I find this amusing for a simple reason. Of ALL of the posters here Pep, MUST measure her words more and better than any one here, because they are soooo spare, so on target, and soooo to the point. I am constantly amazed at how she does this, and I KNOW it takes thought and care.

Do some people do something wrong even when they are doing something right? Yup. Do some people do something wrong when they have not a clue what is right? Yup. Do some people just NOT get what is said? Yup. Do some people NOT want to hear the suggestions advice? Yup. They simply want to have someone listen to them, not address their problems.

Have I given advice that in retrospect might not help someone? I just wish it was only a few times. I have even been accused of giving "bad" advice by someone that did not take it, but still recovered their marriage. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> I found that one rich because it is possible that if he had taken my advice, he would have recovered the marriage sooner OR he would not be married. NO ONE will ever know, but my "bad" advice is mentioned along with the comment they are glad they did not take it. My thoughts, "dumb statement, but suit yourself." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Pep's advice is listened to because it has proven to have value on a long term and repeated basis. To not offer the advice she believes in seems to me to ask her to lie. Personally, I will take Pep anyway she posts rather than have her silent or lying. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I recall a conversation (I am not sure Pep was involved) when someone pointed out that urging a WS to confess to the BS should be reconsidered within the context that physical violence might be the result. It was discussed and agreed by all that such urgings should include the warning about violence and to include a third person or counselor in such disclosure IF the person had ANY reason to fear violence.

This advice is still used today, but it is also not ALWAYS used because posters are in a hurry and forget to mention it, along with the 1000's of other things that can be and are learned on this site.

If Pep's only "mistake" was the one Mr. W pointed out, then she is sooo much better than any counselor I have heard of, and certainly Dr. Harley himself, as NOT ALL of the people he counsels save their marriage. If she ONLY fails 10% of the time, she is still above the mortals. If 50% of her advice is good and helpful, she is way above most if not ALL counselors.

I think the issue here is what is the measure of merit. Personally, Pep is a treasure of suscinct and deep insight and questions. Does she always hit a homerun? Nope, she even BUNTS sometimes. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> She even "poots" occasionally.

Finally, I must say something else that concerns me. If Pep did not think that her words would not, [censored], puncture, motivate, cause reaction, she would not post and should NOT post. I don't post just to hear myself talk. In fact, if I get no response or if it is clear my points are of no interest to the person I am posting to, I simply back off and hope that someone else can reach them and help them. I have too many other things to do, than try force someone to accept something they are not interested in or don't understand. I post for a purpose, and so does Pep. What no one can tell is the affect of the post.

If I worried too much about that I would not bother, because I sure am NOT going to lie to someone or sugar coat things, just to make them feel better. I think most of the long term posters here feel the same, that includes you NCW.

This whole thing bothers me greatly. Partly because I love how Pep can make some uncomfortable. It is her talent, and it should cause people to stop and think..."What is this woman driving at, and how am I going to handle it." She has this innate ability to take people who for practical purpose are in complete panic and high anxiety and get them to breath again. Sort of like a slap in the face. This board needs that and yes the slap can hurt.

Man this is bothering me. I think I'll hang it up for awhile.

Please you all, think very carefully about this.

God Bless,

JL

Look at it this way.

If we had a MB reunion (of course in Texas) and you all were in a restraunt and I showed up with my famous, flaming black widows, I would be putting you in danger.

Would you say I had no responsibility? Because you COULD choose to not come to the reunion or leave when I showed up.

I was invited to the reunion, as we are invited to post. I am not personally ready to summarily dismiss MY personal responsibility to be careful and thoughtful just because I have this (convenient) defense of "Well, you didn't have to read it."

In AA, you have an accountability partner. Nobody has a problem with that concept. Isn't that pretty much what we should be doing for each other here?

Isn't that what I did?

Funny you should say that NC...

Pep said on a thread a month or two ago....that new people in the journey of recovery shouldn't be giving advice...that new people should find someone with something they want - a healthy recovery, and then get advice from THEM. That they should have a sponsor...smart words from a smart lady....

Man, I just read this thread and all I have to say is that I don't think anyone should ever question a thing I say. If I say it, it is true and need not be verified, or second (third) guessed. I ofcourse do not take any responsibility (legal or whatever kind their may be)...for my thoughts.

But the message is the same.....Please....NO QUESTIONS ASKED (this is especially pointed at one Melody Lane).

Thank you for your kind attention.

Sourmale

This would be laughed out of AA, ncw, because this is not about personal accountibility, but about dictating the behavior of others and blaming others for our own sick reactions. In AA, we are taught that we are responsible for OURSELVES and to take responsibility for ourselves. Whereas this thread is all about holding others accountable and telling OTHERS how to behave. It is all about expecting others to live up to our OWN lofty standards.

We have a saying in AA: I cannot control people, places or things.

Very simple, but very true.

So, no, this is definitely NOT what we do in AA. This would not be tolerated for 2 seconds in AA. We learn that we can only control OURSELVES, not others. And that we are not in a position to DICTATE the behavior of others.


I am glad that you acknowledge this, because this very much is your issue. No one is obliged to live up to your standards. Only you. So basically you set yourself up for disappointment by setting a false standard for others. A sure-fire ticket to personal disappointment.


But the grenade was self inflicted and only experienced by you. There was no grenade and no one was harmed. You are using this imaginary "grenade" as an excuse to dictate the behavior of otther.


Again, one cannot be responsible for what cannot control. The posters here simply have no control over the reactions of others. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible for same. There are many very different people here who will have very different reactions; and no one has control over that.

Terms like "uncautious" or "hasty" are very subjective and will mean entirely different things to different posters. If that is your standard, fine, but you can't dictate that standard to others. We all have our own posting styles and cannot expect others to live up to our own standards of posting.

This is probably one of the most sick, disfunctional threads I have seen on this forum.

So Bob, what you are saying is that those of us who are wise are now going to NOT POST because of something we read?

Folks. Don't quit. Just realize that what you say has more impact than you might think.

you know what, LM? I don't care if people question what I say. They do that every day on this forum. But don't call out other posters and try to dicate personal standards of posting to them. This is all about Pep's failure to live up to ncw's personal standards of caution. She is not required to adhere to any such standard. Nor is she responsible for reactions over which she has no control.

So, please don't misunderstand my point.

ncwalker...

the point is though that people ARE careful....
just not perfect...

in the case of the restraining order...women have been abusing that tatic ...crap the NOW practically offers courses on how to get one against A N Y male for A N Y thing...

goodfather is another victim of many many women and system that is wrought with fraud where the guilty walk and innocent hang over and over again...

he's not the first one this board to get slammed by one..and unfortunately not the last...

his wifes unbelievable crass behavior of talking with OM and laughing at him...is pure evil....
and no affair that relies on the pain of the BS to feed their sick world will ever survive....

it is doomed...and if she doesn't change her ways she is doomed as well...

for some reason these boards have changed in the past months...

it is becoming more and more uncomfortable to be here...

where does this end..?

accountibility partners in addiction have one goal no matter the crap or chaos....all of which they can't change...
stay sober....
same equal goal for every person no matter the issues...
round here it's not even close to being that cut and dry...


this board works because so many people have the opportunity to bring many different sides and opinions to light....

one person to one poster....wouldn't work...in my opinion...
and so much valueable perspectives would be lost....

I don't know....

people are careful what with what they write...
I believe that..
I read them

where does this end..
who becomes the "be careful" police...
it's a question worth pondering...


ARK^^

WOW Nellie........I was just kind of joking here about all of this Mel.....<sorry <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />....holding the newspaper in front of my face and cowering down a bit>.

Lem

Mel. I am agreeing again. We cannot control what others do when they read what we write.

But we can control what we write.


Mel. Did you read this from the start? Pep came to me, asked me what bothered me, I told her. She came back with define "careful" and "impact". And my response was I can't. I totally owned that the bad reaction was mine. I also do not think I was alone in the reaction. Which is OK, too.

Which prompted me to think - should we be more careful?

The only reason I entertained the notion was to help me. To work out my own personal stance.

A psychiatrist can have a malpractice suit brought against them, correct? I am not sure.

The parallels between what a psychiatrist does and what is done here are (in my opinion) close enough for us to sometimes stop and consider the impact that what we say has. Not control. Impact. And I can't even define that.

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

yes, but unfortunatlely these kind of malpractice suits aren't brought on often enough <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Instead, the people on the "front lines" are the ones being sued by the sharks <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

LM

ncw, but we are not psychiatrists, teachers or parents. We are co-equal posters who are only here to give our own opinion about Marriage Builders. Everyone who comes here fully understands that and is responsible for their own reactions and their own actions.

I think AA says it best:

WE CANNOT CONTROL PEOPLE, PLACES OR THINGS.

If you feel you need to be more "careful," then by all means be more careful. But is up to each person to determine, using their own judgment, what constitutes the standard for their own posts. We cannot dictate the standards of others.

Hey Dr. Lemon.
"WOW Nellie" means "WOW! as in HEY SHE'S LOOKIN GOOD."

You meant "WHOA NELLIE as in STOP HORSE." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Just having some spelling fun with you; things
could use a little lightening up around here. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Gracie

Now listen, you have to talk SLOW and EASY with we Texans, you yankee DAWG!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Like I have already said Mel. It WAS my failure. This is NOT all about that. That was dead and said a while ago.

This is not about lots of Pep's mistakes, I don't think she makes many.

This is about are we responsible for what we write? Not the interpretation, the presentation.

This is about is it safe to assume we WILL be taken with a grain of salt?


Ark. I do too. I really do. It just scared me is all. Maybe I can't separate the fact that I don't owe anything or have no reason to be responsible for what I send into cyberspace. I mean, if I was posting engineering results on a website, it would be expected that I at least checked my work. I wouldn't get fired if I was wrong. Even if something bad happened. But if I was careless about it, well that's a different story.

Who gets to be the careful police? Don't know. And when I DO ponder it, it scares the heck out of me.

But here is another one to ponder. How many other venues have had to adopt them?

Certainly Lemonman in the medical and WAT in the nuclear field have their "careful police". I do in manufacturing. To an extent, we have them when we raise our kids. It's CPS.

So they ARE out there. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />