I'd like to say I could, but sadly, it is not that much under my control <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> ... I'm old

[color:"yellow"] speaking of humor [/color]
[color:"blue"] my sister just sent me this [/color]

Eagles mate for life? Well one day Harry the Eagle waited at the nest for Mary his darlin of 10 glorious years. He went looking and found her. She had been shot. Dead!


Harry was devastated. After about six minutes of mourning he decided that he must get himself another mate. But he just might like to cross the feather barrier. So he flew off to find a new mate.



He found a lovely DOVE and brought her back to the nest. The sex was OK but all the DOVE would say is I am a DOVE I want to Love! I am a DOVE I want to love! Well this got on Harry's nerves so he kicked the Dove out of the nest and flew off once more to find a mate. He found a very sexy LOON and brought her back to the nest, again the sex was great ,but all the LOON would say is ,I am a LOON, I want to spoon! I am a LOON I want to spoon! Egads,out with the LOON.



Once more he flew off to find a mate. This time he found a gorgeous DUCK, so He brought the DUCK back to the nest. Again the sex was great, but all the DUCK would say was...well ..... you know ......



Scroll down.













No ...... the DUCK didn't say THAT!!!!!





Scroll a little further







The Duck said, I am a DRAKE you made a MISTAKE !

The following is what I posted, to which I assume you are referring. If you have read it, is this

"Are you complaining about MB silliness? what you get out of it?


Misdirect

Misrepresent

and then

Mock.

These are not honest behaviors.

People of good will can disagree.
With integrity.

When misdirection, misrepresentation and mockery are used,
Then I question the good will.
And I question the integrity
Of the people who persistantly choose that path.

I have watched this pattern appear on the forum.
Discussion begins.
Disagreements occur.
And then the swirling begins.
Insults disguised as humor.
Ridicule.
Mockery.
Derision.

A call out to one's fellow friends.
A flurry of silliness.
That shuts down discussion.
That distracts from the topic.

Nothing wrong with humor.
Nothing wrong with silliness.

Except when it is being wielded as a weapon.
Except when it is being used to attack.
Except when it is used to demean.
Except when it is used to discount an "opponent".

I've seen this pattern on this forum.

I also saw it in highschool.

ROFLMAO, Pep...I like that.

Now, what would you think if I said...

"somber serious"

That's just silly. Redundantly silly.

Was the heaving-with-laughter fest from anxiety? Boredom?

LA
LA

The thread was locked due to several moderator alerts requesting it be locked, edited, deleted, etc. Absolutely nothing wrong with Orchid's original topic re:MB 2X4's, however it seemed to be going steadily downhill after the MB age-old topic of posting styles was introduced. That topic has been hashed and rehashed NUMEROUS times on MB and almost always ends with the same solutions. Use your "IGNORE" feature or the Mod Alert.

If a particular poster has posted something offensive, I will edit it. If the entire thread is going downhill, I will lock it or delete it.

We have so many people here desperately trying to save their marriages. Why not concentrate on them?

LA, thanks for the kind words.


It's not necessary to respect everyone's opinion. However, maintaining a measurable level of true civility is conducive to the functioning of a public forum.

Sometimes the "nailing jello" effect can be a result of poor communication or comprehension skills, incompatible communication skills, high emotional levels, etc.

And sometimes the "nailing jello" effect is the result of one (or more) party/ies purposely sabotaging communication, manipulating it, disrupting it with little regard for the pursuit of actually understanding. Often disguising (what appears to me to be) their contempt behind a mask of just-believable-enough responses, that you can find yourself in a confused state trying to figure out why it's going so horribly wrong.

Some people do it with forethought and malicious intent. Some people do it as a natural defensive mechanism to protect themselves from admitting to error.

Anyway, those are my thoughts & opinions.

Justuss,

I'll take that as an answer to my email.

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

Thank you!

I saw the thread as helping with marriages...especially when spouses have different "styles" which get in the way of content...and discerning which is which.

I also saw it as helping the MB helpers...all about me, of course...in discerning what's a real MB 2x4 and what isn't.

Something I have been struggling with in myself.

Guess it goes to me learning what is assertive versus aggressive. I wanna act assertively. Middle ground between doormat (which I have felt recently...and I'm NOT a WS anymore!) and teflon.

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

I'm indebted to the Harleys for this website...for my marriage...I don't believe for a second I'd have it without Dr. Harley's books and the info on this website. And I'm also indebted to the posters on the forum...for my half of the marriage...sharing their perspectives, perceptions...their experiences. Their example of radical honesty is what led the way for me to choose radical honesty in my marriage.

Looking for middle ground, Justuss...sorting it through. I know I've conquered the infidelity portion of my life...now I'm working on being faithful to myself in other ways...which takes guarding my boundaries, high awareness, and continued learning.

So I was learning from that thread...what felt like constructive 2x4's and what felt like abuse...pure aggression for aggression's sake...because in my marriage, I acted as if I wanted more to be right than to be married. Still working on that.

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

LA

Grap,



I was just expressing my opinion. I wasn't writing from kindess. Definitely from admiration.



Do you mean "respect" as admiration? I agree...not necessary to admire or approve of everyone's opinion. I meant respect as everyone has their opinion...which I respect they have...equal to my own.

And I agree on the civility being conducive...even at home, in private, even in my own head.

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



Ahhh...now there's a kudo in that and in my calling you out. Thank you for answering my call out for just this...clarity. And kudos to me for doing so!

Poor comprehension and communication skills...CHECK! That's me. I'll take both. Same price. What I'm working on now. I got the emotional level skill working...don't drive drunk and don't post angry. I do post maudlin and sappy, thrilled, and dizzy with delight though. Guilty.

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



To me, that's gaslighting. Something new I'm studying...where I do it and how to spot it. And I think you cracked some light on it for me today...would it be appropriate when I think I see this to ask, "Are you clarifying to understand my opinion, or are you wanting me to have the same as yours?" Is that a civil question? I'm a language person...so I'm asking for the specific words as I'm learning this whole new language.

Sounds assumptive to me, still. "What is your intent in saying <blank> to me?" Is that closer, more open to more possibilities than my previous question? Is it respectful?

I've handicapped myself, Grap...because I gaslighted by victimhood...didn't know I was doing that now...after getting the whole breaking of enmeshment I had...found out, I'm still doing it (or have the urge). I thought respectful (my meaning) was to say, "Ouch." Share what they said actually hurt, using "I" statements. That didn't stop the gaslighting...because it didn't address Misdirection, Misrepresentation or Mockery.

I wanna know how to address those from my code of respect. Not reactively--PROactively. I know I first have to discern if one of those is present. Check my perception. Re-read and not react.

Old habit was to talk myself out of it...they aren't gaslighting...I'm getting it wrong. I shouldn't hurt. I shouldn't fear. I know that's not the way to check my perception.



Part of the jello for me is choosing to believe (from my adult experience) that people at times do this with malicious intent and forethought (that'll-get-her is my take). I do believe this. Now my old and new habit is mixed...that'll-get-her to do/think/say/feel what, exactly?

Best I can come up with is to stop ticking me off/hurting me/scaring me. Is this close? Slick50 was the first poster I heard clearly that there really were people without this intent...pure enjoyment of hurting others on a public forum. I don't think that's in my comprehension skill set yet...any help in that regard, if that's what you meant?

Do you mean that admission to error (would that include harm?) causes them pain/fear?

Appreciate your posts to me very much.

LA

Graplin, I don't know who you are (i.e. your story) but OMG your posts are amazing (in a good way)

I wonder, and it's more of a pipe dream than a real thought, if you will actually make some people think in an adult fashion around here.

I doubt it. Closed minds don't think a heck of a lot.

Ever noticed that you can bolt your doors tight shut, but the smoke from next door's bonfire manages to creep in through gaps in the windows?

TA

I wouldn't call those styles. I see them more as the conduits for someone's communication style. They are paints to be used on the canvas. The paint isn't the style, how the paint is applied to the canvas is.



How people communicate is an expression of themselves, so in that way it is about them. However, if it's being expressed to you, you still have to deal with it in some way.

I ran across the following regarding communication styles that I found interesting, perhaps you will too.

Communication Styles

The Four Basic Styles of Communication:
Passive, Aggressive, Passive-Aggressive, Assertive

PASSIVE COMMUNICATION is a style in which individuals have developed a pattern of avoiding expressing their opinions or feelings, protecting their rights, and identifying and meeting their needs. Passive communication is usually born of low self-esteem. These individuals believe: “I’m not worth taking care of.”

As a result, passive individuals do not respond overtly to hurtful or anger-inducing situations. Instead, they allow grievances and annoyances to mount, usually unaware of the build up. But once they have reach their high tolerance threshold for unacceptable behavior, they are prone to explosive outbursts, which are usually out of proportion to the triggering incident. After the outburst, however, they feel shame, guilt, and confusion, so they return to being passive.

• Passive communicators will often:
• fail to assert for themselves
• allow others to deliberately or inadvertently infringe on their rights
• fail to express their feelings, needs, or opinions
• tend to speak softly or apologetically
• exhibit poor eye contact and slumped body posture

AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION is a style in which individuals express their feelings and opinions and advocate for their needs in a way that violates the rights of others. Thus, aggressive communicators are verbally and/or physically abusive. Aggressive communication is born of low self-esteem (often caused by past physical and/or emotional abuse), unhealed emotional wounds, and feelings of powerlessness.

Aggressive communicators will often:

• try to dominate others
• use humiliation to control others
• criticize, blame, or attack others
• be very impulsive
• have low frustration tolerance
• speak in a loud, demanding, and overbearing voice
• act threateningly and rudely
• not listen well
• interrupt frequently
• use “you” statements
• have piercing eye contact and an overbearing posture

PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION is a style in which individuals appear passive on the surface but are really acting out anger in a subtle, indirect, or behind-the-scenes way. Prisoners of War (POWs) often act in passive-aggressive ways to deal with an overwhelming lack of power. POWs may try to secretly sabotage the prison, make fun of the enemy, or quietly disrupt the system while smiling and appearing cooperative.

People who develop a pattern of passive-aggressive communication usually feel powerless, stuck, and resentful – in other words, they feel incapable of dealing directly with the object of their resentments. Instead, they express their anger by subtly undermining the object (real or imagined) of their resentments. They smile at you while setting booby traps all around you.

Passive-Aggressive communicators will often:

• mutter to themselves rather than confront the person or issue
• have difficulty acknowledging their anger
• use facial expressions that don't match how they feel - i.e., smiling when angry
• use sarcasm
• deny there is a problem
• appear cooperative while purposely doing things to annoy and disrupt
• use subtle sabotage to get even

ASSERTIVE COMMUNICATION is a style in which individuals clearly state their opinions and feelings, and firmly advocate for their rights and needs without violating the rights of others. Assertive communication is born of high self-esteem. These individuals value themselves, their time, and their emotional, spiritual, and physical needs and are strong advocates for themselves while being very respectful of the rights of others.

Assertive communicators will:

• state needs and wants clearly, appropriately, and respectfully
• express feelings clearly, appropriately, and respectfully
• use “I” statements
• communicate respect for others
• listen well without interrupting
• feel in control of self
• have good eye contact
• speak in a calm and clear tone of voice
• have a relaxed body posture
• feel connected to others
• feel competent and in control
• not allow others to abuse or manipulate them
• stand up for their rights

end of quoted material

Connecting the two, you can see how silliness (for ex.) can be used passively, aggressively, passive-aggressively and assertively.

There's more on the site if you want to read additional details. I disgree with the statements they made about agressive speakers. When they wrote, "The impact of a pattern of aggressive communication is that these individuals become alienated from others."

My experience with group dynamics is that agressive people aren't always alienated. They're often leaders. It's cliched, but if you want to see it in action recall any of those teen flicks that concentrate of girl clics.

Let me know what you think.

I think that motive does matter in some aspects, but when you're dealing with public communication, I see that as a tarpit. God knows hearts, I don't. In fact, Scripture makes it clear that we don't even know our own hearts at times. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart," JER.17:9

So, in public communication, we're better off dealing with the fruit (what is being said & done) rather than trying to divine what the root is, IMO.

As to the threads of doom - it is human nature to be drawn to controversy. Politicians and religious charlatans know this and use it. In a public forum in cyberlife, it seems to be harder to draw and comply with boundaries than it is in ones meatlife.

Imagine that we were all co-workers and that these same controversial issues came up. I think that some of the thread participants would have acted differently if the same discussion was occurring in the company lunch room.

They might have spoken their dissenting opinion, might have boycotted the lunchroom in protest, might have contacted company officials to lodge a complaint, might have quit their job - but I doubt they would have arrived at the same lunch table day after day and act as they did in their cyberlife.

And if the company examined the complaints and said that the discussion would be allowed in the lunchroom (as did the moderators here), I don't think that those who seemed intent to disrupt online, would have continued that same level and type of behavior in meatlife.

The comparison has limitations.

I keep in mind that people can feel strongly that when they think something is wrong they must protest. People draw that line in very different places. As a not-meant-to-be inflammatory example, take abortion. Among the people who feel strongly against it there are people who choose to: adopt, support pro-life organizations, volunteer, carry placards, fundraise, distribute brochures, march in support, write letters to the editor, speak publically, shoot medical personnel and blow up clinics.

The people on the end of the list above usually question the committment and strength of belief of the people at the first of the list. The people at the first of the list tend to think the end of the list guys are extremists.

I think we saw those same dynamics during the threads of doom. Just observations, not solutions.

That has a "testy" sound to me. At first, I would tend to compare what I actually wrote with what is being presented back to me with the initial premise that it's just miscommunication. And I will often copy and paste what I actually said in response to the mis-interpretation. And then see where it goes from there.


That one doesn't have the same "testiness" that the first one had to me.



It is respectful. It's coming from the optimistic position that everyone with whom you communicate cares.

If you're communicating in "the heat of the moment" with someone and they don't respond to your expression of hurt, often, if you can step back until the emotions cool down they can often express concern about the hurt or at least acknowledge the hurt - intentional or unintentional otherwise.

If you're communicating with someone and it's not a highly emotional discussion, and you say "ouch" and they continue to bulldoze on and especially when it degenerates to personal slams (again when there isn't an emotional investment) - then it's probably because your pain doesn't mean squat to them.

That's because clearing up the communication isn't their goal.

Their goal might be to win, to play to the crowd (in a public arena), to stroke or protect their own ego, etc.



It's not always fear or pain. Sometimes it's about pride. And I am enjoying our conversations as well.

Thank you for responding, Grap...

More language study here...so, given I won't know intent, or if my stuff means squat to them...hey, wait a minute.

Ouch was an optimistic honest answer...I think I found another one in me. I believe when people post responses to me that they want to share with me...that's an assumption. What you're saying is that may not be the case...

Makes sense.

Not from pain or fear or anything I can know. They post. Period.

So when my words are misrepresented...stating, "You are misrepresenting my words" is civil? "You are taking your perception of my words and trying to make it what I said." Is that respectful?

Not tone...essence. Seems honest to me...and demanding...like then I'm making my perception into fact.

LOL

When they misdirect...I won't follow. I got that. When they repeatedly ask for a response to a misdirection, I can say, "That's misdirection. Not on topic. Did you have something you wanted to say in direct response?"

Is that respectful? Or just not give into the "You haven't responded" posts when they misdirect?

For Mockery..."I read your words as mocking me for my thoughts."

Seems wimpy to me. Honest, yet wimpy. With a hint of oregano.

LOL

Maybe I'm so sensitive to mockery because I do so to myself. I like my humor. I tickle myself. I other people's humor...mockery isn't humorous to me at all.

Help me out, 'k?

And I got that asking what their intent is, rather than assuming, is an act of respect. And to let go the outcome...because most of the time, they don't answer it.

Would asking for their intent be misdirection?

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

LA

That's right, they may not be primarily interested in sharing with you.



LA, to me it's a process. (Please keep in mind, I make no claims to expertise on this subject and intend to only express my understanding and experience.) When interacting with someone for the first time, I tend toward neutrality. I don't enter in presuming either good will or ill will from others. Each ongoing interaction will begin to determine which direction my neutrality needle will move.

If I detect something less than neutrality or good will in the response to me, rather than say bluntly "You are misrepresenting my words" (which is accusatory) I might say, "It appears to me that you are misrepresenting my words. Here is what I actually said. Do you agree or disagree?" Because if it was just misinterpretation either on my or their part, then clarification can occcur.

If the conversation continues and it becomes increasingly clear to me that there are other motivations at play, I respond accordingly with blunter, yet civil responses.

Misdirection & misleading occurs (whether intentionally or not) when some tiny tidbit of a more complete/complex interaction is honed in on and presented back to you in a twisted way as if it was the whole point of the more complex interaction. If not careful, you may find yourself chasing an ever smaller rabbit-of-unimportance down an ever blacker hole while the "meat" of what was actually said is left to rot, unaddressed, unacknowledged and forgotten.

Another aspect of the above is the subtle attempt to "flavor" the interaction by interjecting words with negative/mocking connotations into the mix. For example responding to an assertion that humor can be used as a weapon with "it's ridiculous to complain about humor, etc."

Left unchallenged, subsequent readers will have inadvertantly swallowed the "ridiculous" and "complain" and are more likely to incorporate those "flavors" into *their* consequent interactions with the original poster with negative results.

Regarding mockery, I enjoy teasing, and laughter, and humor, and silliness. However, to me, mocking is just an insult dressed up in the guise of humor with the intention of tearing at another person.

A great way to hone these skills is to read internet forums and observe the interactions.