Yep, I still think it's possible to set boundaries without using potentially harmful language. In this I prefer to err on the side of being too gentle than too harsh even if I have to fake it in public and work on it in private or with my counselor. That seems adult to me.
________________________________ From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" <doctordumb...@rocketmail.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi Sometimes you must speak another person's language to communicate with them. Maharishi said this, meet them at their level of consciousness, so rather than going on and on about compassion and my fellow man, sometimes a good go fuck yourself serves equally well. It is not said in judgment, but rather in context. An attempt at behavioral modification, as would be used on a very stubborn and angry adult child. It shows them immediately that there is a boundary there. Not something one would expect to have to do around adults, setting social boundaries, but some are childish in their state of emotional development. Sorry if it looks ugly from the outside, in, but not sorry enough to stop it, if necessary. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Judy and Xeno, I'm learning, especially here on FFL, that it's best NEVER to > blast someone unkindly. Whether it's *important to* reminds me of something > posted a few weeks ago: that evil takes over when good people become > prideful. Furthermore, I think it's possible to express one's opinion, set > boundaries, etc. without being unkind. Because really, exactly what does > unkindness accomplish? Does it produce kindness in the abusive person? If so, > then all I can say is that I have seen no empirical evidence of that here on > FFL! > > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:46 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Chopra nothing without Maharishi > > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > snip > > That may well be true. I don't think one ought to blast > people unkindly unless one feels it's important. It isn't > something to be done casually or for fun. > > > Getting blasted by Barry, and getting blasted by you are, > > for me, entirely different experiences. For me, that recent > > post to Share was the only one, of the ones of Barry's I > > have read recently that comes close to your intensity. > > You've missed quite a few posts of his, it seems. > > Did you see this one, for instance? > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349106 > > (Actually this is my response, but Barry's post is > quoted in its entirety. Interestingly, not long > afterward, he decided he was going to go back to > not responding to his "enemies." Oh, BTW, below > Barry's post are my responses to two of yours, > which I'm not sure you saw either.) > > Here's another (also with my response at the top): > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/349548 > > > It makes me wonder if somewhere in your life history your > > method of responding to people developed in response to > > some less than pleasant events, or it could a family > > characteristic. > > Neither, sorry to disappoint you. Maybe I was just lucky, > but until I started posting to electronic forums 25 or > so years ago, I'd never encountered this kind of > intellectual and factual dishonesty and gratuitous > obnoxiousness. (You can call that a "less than pleasant > event" if you like, but somehow I don't think it's what > you had in mind.) > > > Some people seem inclined to confrontation and argument > > more than others. So in reply to your last comment, aside > > from the question I asked about percentages, I do think > > you are confrontational and accusatory. I am stating this > > as if it were a fact. But the other side of the coin is, > > do you think yourself that you are this way or not? > > When I think it's appropriate, yes indeed. (The difference > between you and me in that regard is that I'm honest > about it.) > > > Do the people on the forum who are generally favourable to > > you think you are confrontational and accusatory? There > > would seem to be a range of opinion on this issue. > > I guess you've thought more about it than I have. It's not > something I'm concerned about. You probably should ask > the folks you have in mind. > > > I would assume that those who thought you were would tend > > to be more favourable in Barry's direction, and those who > > felt you were not would not be favourable to Barry, and > > even if they thought you were confrontational and accusatory, > > would feel it was justified as you championed ideas and an > > outlook on life they were more comfortable with. > > I have no idea what your point is here. I think people react > to Barry as individuals, not because of how I react to him. > > Maybe you're the exception, though. >
