I publically apologize
Zed
subjected you to.
Bob Badour
> I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
> subjected you to.
That's a start. What about everyone else you have abused?
--
is there something in it for them, like maybe bailouts, if they can
panic us into doing something politically to cover them?
November 19, 2007 - John S Bolton
Zed
> Zed wrote:
> > I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
> > subjected you to.
>
> That's a start.
And that's where it ends. Sorry Bob, I'm not going to jump through
hoops to satisfy your power trip.
earthpots
> Zed wrote:
>
>> I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
>> subjected you to.
>
> That's a start. What about everyone else you have abused?
I think he has to recognize that there are others (ie Catriona R, Stephen
Wilson, etc.) before he can apologize. He may feel he doesn't owe all an
apology, possibly because he feels they (you?) have been just as abusive
towards him. He made a step in the right direction regarding Gareeth, but no
amount of goading/suggesting from others will help him to do the same with
others. This is something he has to desire to do of his own free will.
You are obviously irritating to him (intentionally or not), so perhaps you
should back off a bit and let him come to a few conclusions on his own, as
to how to make his peace with the group, and who he feels he should direct
apologies to. I guess if I were perceived as the antagonist to someone
clearly showing signs of being troubled about a number of things, I would
step aside and give that person some space, and not make them feel as though
everything they say/do should be subject to my criticism, intended as
helpful or not.
JMHO.
--
Carol
Contessa of Consternation
Known to leave foes discombobulated
Autistic Spectrum Code v.1.0
AS? d- s--:+ a+ c+ p+ t-- f S+ p@- e+ h- r- n+(-) i+ P m-() M
http://www32.brinkster.com/ascdecode/
"I have run rings around you logically". Monty Python
Email at clay_p...@nospam.com, removing the 'nospam' and replacing
with 'msn'.
Bob Badour
That's unfortunate, because I am not on a power trip. You get to choose
whether to win or lose. If you start accepting reality for what it is,
start acting like an adult, and start taking responsibility for
yourself, you win. Otherwise, you lose.
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>Zed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
>>>subjected you to.
>>
>>That's a start. What about everyone else you have abused?
>
> I think he has to recognize that there are others (ie Catriona R, Stephen
> Wilson, etc.) before he can apologize. He may feel he doesn't owe all an
> apology, possibly because he feels they (you?) have been just as abusive
> towards him. He made a step in the right direction regarding Gareeth, but no
> amount of goading/suggesting from others will help him to do the same with
> others. This is something he has to desire to do of his own free will.
>
> You are obviously irritating to him (intentionally or not), so perhaps you
> should back off a bit
Sorry. I don't back off from bullies and abusers. And frankly, Zed's
employer won't back off from abuse either.
Zed
> I think he has to recognize that there are others (ie Catriona R, Stephen
> Wilson, etc.) before he can apologize. He may feel he doesn't owe all an
> apology, possibly because he feels they (you?) have been just as abusive
> towards him. He made a step in the right direction regarding Gareeth, but no
> amount of goading/suggesting from others will help him to do the same with
> others. This is something he has to desire to do of his own free will.
>
> You are obviously irritating to him (intentionally or not), so perhaps you
> should back off a bit and let him come to a few conclusions on his own, as
> to how to make his peace with the group, and who he feels he should direct
> apologies to. I guess if I were perceived as the antagonist to someone
> clearly showing signs of being troubled about a number of things, I would
> step aside and give that person some space, and not make them feel as though
> everything they say/do should be subject to my criticism, intended as
> helpful or not.
I think things would go better if y'all stop trying to patronize me as
a 12 year old who needs a sense of direction.
I mean how just silly is this nonsense going to get?
Zed
> Zed wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 5:53 pm, Bob Badour <bbad...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>Zed wrote:
>
> >>>I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
> >>>subjected you to.
>
> >>That's a start.
>
> > And that's where it ends. Sorry Bob, I'm not going to jump through
> > hoops to satisfy your power trip.
>
> That's unfortunate, because I am not on a power trip. You get to choose
> whether to win or lose. If you start accepting reality for what it is,
> start acting like an adult, and start taking responsibility for
> yourself, you win. Otherwise, you lose.
Bob, you are an idiot.
Zed
> Sorry. I don't back off from bullies and abusers.
Ah ha! Bing, bing, bing... the power trip rears it's silly head
Bob Badour
Frankly, 12 would be an improvement.
Zed
> Frankly, 12 would be an improvement.
Please stop attacking me you abuser.
earthpots
And how is that working out, Bob? From my perspective, it's not turning out
too good. Sometimes you do need to just walk away; doesn't mean you are
excusing the abusive behavior, just means you have chosen to direct your
energies elsewhere, where you are more likely to be received. Obviously Zed
is *not* receptive of your attempts at intervention.
earthpots
That is exactly my point. No amount of intervention, well intentioned or
not, is going to effect change in an individual, unless the individual is
receptive and wants it. You will figure it out on your own, and act on your
own, based on what actionsw you feel are the appropriate one(s) to make. No
amount of suggesting, goading, etc, is going to work. The person has to find
it within themselves. You either will, or you won't.
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>earthpots wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Zed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
>>>>>subjected you to.
>>>>
>>>>That's a start. What about everyone else you have abused?
>>>
>>>I think he has to recognize that there are others (ie Catriona R,
>>>Stephen Wilson, etc.) before he can apologize. He may feel he
>>>doesn't owe all an apology, possibly because he feels they (you?)
>>>have been just as abusive towards him. He made a step in the right
>>>direction regarding Gareeth, but no amount of goading/suggesting
>>>from others will help him to do the same with others. This is
>>>something he has to desire to do of his own free will. You are obviously
>>>irritating to him (intentionally or not), so
>>>perhaps you should back off a bit
>>
>>Sorry. I don't back off from bullies and abusers. And frankly, Zed's
>>employer won't back off from abuse either.
>
> And how is that working out, Bob?
It works out just fine for me, Carol. If Zed chooses to be a loser, the
cost to me is negligible.
Bob Badour
You are excusing abusive behaviour. I suggest you give your moral
compass a tap. It seems stuck.
Ace*
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > earthpots wrote:
>
> >> Bob Badour wrote:
>
> >>> Zed wrote:
>
> >>>> I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
> >>>> subjected you to.
>
> >>> That's a start. What about everyone else you have abused?
>
> >> I think he has to recognize that there are others (ie Catriona R,
> >> Stephen Wilson, etc.) before he can apologize. He may feel he
> >> doesn't owe all an apology, possibly because he feels they (you?)
> >> have been just as abusive towards him. He made a step in the right
> >> direction regarding Gareeth, but no amount of goading/suggesting
> >> from others will help him to do the same with others. This is
> >> something he has to desire to do of his own free will. You are obviously
> >> irritating to him (intentionally or not), so
> >> perhaps you should back off a bit
>
> > Sorry. I don't back off from bullies and abusers. And frankly, Zed's
> > employer won't back off from abuse either.
>
> And how is that working out, Bob? From my perspective, it's not turning out
> too good. Sometimes you do need to just walk away; doesn't mean you are
> excusing the abusive behavior, just means you have chosen to direct your
> energies elsewhere, where you are more likely to be received. Obviously Zed
> is *not* receptive of your attempts at intervention.
Carol, Bob is using my supposedly being an abuser as an excuse to mess
with me. It's an old senario. Kid A sees kid B, picking an a little
kid. This gives kid A carte blanche in his mind to harass stalk
torment etc kid B, while paying the hero.
A*
Ace*
> You are excusing abusive behaviour. I suggest you give your moral
> compass a tap. It seems stuck.
You are using abusive (really aggressive) behavior as an excuse to try
trouncing someone while making yourself out to be a hero. And a guru
to bat. I'm supposedly lost without your guidance. If only your actual
intellect and knowledge matched your ego. You sir are a fraud.
A*
earthpots
> earthpots wrote:
>
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>> earthpots wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Zed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I publicly apologize to you, Gareeth, for the unwarranted abuse I
>>>>>> subjected you to.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a start. What about everyone else you have abused?
>>>>
>>>> I think he has to recognize that there are others (ie Catriona R,
>>>> Stephen Wilson, etc.) before he can apologize. He may feel he
>>>> doesn't owe all an apology, possibly because he feels they (you?)
>>>> have been just as abusive towards him. He made a step in the right
>>>> direction regarding Gareeth, but no amount of goading/suggesting
>>>> from others will help him to do the same with others. This is
>>>> something he has to desire to do of his own free will. You are
>>>> obviously irritating to him (intentionally or not), so
>>>> perhaps you should back off a bit
>>>
>>> Sorry. I don't back off from bullies and abusers. And frankly, Zed's
>>> employer won't back off from abuse either.
>>
>> And how is that working out, Bob?
>
> It works out just fine for me, Carol. If Zed chooses to be a loser,
> the cost to me is negligible.
You don't see it as an exercise in futility? Do the bullies and abusers ever
change? If the cost to you is negligible, why waste your time confronting a
potential loser? Your not Zeds employer, so it's not like you can enact
consequences. You have no relationship with him outside this forum. His
employer can impose samctions. And that is what they would do, if
conversation is unproductive. They wouldn't drag on the discourse you have
engaged in with Zed, they simply would have utilized standard business
disciplinary tactics. That may include written and/or verbal warnings, loss
of perks, suspension or even termination. Your options, on the other hand,
are to keep the discourse going, or ignoring/killfiling.
Bob Badour
No, Carol, I don't see it as futile. I see potential winners not
potential losers. Zed may be a loser, but most people are not losers.
One would have to be cruel or callous or cowardly to ignore the
potential winners.
What payoff do you get for coming to the rescue?
Ace*
> No, Carol, I don't see it as futile. I see potential winners not
> potential losers. Zed may be a loser, but most people are not losers.
> One would have to be cruel or callous or cowardly to ignore the
> potential winners.
The ego of this man is astounding. I mean is he trying to sell Bob
Badour "be a winner like me" achievement CD's or something? Does he
actually believe his exploiting someone's weak moment and stalking him
for it makes him a winner?
It seems in his mind I'm a loser because I refuse to accept his
"guidance". Because I continue to call a spade a spade.
Bob Badour is a fraud, plain and simple.
A*
earthpots
There is nothing wrong with my moral compass. I just happen to recognize the
futility of trying to reason with someone who is either unwilling or
incapable of altering their behavior. You seem to think otherwise, but your
discourse with Zed hasn't caused him to evaluate or change the behavior you
find abusive. I don't agree with your approach (confronting abusers, because
from my experience it doesn't work), and mine (which is to try to understand
the reasons for a persons behavior, rather than confronting the person and
labelling them) isn't agreeable to you. I don't live in a world of black and
white moral absolutes, there are always shades of grey. I also tend to be
empathetic to a fault; so my observation is that there is often an
underlying cause for behavior, and sometimes having that acknowledged by
others is helpful to the person with behaviour problems. In Zeds defense;
none of his replies to me have been abusive in content.
Have you thought that perhaps you were reaping what you were sowing? I
observed that both Stephen and Catriona both peacefully resolved the
conflicts Zed had with them. They came to an amicable understanding, and
neither Stephen or Catriona labelled Zed as abusive or anything else, they
just stated their positions, and Zed responded favorably to them at one
point, all came to a peaceful end. Catriona saw it as a misunderstanding
that she was attempting to clear up. Zed agreed and suggested moving on,
Catriona not only agreed with that, but apologized for any misintentions. To
Zeds complaint regarding lack of empathy, Stephen apologized that it wasn't
one of his stronger traits. Zed acknowledged it was a poor choice of words
on his part, as he is lacking in empathy himself, so shouldn't have expected
it from others. Do you agree or disagree with how they ended their conflict?
How is it they resolved and moved on, but you and Zed could not? Are their
moral compasses stuck because they chose to move on rather that antagonize
or instigate Zed? Is my moral compass stuck because I don't conform to your
preconceived notions that abusers should be confronted? Who are you to make
a judgement on where my moral compass rests, or even Zeds for that matter?
One thing you and Zed have in common, is you are both prone to angry
outbursts. I have seen this with prior posts of yours, especially with your
disagreements with Gareeth regarding Canadian Health Care. Ironically, some
of the behavior you have accused Zed of, you are exhibiting yourself. The
pot calling the kettle black.
You don't think starting a thread to ask opinions regarding Zed was being a
bit melodramatic? And a lot of your replies to him were simply attempts at
goading and atagonizing him. And yes, Zed was returning your replies by
goading and atagonizing you as well. Would you have expected otherwise from
someone you perceived to be abusive? That's why I asked you exactly what you
intended to accomplish with that approach? For someone who claims to have no
interest in Zed, you have spent far more time than anyone engaging in
discourse with him. I ask you how that's working out, you say "fine" because
the cost is negligible to you if Zed chooses (in your opinion) to be "a
loser". If the cost is negiligible, and you get no returns from your
investment (which you surely haven't with Zed.), are you not engaging in a
non-profitable activity? I do see that you finally filtered him, citing that
you "grew tedious". So, at one point, you must have concluded the futility
of constantly engaging him.
I've been holding back a bit, in the interest of keeping peace, as I dislike
conflict and prefer to avoid it when possible. And speaking of
"recogniz(ing) the futility of trying to reason with someone who is either
unwilling or incapable of altering their behavior", I'm applying the same
concept to you. You seem to think that any approach other than yours is
somewhow morally incorrect, and therefore the persons moral compass must be
stuck because they prefer to use reason and empathy rather than goading and
atagonizing. Therefore there is nothing futher to discuss with you, as I
would be wasting my time with you, in much the same way with Zed.
Bob Badour
Since my behavior is just fine by me and unlikely to change, why did you
write this post? After all, I have already filtered Zed. What do you
hope to accomplish?
> You seem to think otherwise, but your
> discourse with Zed hasn't caused him to evaluate or change the behavior you
> find abusive.
I don't think otherwise at all. I give people the benefit of the doubt.
I stuck with Zed until he removed all doubt. I filtered the asshole a
day and a half ago already. What are you trying to accomplish?
> I don't agree with your approach (confronting abusers, because
> from my experience it doesn't work), and mine (which is to try to understand
> the reasons for a persons behavior, rather than confronting the person and
> labelling them) isn't agreeable to you.
I find nothing wrong with trying to understand a person's behaviour. In
fact, I put much effort into understanding Zed's behaviour, and I think
I have a pretty good grasp of it now.
While uncharacteristically abusive behaviour is generally driven by
anxiety and a lack of self-respect, I don't think Zed's behaviour is
uncharacteristic of him at all. Although, anxiety over his job may have
sent him here looking for fresh meat.
Here's a link to another non-expert who has put in some effort to try to
understand Zed:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj4arwv
I certainly do not try to go to the same level of detail as that
individual when it comes to labels. I am content to conlude Zed is an
asshole and leave it at that. Frankly, I don't think Zed left any room
for doubt on that score. ::shrug::
As far as his behaviour goes, Zed clearly gets his strokes playing the
Child rebelling against the Parent. He reacts violently to any Adult
communication. After getting his strokes as the Child, he plays a very
hard game to reverse the roles and become Parent. I imagine he gets an
extra special payoff for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
> I don't live in a world of black and
> white moral absolutes, there are always shades of grey.
Neither do I. In fact, I try as much as I can to live in an empirical
world of observable behaviours and consequences without regard to
morals, per se, which is why I don't particularly dislike Zed. I don't
particularly like him either. ::shrug:: I don't pretend to know what
Zed's motives and intentions are. I only know what he says and does here.
> I also tend to be
> empathetic to a fault; so my observation is that there is often an
> underlying cause for behavior, and sometimes having that acknowledged by
> others is helpful to the person with behaviour problems.
I did acknowledge that in Zed's case--in case you hadn't noticed.
Shortly after I posted the acknowledgment, Zed escalated his behaviour
dramatically. As I pointed out, he reacts violently to any Adult
communication.
In what way was it helpful to acknowledge the underlying cause?
> In Zeds defense;
> none of his replies to me have been abusive in content.
Why would he? You are playing his game exactly the way he wants you to.
I would go a step further and suggest he kissed your ass to draw you in,
make you an ally, and get you to assume the Rescuer role in his game.
> Have you thought that perhaps you were reaping what you were sowing?
I am confused. What am I reaping?
> I
> observed that both Stephen and Catriona both peacefully resolved the
> conflicts Zed had with them.
I have Stephen filtered so I don't know anything about that. Catriona
withdrew after how much unapologetic abuse from Zed? And then there was
1 polite exchange after Catriona said she was withdrawing, in response
to which Zed quickly assumed the Parent role to suggest they both let
bygones be bygones. That must have been mighty white of him.
> They came to an amicable understanding
My interpretation of the exchange differs from yours.
> Do you agree or disagree with how they ended their conflict?
See above.
> How is it they resolved and moved on, but you and Zed could not?
In case you haven't noticed, I moved on a day and a half ago.
What payoff do you get from assuming the Rescuer role?
> Are their
> moral compasses stuck because they chose to move on rather that antagonize
> or instigate Zed?
I don't know about Stephen. Catriona withdrew without ever excusing the
abusive behavior. Her moral compass seems fine to me.
> Is my moral compass stuck because I don't conform to your
> preconceived notions that abusers should be confronted?
Your moral compass seems stuck because you excused and/or defended
behaviour that violates another human being.
Carol, I know you are a nice person. You have been very open and shared
some of your vulnerabilities here. I would not want to say anything
hurtful to you.
I strongly doubt you would ever violate another human being. I want you
to ask yourself--to answer to yourself not to me or to anyone else: What
payoff do you get that would cause you to excuse or defend behaviour
that violates another human being?
> Who are you to make
> a judgement on where my moral compass rests, or even Zeds for that matter?
I am a person who understands that people have a right not to be abused.
> One thing you and Zed have in common, is you are both prone to angry
> outbursts. I have seen this with prior posts of yours, especially with your
> disagreements with Gareeth regarding Canadian Health Care. Ironically, some
> of the behavior you have accused Zed of, you are exhibiting yourself. The
> pot calling the kettle black.
Indeed. I don't excuse my behaviour. While I was angry and justifiably
so, nothing excuses my profane outburst. I am sorry for exposing anyone
to that outburst, and I apologize to everyone who saw it.
> You don't think starting a thread to ask opinions regarding Zed was being a
> bit melodramatic?
No. Zed repeated several times that people here hated or despised him
and wanted to punish him. His stated perception of reality was
completely psychotic as is often the case when people face acute stress
and anxiety.
As long as someone bases their behaviour on a psychotic fantasy of other
people's motives and intentions, that person will just dig himself or
herself deeper and deeper into trouble. The only way people can counter
the fantasy is to state the reality, and I started the thread to ask
people to do just that.
> And a lot of your replies to him were simply attempts at
> goading and atagonizing him.
My replies held reality up for him to face. I did not attempt to do
anything but keep things real. Reality goads most people in the sense
that they react to it and it informs their behaviour. Sometimes, people
find aspects of reality unpleasant. I think it is more of a stretch,
though, to call that antagonism.
> And yes, Zed was returning your replies by
> goading and atagonizing you as well.
He didn't antagonize me. I tried to keep things as real, as easy and as
Adult as possible. Insofar as I responded on occasion as Parent, one
could say he goaded me into that role, though.
When I saw Zed was playing an increasingly harder game especially one
trying to reverse roles and goad me into playing the Child, I concluded
he was hopelessly stuck in his game, and I withdrew. What did you see
around the same time that caused you to assume the Rescuer role?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle
> Would you have expected otherwise from
> someone you perceived to be abusive?
I don't expect anything. Some people engage in uncharacteristic abuse
and stop it quickly when they realize they are doing wrong. For some
people, abuse is in their character. Even then, sometimes characteristic
abusers reach a point in their lives when they are ready to make a change.
Most characteristic abusers, however, are not ready to make such a
change, so expecting anything would merely set oneself up for
disappointment.
> That's why I asked you exactly what you
> intended to accomplish with that approach?
Sometimes it accomplishes nothing. Sometimes the bully goes away to look
for easier victims. Sometimes I make a friend.
Regardless of any other outcome, what I intend is not to condone abuse.
When good men remain silent, evil triumphs.
> For someone who claims to have no
> interest in Zed, you have spent far more time than anyone engaging in
> discourse with him.
I have an interest in this newsgroup, not much else was going on, and I
thought Zed was worth giving the benefit of the doubt.
> I ask you how that's working out, you say "fine" because
> the cost is negligible to you if Zed chooses (in your opinion) to be "a
> loser". If the cost is negiligible, and you get no returns from your
> investment (which you surely haven't with Zed.), are you not engaging in a
> non-profitable activity?
No. Sometimes I profit. Sometimes I don't. The cost is negligible which
makes the rate of return very high.
> I do see that you finally filtered him, citing that
> you "grew tedious". So, at one point, you must have concluded the futility
> of constantly engaging him.
Only after I gave him the benefit of the doubt and only after he removed
all doubt. Do you disagree with giving people the benefit of the doubt?
> I've been holding back a bit, in the interest of keeping peace, as I dislike
> conflict and prefer to avoid it when possible. And speaking of
> "recogniz(ing) the futility of trying to reason with someone who is either
> unwilling or incapable of altering their behavior", I'm applying the same
> concept to you.
Are you? Really?
> You seem to think that any approach other than yours is
> somewhow morally incorrect, and therefore the persons moral compass must be
> stuck because they prefer to use reason and empathy rather than goading and
> atagonizing.
Only when that method involves excusing or defending the violation of
another human being. Please ask yourself what you got out of excusing
Zed's abuse.
> Therefore there is nothing futher to discuss with you, as I
> would be wasting my time with you, in much the same way with Zed.
Indeed.
Catriona R
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:10:58 -0400, Bob Badour
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>earthpots wrote:
>> I
>> observed that both Stephen and Catriona both peacefully resolved the
>> conflicts Zed had with them.
>
>I have Stephen filtered so I don't know anything about that. Catriona
>withdrew after how much unapologetic abuse from Zed? And then there was
>1 polite exchange after Catriona said she was withdrawing, in response
>to which Zed quickly assumed the Parent role to suggest they both let
>bygones be bygones. That must have been mighty white of him.
I did find it interesting how he suddenly turned around to offer that
olive branch. Seemed a little at odds with what had gone before, but
it seemed worth accepting it and making peace since continuing the
argument was not going to lead anywhere. I'm no good at analysing
people's behaviour but your theory certainly could fit what I've seen.
>> Are their
>> moral compasses stuck because they chose to move on rather that antagonize
>> or instigate Zed?
>
>I don't know about Stephen. Catriona withdrew without ever excusing the
>abusive behavior. Her moral compass seems fine to me.
I basically withdrew because it seemed pointless to continue, having
become clear that Zed is not going to listen and that his behaviour is
not such that I can understand it enough to communicate well. If he
were like me, this thread would've begun on a misunderstanding,
might've argued for a little, but then it would've been cleared up and
resolved, which was what I was hoping to accomplish with my posts.
However clearly his brain works in a different way to mine, as no
understanding was reached, merely more bad feeling. And the stress
that was causing me was enough that I figured it best to withdraw. I
certainly don't excuse the behaviour, but there seems little point in
feeding it more. By which logic I probably shouldn't even make this
post but oh well, I wanted to explain my thinking a little more.
>> One thing you and Zed have in common, is you are both prone to angry
>> outbursts. I have seen this with prior posts of yours, especially with your
>> disagreements with Gareeth regarding Canadian Health Care. Ironically, some
>> of the behavior you have accused Zed of, you are exhibiting yourself. The
>> pot calling the kettle black.
>
>Indeed. I don't excuse my behaviour. While I was angry and justifiably
>so, nothing excuses my profane outburst. I am sorry for exposing anyone
>to that outburst, and I apologize to everyone who saw it.
As a slightly related note to this, I've been meaning to say I have a
lot of respect for you for being able to put those disagreements
behind you and defend Gareeth in this thread. I believe you've said
you can't hold grudges, and other autistic people are like that too,
but I find it quite hard to forgive and forget when I've had
disagreements as strong as those you've had with her in the past, so I
respect that you can do that. I wish I was more capable of letting go
of bad feeling with others!
Bob Badour
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:10:58 -0400, Bob Badour
> <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>earthpots wrote:
>>
>>>I
>>>observed that both Stephen and Catriona both peacefully resolved the
>>>conflicts Zed had with them.
>>
>>I have Stephen filtered so I don't know anything about that. Catriona
>>withdrew after how much unapologetic abuse from Zed? And then there was
>>1 polite exchange after Catriona said she was withdrawing, in response
>>to which Zed quickly assumed the Parent role to suggest they both let
>>bygones be bygones. That must have been mighty white of him.
>
> I did find it interesting how he suddenly turned around to offer that
> olive branch. Seemed a little at odds with what had gone before, but
> it seemed worth accepting it and making peace since continuing the
> argument was not going to lead anywhere. I'm no good at analysing
> people's behaviour but your theory certainly could fit what I've seen.
I thought you were very gracious throughout your exchange with Zed.
<snip>
>>>One thing you and Zed have in common, is you are both prone to angry
>>>outbursts. I have seen this with prior posts of yours, especially with your
>>>disagreements with Gareeth regarding Canadian Health Care. Ironically, some
>>>of the behavior you have accused Zed of, you are exhibiting yourself. The
>>>pot calling the kettle black.
>>
>>Indeed. I don't excuse my behaviour. While I was angry and justifiably
>>so, nothing excuses my profane outburst. I am sorry for exposing anyone
>>to that outburst, and I apologize to everyone who saw it.
>
> As a slightly related note to this, I've been meaning to say I have a
> lot of respect for you for being able to put those disagreements
> behind you and defend Gareeth in this thread. I believe you've said
> you can't hold grudges, and other autistic people are like that too,
> but I find it quite hard to forgive and forget when I've had
> disagreements as strong as those you've had with her in the past, so I
> respect that you can do that. I wish I was more capable of letting go
> of bad feeling with others!
I have held grudges in the past so I am certainly able to do so. I would
say that was probably learned behaviour for me, though, rather than
anything innate. As I have aged and learned more about myself, I find I
just don't get anything out of holding grudges and resentments. In fact,
I find they harm me quite noticeably so they are increasingly easy to
let go of. Mind you, when I am angry in the moment, I express it/
Then again, holding a grudge was behaviour I learned sometime around
puberty so maybe it was driven by the passions of youth. Regardless,
holding a grudge was something I was much more likely to do 17 years ago
and not at all likely to do 34 years ago.
Also, when it dawned on me that I cannot read people's intentions, it
became much more difficult to justify a resentment. I learned that most
people's intentions are good or at worst indifferent most of the time.
With respect to Gareeth, I believe she means well, and as an autistic, I
can appreciate she might not fully understand my perspective when she
posts something dismissive of my experience. I believe she means well
because I know and love some people who are openly, explicitly and
emphatically Socialists. I know them well enough to know they mean well,
and I think they know me well enough to I mean well; even if we each
think the other is lying to himself or herself about the inevitable
outcomes of the policies each supports.
Catriona R
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:31:29 -0400, Bob Badour
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Catriona R wrote:
>> As a slightly related note to this, I've been meaning to say I have a
>> lot of respect for you for being able to put those disagreements
>> behind you and defend Gareeth in this thread. I believe you've said
>> you can't hold grudges, and other autistic people are like that too,
>> but I find it quite hard to forgive and forget when I've had
>> disagreements as strong as those you've had with her in the past, so I
>> respect that you can do that. I wish I was more capable of letting go
>> of bad feeling with others!
>
>I have held grudges in the past so I am certainly able to do so. I would
>say that was probably learned behaviour for me, though, rather than
>anything innate. As I have aged and learned more about myself, I find I
>just don't get anything out of holding grudges and resentments. In fact,
>I find they harm me quite noticeably so they are increasingly easy to
>let go of. Mind you, when I am angry in the moment, I express it/
That makes sense, I'm finally starting to learn when to drop an
argument, if it's causing me stress, but still got some way to go in
learning how to completely let go of things. It's something I'd very
much like to improve on; sometimes some random comment or other will
trigger memories of an argument from the past, sometimes years back,
and I'll find myself mentally repeating the argument - both pointless
and stressful, and something I'd really like to stop happening. I
guess at least I'm recognising it now which is a start... :-/
>Then again, holding a grudge was behaviour I learned sometime around
>puberty so maybe it was driven by the passions of youth. Regardless,
>holding a grudge was something I was much more likely to do 17 years ago
>and not at all likely to do 34 years ago.
>
>Also, when it dawned on me that I cannot read people's intentions, it
>became much more difficult to justify a resentment. I learned that most
>people's intentions are good or at worst indifferent most of the time.
Also a good point, thanks for that, I need to remember that one
myself!
>With respect to Gareeth, I believe she means well, and as an autistic, I
>can appreciate she might not fully understand my perspective when she
>posts something dismissive of my experience. I believe she means well
>because I know and love some people who are openly, explicitly and
>emphatically Socialists. I know them well enough to know they mean well,
>and I think they know me well enough to I mean well; even if we each
>think the other is lying to himself or herself about the inevitable
>outcomes of the policies each supports.
Makes sense.
Bob Badour
Yes, it is a start. When I do that sort of thing, I recognize it as an
avoidance behaviour. It's a sign I feel anxiety or worry over something.
I have learned to interrupt the avoidance behaviour and face what's
worrying me. Sometimes I am not even aware of what's bothering me. In
those situations, I just interrupt the avoidance behaviour, suggest to
myself that whatever is bothering me will come to me later, and find
something else to occupy my mind.
Keep in mind, too, when I was your age, I was a complete trainwreck so
it's not exactly fair to you to compare yourself with me as I am today.
In another 18 years, you might be far more laid back about things than I
am today.
Stephen Wilson
"Ace*" <avlvsv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6fdb1394-f312-4d86...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Ah well, if it's any consolation, it looks like I've upset Bob at some point
in the past. I can't remember what it was we argued about, but he's
apparently filtered (or killfiled) me.
Zed
> There is nothing wrong with my moral compass.
Oh yes there is if you don't agree with Bob Badour. And you're a loser
too.
Zed
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Ace*" <avlvsvery...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Oh then you must be another "loser". Welcome to the winning side.
Zed
> Since my behavior is just fine by me and unlikely to change,
Yeah, you're just out to change others, being as you're perfect and
all.
> > You seem to think otherwise, but your
> > discourse with Zed hasn't caused him to evaluate or change the behavior you
> > find abusive.
Bob may have me killfiltered, but he sure can't stop talking about me.
> I don't think otherwise at all. I give people the benefit of the doubt.
> I stuck with Zed until he removed all doubt. I filtered the asshole a
> day and a half ago already. What are you trying to accomplish?
In other words, I didn't conform.
> > I don't agree with your approach (confronting abusers, because
> > from my experience it doesn't work), and mine (which is to try to understand
> > the reasons for a persons behavior, rather than confronting the person and
> > labelling them) isn't agreeable to you.
>
> I find nothing wrong with trying to understand a person's behaviour. In
> fact, I put much effort into understanding Zed's behaviour, and I think
> I have a pretty good grasp of it now.
You showed no indication of trying to understand, and every indication
of trying to pigeonhole - and you got virtually everything wrong.
> While uncharacteristically abusive behaviour is generally driven by
> anxiety and a lack of self-respect, I don't think Zed's behaviour is
> uncharacteristic of him at all. Although, anxiety over his job may have
> sent him here looking for fresh meat.
Bob, will always feel he's in the right as long as he paints me as the
villain.
> Here's a link to another non-expert who has put in some effort to try to
> understand Zed:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj4arwv
NomenNisco is purely an attacker. That's all he/it posts are attacks.
The very sort of person Bob is pretending to be a protagonist against.
Figures he'd gravitate towards this individual.
> I certainly do not try to go to the same level of detail as that
> individual when it comes to labels. I am content to conlude Zed is an
> asshole and leave it at that. Frankly, I don't think Zed left any room
> for doubt on that score. ::shrug::
Poor Bob, so frustrated he couldn't manipulate me.
> As far as his behaviour goes, Zed clearly gets his strokes playing the
> Child rebelling against the Parent.
Or so Wikipedia tells you.
> He reacts violently to any Adult
> communication. After getting his strokes as the Child, he plays a very
> hard game to reverse the roles and become Parent. I imagine he gets an
> extra special payoff for that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
Yep there is folks, empirical evidence.
Or one could simple come to the foregone conclusion that Bob is on an
ego trip.
Well, I'm certainly not going to wade through the rest of that
egomaniacal rant.
Bob is a man with way too much time on his hands and a really sick
obsession.
Zed
> I did find it interesting how he suddenly turned around to offer that
> olive branch. Seemed a little at odds with what had gone before, but
> it seemed worth accepting it and making peace since continuing the
> argument was not going to lead anywhere. I'm no good at analysing
> people's behaviour but your theory certainly could fit what I've seen.
Bob is a very smooth talker and determined to make people see things
his way. If not, then he sees you as a "loser" or an "asshole" and
into his killfile you go. That's the direction his moral compass
points.
> I basically withdrew because it seemed pointless to continue, having
> become clear that Zed is not going to listen and that his behavior is
> not such that I can understand it enough to communicate well. If he
> were like me, this thread would've begun on a misunderstanding,
> might've argued for a little, but then it would've been cleared up and
> resolved, which was what I was hoping to accomplish with my posts.
> However clearly his brain works in a different way to mine, as no
> understanding was reached, merely more bad feeling. And the stress
> that was causing me was enough that I figured it best to withdraw. I
> certainly don't excuse the behaviour, but there seems little point in
> feeding it more. By which logic I probably shouldn't even make this
> post but oh well, I wanted to explain my thinking a little more.
Catriona, there is no friction between us now. There is no friction
between me and any poster in asa now, except for Bob. And that will
pass when Bob finally runs out of steam.
BTW, it’s really not all that complicated, as Bob would like to make
it out to be. I threw a tizzy and now it’s over with.
If you want a proper guidepost on how to talk to someone in a snit, I
suggest looking to earthpots as an example. Bob is someone who only
(perhaps unwittingly) only stirs the flames.
Catriona R
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:08:24 -0400, Bob Badour
<bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Catriona R wrote:
>> That makes sense, I'm finally starting to learn when to drop an
>> argument, if it's causing me stress, but still got some way to go in
>> learning how to completely let go of things. It's something I'd very
>> much like to improve on; sometimes some random comment or other will
>> trigger memories of an argument from the past, sometimes years back,
>> and I'll find myself mentally repeating the argument - both pointless
>> and stressful, and something I'd really like to stop happening. I
>> guess at least I'm recognising it now which is a start... :-/
>
>Yes, it is a start. When I do that sort of thing, I recognize it as an
>avoidance behaviour. It's a sign I feel anxiety or worry over something.
>
>I have learned to interrupt the avoidance behaviour and face what's
>worrying me. Sometimes I am not even aware of what's bothering me. In
>those situations, I just interrupt the avoidance behaviour, suggest to
>myself that whatever is bothering me will come to me later, and find
>something else to occupy my mind.
That makes sense, I rarely am aware of anything bothering me at the
time, but I'll look at it closer when I'm in that situation in future.
>Keep in mind, too, when I was your age, I was a complete trainwreck
so
>it's not exactly fair to you to compare yourself with me as I am today.
>In another 18 years, you might be far more laid back about things than I
>am today.
True, everyone's different. I'd hope I can at least become more
laidback than I currently am, I still let things get to me a lot too
much. Although I've improved significantly over 10 years ago, I guess;
I seem to have rather more ability to recognise when things are
getting too much for me.
Zed
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Age does make a difference. However,
it may be that all the striving I did when I was younger to overcome
is what made the difference as I've gotten older, rather than just
getting older in of itself..
And other good piece of advice I got along the road is to think about
other peoples problems, instead of just my own, maybe even pry for
others. Kind of a tall order for an autie, but it does help. I know
I'll probably master actual empathy for others, but I can still
care..
Stephen Wilson
"Zed" <z...@cbgb.net> wrote in message
news:a1da0ea9-cf57-4135...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I've never seen the point in praying for anything. If your prayers appear to
be answered, you thank God. If they don't, do you still thank God? And you
can pray as much as you want for someone who's had a limb amputated - God
will never make it grow back!
I went to a church service a couple of weeks ago, and the vicar stood there,
telling the congregation that there was nothing we could do about global
warming as the only person who could really make a difference is God. And
God knows what's best for us. So pray to him and everything will be alright.
Which I thought was, at best naieve, and at worst - dangerous. If you really
want to achieve something, you have to be proactive. Praying just seems to
me like such a passive activity. Although I suppose some find comfort in it.
I do my best to offer whatever support I'm able to give to people I know
when they're in trouble. It's harder to do the same for people you don't
know, or for people you may not particularly like. Charities are also
difficult - there are so many of them. You tend to find that most people
only give to a charity for something that has affected them personally. If I
gave to everyone in need, I'd end up homeless myself! My mother has a policy
that if someone is out on the street, begging, she usually won't give them
money, but may offer to buy them some food. It's amazing how many reject
that offer.
Zed
Well, the point is I think in this exercise, is to direct your energy
away from yourself and focus on others.
From a theological view I suppose prayer is you communing with God. I
mean if there is a God out there and we can connect with him, why not
do so? As I understand it, God is not only willing to hear us, he
wants to hear from us.
A guy I don't know too well, but like, just got out of prostate
surgery. People were asked to pray. There's nothing else I can really
do for him. And perhaps praying/meditation over this situation will
get my mind away from my own problems.
Stephen Wilson
>
>Well, the point is I think in this exercise, is to direct your energy
>away from yourself and focus on others.
>
>From a theological view I suppose prayer is you communing with God. I
>mean if there is a God out there and we can connect with him, why not
>do so? As I understand it, God is not only willing to hear us, he
>wants to hear from us.
Allegedly. Although try as I might, I don't see it. Last year, a couple had
a daughter who became ill. They knew the only person who could make her
better was God. They did what they believed was right. They prayed. When she
got worse, they prayed harder. When she lost consciousness, they brought
more people in to help pray. It wasn't until she stopped breathing that they
finally called the emergency services, by which time it was too late. If
they'd taken her to a doctor, she could have been given what she really
needed - not prayer but insulin.
I just get this image of an elderly man sitting on a white fluffy cloud,
rolling a pair of dice. Every time he rolls a double 6, he waves his magic
wand and grants a wish ("please God, let me have a promotion"). Otherwise
you're unlucky. And every now and then he gets bored. So he sends along an
earthquake, a flood, a tornado, a volcano, disease and pestilence, just to
shake things up a bit. And in places like Israel, where people are killing
each other in his name, he sits back and lets them get on with it.
My sister's best friend got cancer last year. So she prayed, and her family
and friends prayed. She died earlier this year, aged 32, leaving a little
boy who's going to have to grow up without a mother. And then, at the
funeral, the vicar said she'd gone to a better place. Well if she's in a
better place, why was everyone praying earlier to try and stop her going
there?!
>A guy I don't know too well, but like, just got out of prostate
>surgery. People were asked to pray. There's nothing else I can really
>do for him. And perhaps praying/meditation over this situation will
>get my mind away from my own problems.
I guess. The thing is, if he gets better, you could attribute it to the
power of prayer. If he doesn't, then what? Do you feel guilty - maybe you
didn't pray hard enough? Maybe God's punishing him, or you.
It all just seems too random. If I saw a toddler fall into a pond, I'd jump
in and (try to) rescue them. If nobody but God is there, what happens? The
toddler drowns. So the only conclusion I've been able to reach is that the
existence of God is just wishful thinking.
But that's just me. If you have a faith, please don't think I'm knocking it.
Just not something that makes sense to me.
earthpots
> On Nov 25, 7:38 am, Catriona R <catrionarNOS...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
>> I did find it interesting how he suddenly turned around to offer that
>> olive branch. Seemed a little at odds with what had gone before, but
>> it seemed worth accepting it and making peace since continuing the
>> argument was not going to lead anywhere. I'm no good at analysing
>> people's behaviour but your theory certainly could fit what I've
>> seen.
>
> Bob is a very smooth talker and determined to make people see things
> his way. If not, then he sees you as a "loser" or an "asshole" and
> into his killfile you go. That's the direction his moral compass
> points.
>
I don't know if I'm now in his killfile, and I honestly don't care; but I
made it clear to him that I wasn't wasting any more time trying to discuss
anything related to you.
>> I basically withdrew because it seemed pointless to continue, having
>> become clear that Zed is not going to listen and that his behavior is
>> not such that I can understand it enough to communicate well. If he
>> were like me, this thread would've begun on a misunderstanding,
>> might've argued for a little, but then it would've been cleared up
>> and resolved, which was what I was hoping to accomplish with my
>> posts. However clearly his brain works in a different way to mine,
>> as no understanding was reached, merely more bad feeling. And the
>> stress that was causing me was enough that I figured it best to
>> withdraw. I certainly don't excuse the behaviour, but there seems
>> little point in feeding it more. By which logic I probably shouldn't
>> even make this post but oh well, I wanted to explain my thinking a
>> little more.
>
> Catriona, there is no friction between us now. There is no friction
> between me and any poster in asa now, except for Bob. And that will
> pass when Bob finally runs out of steam.
> BTW, it�s really not all that complicated, as Bob would like to make
> it out to be. I threw a tizzy and now it�s over with.
> If you want a proper guidepost on how to talk to someone in a snit, I
> suggest looking to earthpots as an example.
Well, I try. Thanks for saying this. Bob and I just have different views of
approach, obviously.
> Bob is someone who only
> (perhaps unwittingly) only stirs the flames.
--
Zed
You bring up very thought provoking points.
For some reason I'm reminded of a Twilight Zone episode where this two-
bit hoodlum gets shot by the police, dies and wakes up in his version
of paradise. Fancy condo, the best clothes, expensive cars, beautiful
women and unlimited gambling. But after a while it started to get
really boring. Now this man also had a personal assistant assigned to
him. I got to the point where the man became so miserable, he said to
the assistant that someone must have made a mistake, he didn't belong
in heaven. "Heaven?!" His assistant bellowed, "what makes you think
this is heaven?!" Then the assistant stated to laugh manically. It
closed with Rod Serling saying this man had everything he ever wanted,
and now he'd have to live with it forever.
So, perhaps this would be why god wouldn't come to the rescue all the
time.
As for the people praying instead of seeking medical attention, it
sounds like they belong to a sect that goes by its own rules, rather
than what god says in the bible. They had made god in their own image.
Or put god to the test. It seems like prying that you won't die and
jumping into the middle of a cliff to make your prayer come true.
But you know, I've heard too many miracle stories that seem to balance
out the failed prayer stories.
Like I said, I believe the idea is to reach out beyond yourself. Reach
out for someone else other than yourself. Reach out to someone greater
than yourself. But again, imagine a world where every prayer was
answered. There just wouldn't be any logic to it, as I see it.
Zed
http://www.veoh.com/collection/CBS-The-Twilight-Zone/watch/v18438549ajQkP8ZM#