Driving Ms Daisy...
Artemis
> For those who don't understand why I am on a "rampage" -- it is because
> the recent abusive and attacking comments of Connie and Conniettes have
> offended Emily enough for her to act on leaving the newsgroup. Contrary
> to most beliefs in the posts I've seen, it was not the TROLL that drove
> Emily off. It was Clixpix.
I don't think that Connie's post was either abusive or attacking.
She brought up a couple of points that people might disagree with,
but they were legitimate concerns, and they were not phrased
offensively. You yourself like to post "harsh truths;" how it this
any different? Why is it OK for you to do it, but not Connie?
Why is it OK to do it to other people, but not Emily?
If Emily is so sensitive on this subject that she has to leave over
this, that is her choice and her issue to work on. I know she has
a great therapist who hopefully will be able to help her work through
this. She doesn't need you leaping to her protection and explaining
her motives and actions to the group. She can speak for herself if
she wishes to.
> I typically avoid Emily's threads and posts as a mutual boundary that
> she & I share.
Are you respecting Emily's boundaries by essentially speaking for her?
Is she OK with you "explaining" what is going on in her life, and how
she feels about it?
> However, with Emily recent relapse to purging, breakneck disclosures
> in= therapy and resurfacing issues, Emily really needed some support.
And she can still get it from ASED if she wishes to. Many people
welcomed her back with open arms.
> She hasn't been able to devote much time to the newsgroup because she
> was literally overwhelmed with all things.
So? Many of us don't always make it to the group for various reasons.
> So, you can imagine how she felt of come on the
> newsgroup for a little support, a little venting, a little empathy only
> to have Connie slap her around, not even dignify her by mentioning her
> name, insinuate unsurface issues that may or may not exist (gossip).
Emily has, in the past, objected to being named in threads that
somewhat concerned her while she was absent. Perhaps Connie was trying
to respect that wish, or trying to talk about the issue more broadly
rather that making it one single person's issue. And she may be
right, or she may be mistaken, but that doesn't make what she says
"gossip." You like to dismiss things with that label, don't you?
> You may not like what I have to say, or how I say it, but after you have
> a chance to peel yourself either off the ceiling or off the floor,
> depending anger or humor, you'll find sense in what I say.
Rather presumptous, don't you think? Have you ever entertained the
thought that you might possibly be wrong?
> If, however, you find my posts harmful to you, well, add me to your
> kill-file for a while or forever, your choice.
I find some of your posts harmful to the group.
Artemis
--}->
--
For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or e-mail:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Betsy
> Emily really needed some support. She hasn't
> been able to devote much time to the newsgroup because she was literally
> overwhelmed with all things. So, you can imagine how she felt
Why should we try and imagine, when we have you to explain Emily's feelings to us?
Don't speak for her, Dana, it's dishonest and counterproductive. Doubt me? Ask
her therapist. In fact, I dare you to show her therapist your last few posts and
see if he believes you're a healthy friend for Emily to have.
But you won't do that, will you, Dana? You have far too much invested in proving
you can save Emily, save ALL OF US from ourselves. It's sad, really, and you won't
believe me, but I do feel sorry for you, for the position you've worked yourself
into with regard to the group.
> of come on the
> newsgroup for a little support, a little venting, a little empathy only to have
> Connie slap her around, not even dignify her by mentioning her name, insinuate
> unsurface issues that may or may not exist (gossip). Yep, I'm torqued all
> right, you betcha!
Which is one way you can tell this is all about *you* and nobody else. Connie
didn't slap her around. No one has the right to expect unconditional agreement
here. Everyone has the right to expect that something they write may be used as a
springboard for others to examine their own thoughts and feelings, even their
opinions about what the writing may say about the writer. For you to infer such
venom from what Connie wrote says far more about you than either Connie OR Emily.
You like to throw the word "gossip" around a lot. Nothing I have ever said about
you has been untrue or malicious, something that can't be said about your attacks
on me. You simply didn't like the fact that I said there was an elephant in the
living room. I have no desire to judge you or Emily or anyone else on this group.
It was your escalating attacks on others, on anyone who spoke up against your
abusive language, that prompted me to say anything at all. I've sat silent for a
long time, watching you deteriorate further into anger and hostility. I won't
pretend it isn't happening, nor will I attack you back, try as you might to provoke
me.
Please take care of yourself, Dana. There is a better way than escalation and
attack. Please think on it.
Betsy
Artemis
> >If Emily is so sensitive on this subject that she has to leave over
> >this, that is her choice and her issue to work on.
>
> Sensitive? Your not for real. Connie comes along and insinuates to a
> person greiving someone's suicide that they are going to send others
> packing in the same direction and you call her sensitive?
In the first place, I think you are severely misinterpreting Connie's
post. But even if you weren't, even if she had said the most horrible
things possible, yes, I believe that a poster is oversensitive if they
choose to leave over one person's comments without even discussing it.
> Boy have you got problems, but we know that, don't we.
Everyone has problems. I'm working on mine. Are you working on yours?
> >I know she has a great therapist who hopefully will be able to help
> >her work through this.
>
> You don't know squat: you think; you've been lead to believe and you
> maybe right; but Artie, you don't know.
True; I merely believed her when she told us she had found a good
therapist. That might not be true, or she might not like him anymore,
or she might have quit therapy. I *hope* she has a good therapist to
help her work through this.
> And you and the likes of Connie are really helping aren't you her are
> you? Great support, good job, wink at yourself.
Winking is your domain, Dana.
> >She doesn't need you leaping to her protection and explaining
> >her motives and actions to the group.
>
> Connie doesn't need you either.
Quite true; I know she is eminently capable of defending herself.
However if I have a problem with one of your posts, I reserve the
right to comment on it.
Dana Always
writes:
>Why should we try and imagine, when we have you to explain Emily's feelings
>to us?
You have difficulty reading Emily's good-bye post, did you? That's a personal
problem, Betsy.
>Don't speak for her, Dana, it's dishonest and counterproductive.
Well then, by your measure, Tasha, Artie, you and several others are dishonest
and counterproductive speaking for Connie, aren't you? What's unusual is that
no one else is sticking up for Emily, just me. You and Connie must have many
people scared to post as I know their are more Emily supporters here.
> Doubt me? Ask
>her therapist. In fact, I dare you to show her therapist your last few posts
and
>see if he believes you're a healthy friend for Emily to have.
It seems I am one of the few, you, Connie, Tasha and Artie so quick you doubt
her veracity and risk your individual friendships. However, I don't speak for
Emily, I speak out against you and others who are so shallow as to not show any
concern. Have one of you emialed Emily to ask what's going on? And if I'm
such a bad influence on her, then why have you not spoken out to her. You
Betsy have her phone number, when was the last time you called? What a fair
weather friend you are, won't speak up to protect a friend. So worried you
are. Tsk, tsk.
>But you won't do that, will you, Dana? You have far too much invested in
proving
>you can save Emily, save ALL OF US from ourselves. It's sad, really, and you
>won't believe me, but I do feel sorry for you, for the position you've worked
yourself
>into with regard to the group.
Never have I deviated from anyone's individual responsibility for saving
themselves and that most definitely includes Emily. Just because I speak out
at injustice and mockery doesn't mean I'm on a rescue fantasy like, say Connie
and apparently you. I post and say what I think is appropriate. If any of you
can't stay afloat, while I regret your passing, it is your passing, not mine.
>For you to infer such
>venom from what Connie wrote says far more about you than either Connie OR
>Emily.
Then you should reread Connie's post, paying attention to those areas dealing
with insinuating Emily was leading people to suicide, that she was glamorizing
sarah's death, that Emily was pathologically grieving, that Emily should give
up after only 3 months and get on with her life. I didn't think you were this
shallow, Betsy.
> I have no desire to judge you or Emily or anyone else on this group.
I see. And the point of your post is? Did I miss something when you said this
is about me, and saving everyone? Plastic Betsy. Your comments are all
self-malable, plastic.
>It was your escalating attacks on others..
We can nip that in the bud easy. Don't make a fool of yourselves trying to
protect
Connie. Tell Connie to cool her tools. This is pattern reaction for Connie.
> I won't pretend it isn't happening, nor will I attack you back, try as you
might
> to provoke me.
You provoke yourself, Betsy. You really should sit down and think about what
Connie is doing. Don't worry about me, I know how I'm acting, I'm irritated at
you and others. It may pass, if and when Connie and others temper their
comments. Otherwise your all just going to have to put up with my ON TOPIC
replies or kill-file me, either of which don't particular bother me.
>Please take care of yourself, Dana. There is a better way than escalation and
>attack. Please think on it.
I will Betsy and so too should you, hard. When you final get your blood
pressure down, you will see that Connie has been acting out of line for a long
time and every few people have been attempting to help her.
Dana's Laws: http://hometown.aol.com/dana951/dana951.html
fke
> Sensitive? Your not for real. Connie comes along and insinuates to a person
> greiving someone's suicide that they are going to send others packing in the
> know that, don't we.
dana, from here it looks like youre saying others' behavior is
sending emily packing...
what's the difference in what connie said and you say?
nada...
we all make our own choices...
>
> >She doesn't need you leaping to her protection and explaining
> >her motives and actions to the group.
>
> Connie doesn't need you either.
nuff said, then, right?
:)
fke
> What's unusual is that
> no one else is sticking up for Emily, just me.
HEY YOU BASTARDS
STOP HURTING EMILY ACCORDING TO DANA..
There, now you cant be the messiah, dana..
im sticking up for her too.
You and Connie must have many
> people scared to post as I know their are more Emily supporters here.
>
> > Doubt me? Ask
> >her therapist. In fact, I dare you to show her therapist your last few posts
> and
> >see if he believes you're a healthy friend for Emily to have.
dana, you side-stepped this one.
do i deleted the rest.
Betsy
this situation. I see it's futile, I know it's upsetting to some and I apologize
in advance to anyone who has trouble with controversy. Probably better if you skip
this.
Dana Always wrote:
> You have difficulty reading Emily's good-bye post, did you? That's a personal
> problem, Betsy.
No, I didn't. That's why I didn't need any further clarification from you.
> What's unusual is that
> no one else is sticking up for Emily, just me.
I saw SEVERAL posts to Emily in support of what she wrote. I wrote one myself. I
saw SEVERAL posts welcoming her back this week. So much warmth directed Emily's
way, so many caring friends...did you not see the same? Or are they all the people
you have killfiled? Or does care and concern only come in YOUR flavor, defense and
protection?
> It seems I am one of the few, you, Connie, Tasha and Artie so quick you doubt
> her veracity and risk your individual friendships.
I never expressed any doubt that Emily was expressing her true feelings. What are
you talking about? And I have no friendships that can't withstand challenge and
disagreement.
> However, I don't speak for
> Emily, I speak out against you and others who are so shallow as to not show any
> concern.
And how might we show that concern to your satisfaction? SEVERAL people posted in
supportive response to Emily's departure. Emily has made many departures and
returns to this group under various circumstances. I assume she does so in order
to take care of herself and I respect that. If she left this time because she took
offense to something Connie said, that's her choice; she may decide later to work
it out with Connie. That's beyond my control, so what use would there be in taking
sides?
> Have one of you emialed Emily to ask what's going on? And if I'm
> such a bad influence on her, then why have you not spoken out to her.
How do you know I haven't?
> You
> Betsy have her phone number, when was the last time you called? What a fair
> weather friend you are, won't speak up to protect a friend. So worried you
> are. Tsk, tsk.
You and I have radically different ideas of what it means to be a friend, of the
limits and boundaries appropriate to different types of friendships. All subtle
stuff, explained in therapy, I guess you missed that week.
> Never have I deviated from anyone's individual responsibility for saving
> themselves and that most definitely includes Emily. Just because I speak out
> at injustice and mockery doesn't mean I'm on a rescue fantasy like, say Connie
> and apparently you.
First I'm not friend enough to protect someone; now I'm on a rescue mission. Which
is it?
My issue is not with Connie or Emily, which is why I'm not addressing them. My
issue is with you and your continued abusive treatment of me and others on this
group, all while posing as a support person.
> Then you should reread Connie's post, paying attention to those areas dealing
> with insinuating Emily was leading people to suicide, that she was glamorizing
> sarah's death, that Emily was pathologically grieving, that Emily should give
> up after only 3 months and get on with her life. I didn't think you were this
> shallow, Betsy.
I never said I agreed with Connie or her post. (For the record, I don't. But
neither did I read into it the offensive things that you did.) I wrote in support
of Emily after reading her post about SarahC. I don't happen to believe she's
taking "too long," since there is no timetable for grief. Any problems Emily may
or may not have with Connie's words are between the two of them. Again, this is
stuff you must have missed in therapy, or perhaps have forgotten, since yours was
over and done with so long ago by your report.
> > I have no desire to judge you or Emily or anyone else on this group.
>
> I see. And the point of your post is? Did I miss something when you said this
> is about me, and saving everyone? Plastic Betsy. Your comments are all
> self-malable, plastic.
You missed the difference between stating my opinions, my observations, and
condemning you for your behavior. I don't judge you, I see what I see. Others see
things quite differently. I can only say what I see, and give others room to see
things differently. Get how it works now? (Hint: the part about giving others
room to see things differently rather critically hinges on not using abusive,
controlling, bullying language during discussions.)
> >It was your escalating attacks on others..
>
> We can nip that in the bud easy. Don't make a fool of yourselves trying to
> protect Connie. Tell Connie to cool her tools. This is pattern reaction for
> Connie.
I'm not talking just about your recent tirade against Connie. I'm talking about
your continuing, bullying, controlling responses to anyone who challenges you on
anything.
> Don't worry about me, I know how I'm acting, I'm irritated at
> you and others.
And in the family you grew up in and the family you later created, was it
acceptable behavior to humiliate, shame, and otherwise attempt to control others
when irritated? Bet it was.
Oh, and BTW, congratulations on getting over the death of your marriage in such
record time, and with such notable serenity! Such an example to us all.
Betsy
Marie
Dana Always <dan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990911003959...@ngol05.aol.com...
--What's unusual is that
> no one else is sticking up for Emily, just me. You and Connie must have
many
> people scared to post as I know their are more Emily supporters here.
When Emily initially posted her 'Still Long' story I posted the following:
Hi Emily,
Thank you for painting in words such a beautiful, intimate portrait of
'Sophie'.
and I know that many other people echoed my sentiments. I approached her
story as an overwhelming, beautiful LITERARY VENTURE. A portrait of grief.
An impressionistic, fragmentary picture of someone lost.
Was it the wrong approach? Perhaps.
Anyway, whatever! I'm about to go to bed!
Lots of Love
Marie
PS: I will respond to the e-mail you sent me, Emily as soon as I can. I
have 13,000 unread e-mails in my in-box!!!!
**********'RIE & BELLA THE CAT**********
^ ^
o o
> : <
!!!MIAOW!!!
ICQ#42827671/IM:bellacat77
> In article <37D9B001...@earthlink.net>, Betsy
<spoo...@earthlink.net>
> writes:
>
> >Why should we try and imagine, when we have you to explain Emily's
feelings
> >to us?
>
> You have difficulty reading Emily's good-bye post, did you? That's a
personal
> problem, Betsy.
>
> >Don't speak for her, Dana, it's dishonest and counterproductive.
>
> Well then, by your measure, Tasha, Artie, you and several others are
dishonest
> and counterproductive speaking for Connie, aren't you? >
> > Doubt me? Ask
> >her therapist. In fact, I dare you to show her therapist your last few
posts
> and
> >see if he believes you're a healthy friend for Emily to have.
>
> It seems I am one of the few, you, Connie, Tasha and Artie so quick you
doubt
> her veracity and risk your individual friendships. However, I don't speak
for
> Emily, I speak out against you and others who are so shallow as to not
show any
> concern. Have one of you emialed Emily to ask what's going on? And if
I'm
> such a bad influence on her, then why have you not spoken out to her. You
> Betsy have her phone number, when was the last time you called? What a
fair
> weather friend you are, won't speak up to protect a friend. So worried
you
> are. Tsk, tsk.
>
> >But you won't do that, will you, Dana? You have far too much invested in
> proving
> >you can save Emily, save ALL OF US from ourselves. It's sad, really, and
you
> >won't believe me, but I do feel sorry for you, for the position you've
worked
> yourself
> >into with regard to the group.
>
> Never have I deviated from anyone's individual responsibility for saving
> themselves and that most definitely includes Emily. Just because I speak
out
> at injustice and mockery doesn't mean I'm on a rescue fantasy like, say
Connie
> and apparently you. I post and say what I think is appropriate. If any
of you
> can't stay afloat, while I regret your passing, it is your passing, not
mine.
>
> >For you to infer such
> >venom from what Connie wrote says far more about you than either Connie
OR
> >Emily.
>
> Then you should reread Connie's post, paying attention to those areas
dealing
> with insinuating Emily was leading people to suicide, that she was
glamorizing
> sarah's death, that Emily was pathologically grieving, that Emily should
give
> up after only 3 months and get on with her life. I didn't think you were
this
> shallow, Betsy.
>
> > I have no desire to judge you or Emily or anyone else on this group.
>
> I see. And the point of your post is? Did I miss something when you said
this
> is about me, and saving everyone? Plastic Betsy. Your comments are all
> self-malable, plastic.
>
> >It was your escalating attacks on others..
>
> We can nip that in the bud easy. Don't make a fool of yourselves trying
to
> protect
> Connie. Tell Connie to cool her tools. This is pattern reaction for
Connie.
>
> > I won't pretend it isn't happening, nor will I attack you back, try as
you
> might
> > to provoke me.
>
> You provoke yourself, Betsy. You really should sit down and think about
what
> Connie is doing. Don't worry about me, I know how I'm acting, I'm
irritated at
Artemis
want to bail now.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dana wrote:
> I'll even go as far as to say I bet dollars to donuts that several of
> you are having a heyday discussing this in email, like hens at a water
> trough (a visual consistent with Connie's self-admitted "cackling"
> diatribe).
Demeaning, belittling, and sexist imagery, Dana. This is abusive
language.
> Though I catch a lot of flak, I say what I mean right out of the shoot
> and for that honesty, I pay the price of reading innuendo like yours.
I'm not insinuating anything. I am saying it directly to your face:
I think that your recent behavior has been extremely abusive, and that
you are detrimental to this group.
> Not a chance of my being right, many
> think, how could I be right, I don't have an ED, many also think,
I welcome people who don't have EDs on this group and consider their
input as valid as anyone else's.
> yet I and perhaps others like me are probably one of the most objective
> resources you have with no ED my/ourself, reading and replying only to
> your words.
You think very highly of yourself. I don't consider you an objective
resource in the least.
> Rather than chastise it and/or suggest the group would be better off
> with only EDed members, becoming a group of Connie's based "Stepford
> Wives".
Once again, you are being abusive and sexist.
> See what I mean, another manipulative
> attack the timing of which amongst you seemingly suggests a near team
> effort. Like one of you takes a shot at me then falls back and everyone
> licks their wounds in email figuring out whose turn it is next.
You are so self-deluded that you would rather believe in this cabal
of yours that examine your own behavior honestly. The truth hurts.
> It's just that your attempts are all so blatantly hypercritical in that
> what you lay at my feet, you lay at none of your own, forget not that
> you are the ones with a disease, not I.
Attacking us on the basis that we have, or have had, eating disorders.
Dismissing us because of that. This is abusive behavior.
> Sure, that's an option, however, to all I would point out that by not
> stating your opinion openly in the ng, you change the make-up of the
> forum's dynamics.
I have stated my opinion openly, and will do so again. I think you are
being abusive and that your presence is hurting this newsgroup.
> Until you and others start taking a hard inward look at your issues
> (not necessarily your ED) and working on them harder than you think
> humanly possible, recovery is not going to be one of your strong suits.
If we don't take your advice, we won't recover? I'll like to remind
you that I have been working on recovery successfully for several
years now, and that I didn't need you for that.
> Gee, Artie, I thought you were smart
> enough to not permit yourself to show your hypocritical side.
I'd also like to point out that your repeated use of the diminutive
"Artie" is a blatant attempt to belittle and dismiss me.
> Why don't you save everyone's time and bandwidth by just saying "Dana, I
> can't stand you..." then kill-file me and get on with your life rather
> than looking for every opportunity to try (operative word) take shots at
> me?
Dana, I dislike you immensely. I am not going to killfile you, as
silence can be construed as acceptance. I do not wish to condone
your abusive behavior on this newsgroup, and will speak out when I
choose to. You have no control over that.
> Each and every
> time you do this, you come out looking like a hypocritical jerk.
This is neither for me or you to decide. *You* think I am a
hypocritical jerk. I don't think I am. Others will make up their
own minds, I don't presume to think for them.
> Fact of the matter is when I see speak out, I'll do so in an amenable
> manner.
You have not been in the least amenable lately.
> Be nice and I'll return the courtesy, be
> naught and I _may_ return that too.
Is that an admonishment? A threat? You haven't been nice so far,
Dana. Why should I expect you to suddenly change now? I can't
control you, and you can't control me, it's as simple as that. Post
what you will, I'm not afraid.
fke
> Tell you what I'm going to do,
> I'm going to let you think about this last two statements and see if you know
> what's the right thing to do about them.
she is for art thou ever so so so so so so so sorry...
hmmmmmmmm....this speaking on behalf of others is so nice..
it relieves me of having to take a look at myself..
i mean would you take a look at yourself if you looked like this?
((*&#*&
W@&((#*#*($(#
((*$(*&(@*#&
(@ #).....u am dah werld, rnt thou?
&
wwwww ww
mm mm mm
fke
> I understand that it takes someone in a strong, mentally sound and self-assured
> postion to voice the need for change.
yeah, you keep tellin others they need to change..
you can whisper it
you can shout it
it wont amount to a hill of beans, dana...
well, it might amount to a hill of beans from the past..
>
> Warmest,
> Dana sends
Luv-4...@webtv.net
Abuse and mistreatment Like u do to everyone??? So it is ok for u but
not for anyone else to speak their mind??? Are you the only one allowed?
Well i dont think so dana ... awww someone said something to dana that
made him mad GO FIGURE!!!!!
Toodles "oh man i want to say something about that word" but i wont!!!
Jackie
ClixPix
>Yet,
>I understand that it takes someone in a strong, mentally sound and
self-assured
>postion to voice the need for change.
Well, I guess that lets YOU out of the running, too, then, doesn't it?
--Connie
--
"Starving the flesh wastes the spirit."
--Kandis Elliot
ClixPix
[Dana wrote here]:
>> yet I and perhaps others like me are probably one of the most objective
>> resources you have with no ED my/ourself, reading and replying only to
>> your words.
>You think very highly of yourself. I don't consider you an objective
>resource in the least.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, Artemis. Dana is FAR from being
able to have the objectivity that he claims. He is certainly not an
"objective resource" at all, but rather a source of continual irritation and
annoyance.
Perhaps he thrives on this?
ClixPix
post you had writte in response to Artemis because these words snagged me:
>Now, thinking my behavior is abusive is also a perception not shared
>by all but rather a few, most likely those who project their issues of an
>abusive past upon me.
Number one point: it has been abundantly clear over the past several days
that the perception of Dana's abusiveness is a perception shared by MANY,
rather than "a few." Take a look at the posts, Dana. Take a GOOD look....
Number two point: Not everyone has been exposed to an abusive past; you are
projecting your own limited experience and that of someone else upon this
situation -- just as you seem to think that every anorectic purges in
addition to restricting or that everyone gains weight in the recovery
process. Wrong, old chap. We don't all come out of the same background or
have the same experiences. One size does not fit all.
--Connie
who will now go back to reading the rest of whatever nonsense Dana has
said....
ClixPix
Dana wrote, addressing Artemis:
>I'm not attacking you, I'm reply to your allegations of me. If you take
the
>time to open your mind and heart, you may see things in what I say that
might
>just help you, might not also but that is true of very post you read.
Again,
>you perceive it abusive because it deals with your related issues.
Heh, with the way you write and spatter abusive comments all over people,
it's not exactly a mystery as to why someone might not accept your posts as
being "supportive," or "helpful." I certainly have not! One doesn't have
to have experienced physical or emotional abuse in the past to recognize
abusiveness when one sees it. Your posts ARE abusive, Dana. Get real, take
a good look at yourself.
Aren't you being just a bit presumptive here, guessing that maybe Artemis
may have abuse in her past which would make any sort of verbal abuse of
yours a "related issue?" Heh?
What exactly does this do for you, Dana, engaging in these repeated
round-and-round discussions in which you continue to challenge and nitpick
every single word a person uses (and invariably, at some point, you do twist
and distort the original concept to fit something of your own which may be
far from what was originally intended)? Just what need in your own life
does this fill for you, Dana? It sure as heck isn't helpful or therapeutic
for anyone else!
--Connie
Marie
I'll be honest with you and say that I stumbled over your (original- the one
that precipitated my last post) post by accident so read it pretty much in
isolation. I've been phenomenally busy over the weekend and have escaped
the not-so-nice stuff (apart from the later stuff!) that's been occurring.
It's buried among 300+ unread posts on my newsreader & ,with all due respect
to the participants, I won't be unearthing it!
Anyway, that aside,
Furry, purry hugs to Everyone!!!
Bella &
Marie the Human!!!
--
**********'RIE & BELLA THE CAT**********
^ ^
o o
> : <
!!!MIAOW!!!
ICQ#42827671/IM:bellacat77
Dana Always <dan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990912015622...@ngol07.aol.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> In article <7reo64$bir$1...@gxsn.com>, "Marie" <be...@globalnet.co.uk>
writes:
>
> >When Emily initially posted her 'Still Long' story I posted the
following:
> >
> >Hi Emily,
> >Thank you for painting in words such a beautiful, intimate portrait of
> >'Sophie'.
> >
> >
> >and I know that many other people echoed my sentiments. I approached her
> >story as an overwhelming, beautiful LITERARY VENTURE. A portrait of
grief.
> >An impressionistic, fragmentary picture of someone lost.
> >Was it the wrong approach? Perhaps.
> >Anyway, whatever! I'm about to go to bed!
>
> Note and apologies to you. My statement was directed at those who wanted
to
> but didn't post for fear of catching the anger Connie and the Conniettes.
Yet,
> I understand that it takes someone in a strong, mentally sound and
self-assured
> postion to voice the need for change.
>
Kevin K
wrote:
>Whoa, buddy! Stop right there! In fact, I haven't finished reading this
>post you had writte in response to Artemis because these words snagged me:
>
>>Now, thinking my behavior is abusive is also a perception not shared
>>by all but rather a few, most likely those who project their issues of an
>>abusive past upon me.
>
>Number one point: it has been abundantly clear over the past several days
>that the perception of Dana's abusiveness is a perception shared by MANY,
>rather than "a few." Take a look at the posts, Dana. Take a GOOD look....
I share the perception of Dana's "abusiveness", or at the very least,
that his unwillingness to let go for the sake of e-d sufferers shows a
very short-sighted and self-centered disregard for their recoveries
and lives. Sometimes it's better to not be "right" in order to set an
atmosphere for others to recover.
Luv, for example... is early in recovery and new to this group. Her
fighting spirit in early recovery can be an asset. She wants to
recover. No, let me rephrase that... she wants to recover, dam*it!
:-) And that's cool... I wish I had that spirit when I first got into
recovery. In fact, some of that recovery-enthusiasm I see in her is
benefitting me.
Dana... in the name of compassion at least can't you let things go?
You are willing to escalate and get involved in a heated discussion
with someone who really needs to be focusing first on her recovery?
And you are willing to escalate it to the point where it could hurt
her?
I acknowledge that you have feelings too and a right to them. I think
you too would get empathy and compassion if you showed some yourself,
and a willingness to help set a good atmoshphere.
I've been staying out of this for the most part, but I am very
concerned that what Dana is doing, or for sake of benefit of the
doubt... his lack of "rising above the situation"... is hurting
people who need help. People struggling with e-d's who cannot afford
this. Lurkers who might want to post but are more reluctant to now.
People whose posts went unnoticed due to all the controversy. New
peoople needing support.
I'm not sharing about this in any e-mails, and am not part of (forgot
what it's called the Connie cackling club or something like that). I
try to value each person for who they are, faults and all, and yes
sometimes things rub me the wrong way too and it's painful. But,
through overcoming things, accepting, sometimes apologizing (I felt
the need to apologize 3 times this year to the group), all of that
makes this place... a non-perfect but safer place ... where support
can be shared.
Kevin
Brigid73
as someone who has worked for a domestic violence shelter, and for 2
organizations that serve Severely Emotionally Disturbed youth (most of whom
have backgrounds of abuse).....
I believe that Dana is being extremely verbally and emotionally abusive to many
people on this newsgroup. On occasion, he may try to hide that by saying that
he's being confrontational or using tough love. But I've heard those excuses
from wife-beaters who ended up in prison -- "She needed that!" "It was for her
own good."
Especially because so many people in this newsgroup do have backgrounds that
contain issues of abuse, I think Dana's presence is even more dangerous -- *at
this point*
I am one of the first to say that I think Dana has made many significant
contributions to ASED and to my life personally. And I thank him for those.
But I have seen a real downward spiral in his posts. I find myself cringing as
I read spite and vitriol where I once read sensible, caring support.
I think it's incredibly belittling and doubly abusive to claim that only those
with backgrounds of abuse find those posts abusive. That's blaming the victim!
(i.e. You're only feeling abused because you've been abused in the past).
And because I have not been abused, and I believe that many of Dana's recent
posts are abusive, I will stand up and say that they are abusive (without
having any baggage that may cloud my judgment).
Brigid
fke
> the majority of which are or should be searching for a change, not
> stagnation.
what are you searching for, dana?
> You want things let go, it's simple, don't reply to me especially in a
> combative manner. I'm may or may not reflect it with great accuracy.
threats
good goin, dana...
if you hit me i'll hit you...
man, we sickos love safety...
it keeps us obedient.
san...@my-deja.com
> > Not a chance of my being right, many
> > think, how could I be right, I don't have an ED, many also think,
> > yet I and perhaps others like me are probably one of the most
objective
> > resources you have with no ED my/ourself, reading and replying only
to
> > your words.
You haven't been diagnosed with an eating disorder. That doesn't mean
you're any more sane or balanced than someone who has. You could be
carrying around any number of neuroses, obsessions, compulsions, etc.
yet not be diagnosed with an eating disorder. If you think you're
"objective," you're sadly mistaken. No one is completely objective,
it's an impossibility. We're all going to bring our own perspectives to
any given situation, and to say your opinion is more worthy that any
other due to its objectivity is a specious claim at best. Further, to
claim your opinion is better than ours because we're "sick" and you're
not is so counter-productive that you really should be ashamed of
yourself.
Quite honestly, your malice and obsessive behavior contributes to my
decision to avoid actively participating on this group. I've always
bitten my tongue in the past, but at this point, I believe this group
will be best served by me adding my honest opinion. You're not having
much effect one way or another on my recovery right now, but I can
definitely see you hurting other people, over and over, just to win an
argument. And that, to me, is unacceptable.
S.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Luv-4...@webtv.net
Keep your opinions of me to your damn self....DONT even go there!!!! NO
SIR, Im not was hurting myself. NOW mr. Perfect sir I AM searching and
Dana I AM FINDING!!! YES your words are just that WORDS!!! Sergeant
Dana "we'" do take responsibility for our own recovery, it is a sure
FACT that you dont contribute to recovery..... I LAUGH at your STUPID
ASS posts now...HA HA because it shows how immature and troubled you
truly are. Kevin is doing GREAT in in recovery and has so much more to
offer in support than u could ever have..... SO DANA keep your damn
mouth SHUT about me because i haven't even posted to your dead ass cause
i know u are mentally disturbed and try to look over mentally disturbed
people that is full of anger and multiple personalities!!!
Jackie
Judy
>as someone who has worked for a domestic violence shelter, and for 2
>organizations that serve Severely Emotionally Disturbed youth (most of whom
>have backgrounds of abuse).....
>
>I believe that Dana is being extremely verbally and emotionally abusive to many
>people on this newsgroup. On occasion, he may try to hide that by saying that
>he's being confrontational or using tough love. But I've heard those excuses
>from wife-beaters who ended up in prison -- "She needed that!" "It was for her
>own good."
I have to agree with Brigid here.
I have NO history of abuse but *I* can see Dana's posts becoming more
and more abusive.
It's all very well saying that someone needs 'Tough Love', but not
everyone responds to it. I don't believe you can make the decision
about whether it's good for them or not without really KNOWING the
person, or being qualified to do so.
Just my tuppence worth :)
--
J.
san...@my-deja.com
I am amazed that you can accuse anyone who objects to your recent
behavior of conniving and gossiping behind your back, when you are doing
the exact same thing. It appears by your post containing excerpts of
recent e-mail exchanges that you, too, talk about other group
participants and happenings in private. Why should you be allowed this
privilege when you are so set on denying it to anyone who threatens your
social hegemony here in ased? It is beyond me how you fail to see how
hypocritical your stance is in this case.
And I know that if you even bother to respond to this, it will be just
pages and pages of vitriolic self-defense, filled with claims of "but I
was attacked, so I must be cruel in my responses," and "You must just be
brainwashed by the triumvirate of power that is so intent on oppressing
me," and "I am being aggressively mean for your own good." That's fine,
that's what I've grown to expect from you over the past several weeks
(months). I just hope someday you realize what you're doing to people
on this newsgroup (I can already see your response to that, "I don't
*do* anything, people here react as they see fit, if they are hurt, it
is only because they are hurting themselves"). I wish you'd learn how
to take responsibility for your actions and your words. If you can't do
that, I really wish you'd go find another forum to dominate.