> Hi Conal, this is Craig,

> I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
> description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing that
> is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
> discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that evolution.
> Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to explaining
> their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
> abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
> consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I had
> before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my core
> value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who is
> a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
> absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially anti-abortion
> to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense of
> inclusion and possibility.

> Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My main
> pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
> those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always expressed
> in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
> Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
> conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For me
> the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
> other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle and not so subtle
> judgment of the side that most call anti-abortion.

> What I am missing in the statement of positions is a sense of empathy
> for the "other" side. I have learned something about the side that
> favors non-judgment in terms of abortion. I have increased my skills
> of empathy and self-empathy as I read and react to different
> statements of perspective. I have not experienced much empathy or
> perspective for the totality of the experience of the side that favors
> much more consideration of the unborn one, except for the post from
> Niklas which was as some have pointed out more philosophical than
> experiential. I don't want this to be taken as a knock on Niklas. I
> have adequately expressed my appreciation for him elsewhere. Actually,
> the expansion of my mind is an important part of my experience on
> boards like this. The expansion of my heart usually happens in my fact-
> to-face encounters with people in my life be they in my home, my
> circle of friends, my empathy buddies, my practice groups, my
> trainings. I have had a lot of fun with the topic of making quick, in
> passing connection which is a thread that Gedding started and I
> restarted. That has come alive for me. But maybe I am straying off
> topic. My mind, heart, and soul do not easily divide the world into
> clear edged topics. Anyway, I regret that I do not grow as much in
> empathy with those who trigger me. That is a big cutting edge for me.
> It is one I invite anyone who shares that cutting edge to explore
> further on the abortion topic.

> For me, something that would be more in the spirit of the direct
> application of NVC would be for us to expand our empathy skills to
> incorporate the "other" side of the abortion question than the one we
> hold dear. This would be an NVC'ish an exercise in increasing our
> depth of empathy under the internal fire of judgment jackals. I would
> also think that this could be an opportunity to deepen our self-
> empathy skills inquiring into what needs and core values are behind
> our position and how we can connect from those needs to the needs of
> those of the other side. I would imagine that it would be something
> like written role play exchanges where someone plays a person who
> holds a perspective on abortion that you disagree with or even find
> repugnant. This would, I would hope, lead to an internal space of less
> judgment and more connection with the "other" person. It would also be
> a model for me on how I can connect with people who hold either
> position.

> Conal, you asked for us to move the abortion issue related to NVC to
> another thread. I guess that this is it. Your challenged us to express
> briefly how the thread relates to NVC evolving. I am afraid I have
> again not met your request for brevity, but I hope I have responded
> with a way that NVC and abortion can be a huge part of the evolution
> of NVC for us.

> I am interested in whether this shift of the abortion topic has any
> interest for you Conal or for others in this group.

> All the best, Craig.

> P.S. I see that Angela has moved the topic of the relevanc of an
> abortion discussion to another thread. I was torn, especially in light
> of recent feedback, to reply on Angela's thread, but decided to reply
> here. Sorry if that stubs anyone's toes.

> On Sep 30, 10:56 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > I want this list to stay on topic, and I see this discussion as mostly
> off
> > topic.

> > Before any more of it continues, I'd like either (a) to have the abortion
> > discussion moved off list or (b) have someone clearly and tersely explain
> to
> > me how it is on topic.

> > Okey dokey?    - Conal

> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Susan L <su...@propeace.net> wrote:

> > > > I hear you saying that you really love the ...lack of drama [when
> mothers
> > > are not] ...pressured to raise a kid they don't want to raise.

> > > I butchered your sentence because I HAVE seen documentation about such
> > > cases among non-western human mothers, too.  I remember reading a
> > > particular anthropological report where the mother would break the
> > > newborn's neck by standing on a branch as it lay on the ground if
> > > there was drought, famine, or disease, if it was born with a defect
> > > for which there were no available compensatory strategies, if it was
> > > born premature and too weak to suckle, or if she were still nursing a
> > > toddler.  She would then dispose of the body and return to the village
> > > and receive the support of the other women in her grief, and the
> > > entire community would treat her with great gentleness.

> > > And yes, I really love it when every child knows while growing up that
> > > (s)he is precious.

> > > > I'm guessing that you also feel great sadness around the
> complications,
> > > judgements and drama you
> > > > see around a (human) woman choosing to end a pregnancy....

> > > Yes, and I also feel resentful about the "pro-choice" frame that is
> > > used to describe such a difficult, tragic decision.  To me, "choice"
> > > sounds so frivolous - like one is selecting from among equally
> > > desirable alternatives, like which top to wear or what to order for
> > > dinner at a restaurant.  At least in western culture, I would rather
> > > talk about such a weighty decision in terms of two needs:  self-
> > > determination and privacy.  In the case of mothers in the culture I
> > > described above, such drama is not found decision because cultural
> > > norms are in place to meet those needs, and the mother can get her
> > > deeper needs met for caring and support.

> > > What I still don't understand is why moral judgment is even part of
> > > the picture.  Because there's a human life involved?  I would argue
> > > that there is more than one human life involved, and that considering
> > > only the needs (or rights) of one of them is bound to result in a
> > > poorly-informed decision.

> > > And I don't think that the scientific question of when life begins has
> > > any bearing on the issue.  When life begins is a cultural question,
> > > not a scientific one.  There are also cultures in which life begins at
> > > the child's naming ceremony - others in which the eruption of the
> > > first tooth marks the beginning of life - others in which life begins
> > > at weaning.  So let's get off our self-righteous, scientific high
> > > horse and make this decision easier for women by making our tools
> > > (both medical and humanitarian) available to them in their need.- Hide
> quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> FYI, I lost interest after the first paragraph and skimmed the rest.  I've
> missed quite a lot of what you've said lately, because I didn't want to wade
> through long passages.  The same is true for me of some of Niklas's notes as
> well.

> Request to the group: take more time to write shorter notes.  Go ahead and
> write a stream-of-consciousness draft to help you figure out what you really
> want to say, and then trim way down to the essence, before sending.  Or, as
> I've heard it put, "blather, condense, repeat" -- before sending.

> Thanks,  - Conal

> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <

> st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

> > Hi Conal, this is Craig,

> > I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
> > description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing that
> > is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
> > discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that evolution.
> > Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to explaining
> > their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
> > abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
> > consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I had
> > before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my core
> > value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who is
> > a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
> > absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially anti-abortion
> > to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense of
> > inclusion and possibility.

> > Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My main
> > pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
> > those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always expressed
> > in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
> > Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
> > conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For me
> > the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
> > other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle and not so subtle
> > judgment of the side that most call anti-abortion.

> > What I am missing in the statement of positions is a sense of empathy
> > for the "other" side. I have learned something about the side that
> > favors non-judgment in terms of abortion. I have increased my skills
> > of empathy and self-empathy as I read and react to different
> > statements of perspective. I have not experienced much empathy or
> > perspective for the totality of the experience of the side that favors
> > much more consideration of the unborn one, except for the post from
> > Niklas which was as some have pointed out more philosophical than
> > experiential. I don't want this to be taken as a knock on Niklas. I
> > have adequately expressed my appreciation for him elsewhere. Actually,
> > the expansion of my mind is an important part of my experience on
> > boards like this. The expansion of my heart usually happens in my fact-
> > to-face encounters with people in my life be they in my home, my
> > circle of friends, my empathy buddies, my practice groups, my
> > trainings. I have had a lot of fun with the topic of making quick, in
> > passing connection which is a thread that Gedding started and I
> > restarted. That has come alive for me. But maybe I am straying off
> > topic. My mind, heart, and soul do not easily divide the world into
> > clear edged topics. Anyway, I regret that I do not grow as much in
> > empathy with those who trigger me. That is a big cutting edge for me.
> > It is one I invite anyone who shares that cutting edge to explore
> > further on the abortion topic.

> > For me, something that would be more in the spirit of the direct
> > application of NVC would be for us to expand our empathy skills to
> > incorporate the "other" side of the abortion question than the one we
> > hold dear. This would be an NVC'ish an exercise in increasing our
> > depth of empathy under the internal fire of judgment jackals. I would
> > also think that this could be an opportunity to deepen our self-
> > empathy skills inquiring into what needs and core values are behind
> > our position and how we can connect from those needs to the needs of
> > those of the other side. I would imagine that it would be something
> > like written role play exchanges where someone plays a person who
> > holds a perspective on abortion that you disagree with or even find
> > repugnant. This would, I would hope, lead to an internal space of less
> > judgment and more connection with the "other" person. It would also be
> > a model for me on how I can connect with people who hold either
> > position.

> > Conal, you asked for us to move the abortion issue related to NVC to
> > another thread. I guess that this is it. Your challenged us to express
> > briefly how the thread relates to NVC evolving. I am afraid I have
> > again not met your request for brevity, but I hope I have responded
> > with a way that NVC and abortion can be a huge part of the evolution
> > of NVC for us.

> > I am interested in whether this shift of the abortion topic has any
> > interest for you Conal or for others in this group.

> > All the best, Craig.

> > P.S. I see that Angela has moved the topic of the relevanc of an
> > abortion discussion to another thread. I was torn, especially in light
> > of recent feedback, to reply on Angela's thread, but decided to reply
> > here. Sorry if that stubs anyone's toes.

> > On Sep 30, 10:56 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > I want this list to stay on topic, and I see this discussion as mostly
> > off
> > > topic.

> > > Before any more of it continues, I'd like either (a) to have the abortion
> > > discussion moved off list or (b) have someone clearly and tersely explain
> > to
> > > me how it is on topic.

> > > Okey dokey?    - Conal

> > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Susan L <su...@propeace.net> wrote:

> > > > > I hear you saying that you really love the ...lack of drama [when
> > mothers
> > > > are not] ...pressured to raise a kid they don't want to raise.

> > > > I butchered your sentence because I HAVE seen documentation about such
> > > > cases among non-western human mothers, too.  I remember reading a
> > > > particular anthropological report where the mother would break the
> > > > newborn's neck by standing on a branch as it lay on the ground if
> > > > there was drought, famine, or disease, if it was born with a defect
> > > > for which there were no available compensatory strategies, if it was
> > > > born premature and too weak to suckle, or if she were still nursing a
> > > > toddler.  She would then dispose of the body and return to the village
> > > > and receive the support of the other women in her grief, and the
> > > > entire community would treat her with great gentleness.

> > > > And yes, I really love it when every child knows while growing up that
> > > > (s)he is precious.

> > > > > I'm guessing that you also feel great sadness around the
> > complications,
> > > > judgements and drama you
> > > > > see around a (human) woman choosing to end a pregnancy....

> > > > Yes, and I also feel resentful about the "pro-choice" frame that is
> > > > used to describe such a

> Conal, this is Craig:

> Part of me appreciates your request for conciseness. Given all that I
> want to say and how often I want to say it, I am not sure I can comply
> as easily as I would like. For me to write less takes a great deal of
> discipline and work that I am not sure I want to put into my posts
> here. It is something that I would reserve for more polished writing
> for publication. I am experiencing needs for fun and ease which are
> threatened by shortening my posts too much. I guess I am experiencing
> it like a rule or a form that I am champing at a bit at rather than a
> request, which I believe you are intending. But then what I am
> stimulated about is on me. I am triggered a bit by "wade" but again
> that is about me. It seems like there might be a less loaded word.
> Anyway, I know I tend to write "too much". I think maybe a strategy
> would be for me to break it down into smaller chunks. It might obviate
> some of the hurt and pain that has come alive of late. I commit right
> now to ponder how and whether I will shorten posts. Pondering is not
> exactly doable, but it is the best I can do with my wife reminding me
> that it is lunch time in the background. Do you have any strategies
> that you use or would suggest to reach your admirable conciseness?

> I differ in my response to Niklas's long posts. They are like a balm
> in Gilead to me. They stimulate all kinds of connection, aha's, and
> wonderment. Not just the two take offs from my posts, but earlier
> posts in Sex and Evolution and elsewhere  that had such deep and
> profound meaning for me. I am not sure I am a little boy cocking my
> head in curiosity as Niklas described it, but I am definitely a man
> transported to places in my consciousness where I like to go to and
> savor. Mmm, Mmm, good. Maybe Niklas and I and others who like like it
> long and slow can identify when a long post is coming. Or mayben we
> could write a precise at the start and then others can decide if they
> want to wade in deeper. (Oops and I said I was triggered by wade. )
> Or maybe we could start some off post exchanges, but Lea and Gedding
> were  such a profound part of the Sex and Evolution thread for me.

> I would love to hear reactions and strategies from others.

> All the best, and hoping for more concision, less prolixity, Craig.

> Shortly, Craig.

> On Oct 1, 12:50 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > Hi Craig.

> > FYI, I lost interest after the first paragraph and skimmed the rest.
>  I've
> > missed quite a lot of what you've said lately, because I didn't want to
> wade
> > through long passages.  The same is true for me of some of Niklas's notes
> as
> > well.

> > Request to the group: take more time to write shorter notes.  Go ahead
> and
> > write a stream-of-consciousness draft to help you figure out what you
> really
> > want to say, and then trim way down to the essence, before sending.  Or,
> as
> > I've heard it put, "blather, condense, repeat" -- before sending.

> > Thanks,  - Conal

> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <

> > st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

> > > Hi Conal, this is Craig,

> > > I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
> > > description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing that
> > > is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
> > > discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that evolution.
> > > Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to explaining
> > > their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
> > > abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
> > > consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I had
> > > before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my core
> > > value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who is
> > > a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
> > > absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially anti-abortion
> > > to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense of
> > > inclusion and possibility.

> > > Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My main
> > > pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
> > > those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always expressed
> > > in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
> > > Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
> > > conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For me
> > > the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
> > > other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle and not so subtle
> > > judgment of the side that most call anti-abortion.

> > > What I am missing in the statement of positions is a sense of empathy
> > > for the "other" side. I have learned something about the side that
> > > favors non-judgment in terms of abortion. I have increased my skills
> > > of empathy and self-empathy as I read and react to different
> > > statements of perspective. I have not experienced much empathy or
> > > perspective for the totality of the experience of the side that favors
> > > much more consideration of the unborn one, except for the post from
> > > Niklas which was as some have pointed out more philosophical than
> > > experiential. I don't want this to be taken as a knock on Niklas. I
> > > have adequately expressed my appreciation for him elsewhere. Actually,
> > > the expansion of my mind is an important part of my experience on
> > > boards like this. The expansion of my heart usually happens in my fact-
> > > to-face encounters with people in my life be they in my home, my
> > > circle of friends, my empathy buddies, my practice groups, my
> > > trainings. I have had a lot of fun with the topic of making quick, in
> > > passing connection which is a thread that Gedding started and I
> > > restarted. That has come alive for me. But maybe I am straying off
> > > topic. My mind, heart, and soul do not easily divide the world into
> > > clear edged topics. Anyway, I regret that I do not grow as much in
> > > empathy with those who trigger me. That is a big cutting edge for me.
> > > It is one I invite anyone who shares that cutting edge to explore
> > > further on the abortion topic.

> > > For me, something that would be more in the spirit of the direct
> > > application of NVC would be for us to expand our empathy skills to
> > > incorporate the "other" side of the abortion question than the one we
> > > hold dear. This would be an NVC'ish an exercise in increasing our
> > > depth of empathy under the internal fire of judgment jackals. I would
> > > also think that this could be an opportunity to deepen our self-
> > > empathy skills inquiring into what needs and core values are behind
> > > our position and how we can connect from those needs to the needs of
> > > those of the other side. I would imagine that it would be something
> > > like written role play exchanges where someone plays a person who
> > > holds a perspective on abortion that you disagree with or even find
> > > repugnant. This would, I would hope, lead to an internal space of less
> > > judgment and more connection with the "other" person. It would also be
> > > a model for me on how I can connect with people who hold either
> > > position.

> > > Conal, you asked for us to move the abortion issue related to NVC to
> > > another thread. I guess that this is it. Your challenged us to express
> > > briefly how the thread relates to NVC evolving. I am afraid I have
> > > again not met your request for brevity, but I hope I have responded
> > > with a way that NVC and abortion can be a huge part of the evolution
> > > of NVC for us.

> > > I am interested in whether this shift of the abortion topic has any
> > > interest for you Conal or for others in this group.

> > > All the best, Craig.

> > > P.S. I see that Angela has moved the topic of the relevanc of an
> > > abortion discussion to another thread. I was torn, especially in light
> > > of recent feedback, to reply on Angela's thread, but decided to reply
> > > here. Sorry if that stubs anyone's toes.

> > > On Sep 30, 10:56 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > > I want this list to stay on topic, and I see this discussion as
> mostly
> > > off
> > > > topic.

> > > > Before any more of it continues, I'd like either (a) to have the
> abortion
> > > > discussion moved off list or (b) have someone clearly and tersely
> explain
> > > to
> > > > me how it is on topic.

> > > > Okey dokey?    - Conal

> > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Susan L <su...@propeace.net> wrote:

> > > > > > I hear you saying that you really love the ...lack of drama [when
> > > mothers
> > > > > are not] ...pressured to raise a kid they don't want to raise.

> > > > > I butchered your

> read more >>

> Do you have any strategies that you use or would suggest to reach your

> > admirable conciseness?\

> Yes: write stream-of-consciousness in your personal journal.  In the
> process, distill the essence of what you're trying to say.  Only then begin
> writing for group consumption and aim for getting the essence across in as
> few words as possible.

> It occurs to me now that I think and write professionally, often working
> with word limits, and that you might not have as much practice as I in
> conciseness.  So another suggestion: get help.  Take a class, find a mentor,
> find an online group that reviews and helps improve each other's writing --
> especially clarity & conciseness.

> Alternatively, forget about conciseness and find a different forum that
> doesn't ask so much discipline and work.  nvc-evolves can't be the only game
> in town for exchanging ideas.

> Do these suggestions help?

> - Conal

> 2008/10/1 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

> > Conal, this is Craig:

> > Part of me appreciates your request for conciseness. Given all that I
> > want to say and how often I want to say it, I am not sure I can comply
> > as easily as I would like. For me to write less takes a great deal of
> > discipline and work that I am not sure I want to put into my posts
> > here. It is something that I would reserve for more polished writing
> > for publication. I am experiencing needs for fun and ease which are
> > threatened by shortening my posts too much. I guess I am experiencing
> > it like a rule or a form that I am champing at a bit at rather than a
> > request, which I believe you are intending. But then what I am
> > stimulated about is on me. I am triggered a bit by "wade" but again
> > that is about me. It seems like there might be a less loaded word.
> > Anyway, I know I tend to write "too much". I think maybe a strategy
> > would be for me to break it down into smaller chunks. It might obviate
> > some of the hurt and pain that has come alive of late. I commit right
> > now to ponder how and whether I will shorten posts. Pondering is not
> > exactly doable, but it is the best I can do with my wife reminding me
> > that it is lunch time in the background. Do you have any strategies
> > that you use or would suggest to reach your admirable conciseness?

> > I differ in my response to Niklas's long posts. They are like a balm
> > in Gilead to me. They stimulate all kinds of connection, aha's, and
> > wonderment. Not just the two take offs from my posts, but earlier
> > posts in Sex and Evolution and elsewhere  that had such deep and
> > profound meaning for me. I am not sure I am a little boy cocking my
> > head in curiosity as Niklas described it, but I am definitely a man
> > transported to places in my consciousness where I like to go to and
> > savor. Mmm, Mmm, good. Maybe Niklas and I and others who like like it
> > long and slow can identify when a long post is coming. Or mayben we
> > could write a precise at the start and then others can decide if they
> > want to wade in deeper. (Oops and I said I was triggered by wade. )
> > Or maybe we could start some off post exchanges, but Lea and Gedding
> > were  such a profound part of the Sex and Evolution thread for me.

> > I would love to hear reactions and strategies from others.

> > All the best, and hoping for more concision, less prolixity, Craig.

> > Shortly, Craig.

> > On Oct 1, 12:50 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > Hi Craig.

> > > FYI, I lost interest after the first paragraph and skimmed the rest.
> >  I've
> > > missed quite a lot of what you've said lately, because I didn't want to
> > wade
> > > through long passages.  The same is true for me of some of Niklas's notes
> > as
> > > well.

> > > Request to the group: take more time to write shorter notes.  Go ahead
> > and
> > > write a stream-of-consciousness draft to help you figure out what you
> > really
> > > want to say, and then trim way down to the essence, before sending.  Or,
> > as
> > > I've heard it put, "blather, condense, repeat" -- before sending.

> > > Thanks,  - Conal

> > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <

> > > st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

> > > > Hi Conal, this is Craig,

> > > > I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
> > > > description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing that
> > > > is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
> > > > discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that evolution.
> > > > Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to explaining
> > > > their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
> > > > abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
> > > > consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I had
> > > > before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my core
> > > > value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who is
> > > > a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
> > > > absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially anti-abortion
> > > > to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense of
> > > > inclusion and possibility.

> > > > Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My main
> > > > pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
> > > > those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always expressed
> > > > in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
> > > > Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
> > > > conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For me
> > > > the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
> > > > other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle and not so subtle
> > > > judgment of the side that most call anti-abortion.

> > > > What I am missing in the statement of positions is a sense of empathy
> > > > for the "other" side. I have learned something about the side that
> > > > favors non-judgment in terms of abortion. I have increased my skills
> > > > of empathy and self-empathy as I read and react to different
> > > > statements of perspective. I have not experienced much empathy or
> > > > perspective for the totality of the experience of the side that favors
> > > > much more consideration of the unborn one, except for the post from
> > > > Niklas which was as some have pointed out more philosophical than
> > > > experiential. I don't want this to be taken as a knock on Niklas. I
> > > > have adequately expressed my appreciation for him elsewhere. Actually,
> > > > the expansion of my mind is an important part of my experience on
> > > > boards like this. The expansion of my heart usually happens in my fact-
> > > > to-face encounters with people in my life be they in my home, my
> > > > circle of friends, my empathy buddies, my practice groups, my
> > > > trainings. I have had a lot of fun with the topic of making quick, in
> > > > passing connection which is a thread that Gedding started and I
> > > > restarted. That has come alive for me. But maybe I am straying off
> > > > topic. My mind, heart, and soul do not easily divide the world into
> > > > clear edged topics. Anyway, I regret that I do not grow as much in
> > > > empathy with those who trigger me. That is a big cutting edge for me.
> > > > It is one I invite anyone who shares that cutting edge to explore
> > > > further on the abortion topic.

> > > > For me, something that would be more in the spirit of the direct
> > > > application of NVC would be for us to expand our empathy skills to
> > > > incorporate the "other" side of the abortion question than the one we
> > > > hold dear. This would be an NVC'ish an exercise in increasing our
> > > > depth of empathy under the internal fire of judgment jackals. I would
> > > > also think that this could be an opportunity to deepen our self-
> > > > empathy skills inquiring into what needs and core values are behind
> > > > our position and how we can connect from those needs to the needs of
> > > > those of the other side. I would imagine that it would be something
> > > > like written role play exchanges where someone plays a person who
> > > > holds a perspective on abortion that you disagree with or even find
> > > > repugnant. This would, I would hope, lead to an internal space of less
> > > > judgment and more connection with the "other" person. It would also be
> > > > a model for me on how I can connect with people who hold either
> > > > position.

> > > > Conal, you asked for us to move the abortion issue related to NVC to
> > > > another thread. I guess that this is it. Your challenged us to express
> > > > briefly how the thread relates to NVC evolving. I am afraid I have
> > > > again not met your request for brevity, but I hope I have responded
> > > > with a way that NVC and abortion can be a huge part of the evolution
> > > > of NVC for us.

> > > > I am interested in whether this shift of the abortion topic has any
> > > > interest for you Conal or for others in this group.

> > > > All the best, Craig.

> > > > P.S. I see that Angela has moved the topic of the relevanc of an
> > > > abortion discussion to another thread. I was torn, especially in light
> > > > of recent feedback, to reply on Angela's thread, but decided to reply
> > > > here. Sorry if that stubs anyone's toes.

> > > > On Sep 30, 10:56 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > > > I want this list to stay on topic, and I see this discussion as
> > mostly
> > > > off

> read more >>

> Do you have any strategies that you use or would suggest to reach your

> > admirable conciseness?\

> Yes: write stream-of-consciousness in your personal journal.  In the
> process, distill the essence of what you're trying to say.  Only then begin
> writing for group consumption and aim for getting the essence across in as
> few words as possible.

> 2008/10/1 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

> > Conal, this is Craig:

> > Part of me appreciates your request for conciseness. Given all that I
> > want to say and how often I want to say it, I am not sure I can comply
> > as easily as I would like. For me to write less takes a great deal of
> > discipline and work that I am not sure I want to put into my posts
> > here. It is something that I would reserve for more polished writing
> > for publication. I am experiencing needs for fun and ease which are
> > threatened by shortening my posts too much. I guess I am experiencing
> > it like a rule or a form that I am champing at a bit at rather than a
> > request, which I believe you are intending. But then what I am
> > stimulated about is on me. I am triggered a bit by "wade" but again
> > that is about me. It seems like there might be a less loaded word.
> > Anyway, I know I tend to write "too much". I think maybe a strategy
> > would be for me to break it down into smaller chunks. It might obviate
> > some of the hurt and pain that has come alive of late. I commit right
> > now to ponder how and whether I will shorten posts. Pondering is not
> > exactly doable, but it is the best I can do with my wife reminding me
> > that it is lunch time in the background. Do you have any strategies
> > that you use or would suggest to reach your admirable conciseness?

> > I differ in my response to Niklas's long posts. They are like a balm
> > in Gilead to me. They stimulate all kinds of connection, aha's, and
> > wonderment. Not just the two take offs from my posts, but earlier
> > posts in Sex and Evolution and elsewhere  that had such deep and
> > profound meaning for me. I am not sure I am a little boy cocking my
> > head in curiosity as Niklas described it, but I am definitely a man
> > transported to places in my consciousness where I like to go to and
> > savor. Mmm, Mmm, good. Maybe Niklas and I and others who like like it
> > long and slow can identify when a long post is coming. Or mayben we
> > could write a precise at the start and then others can decide if they
> > want to wade in deeper. (Oops and I said I was triggered by wade. )
> > Or maybe we could start some off post exchanges, but Lea and Gedding
> > were  such a profound part of the Sex and Evolution thread for me.

> > I would love to hear reactions and strategies from others.

> > All the best, and hoping for more concision, less prolixity, Craig.

> > Shortly, Craig.

> > On Oct 1, 12:50 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > Hi Craig.

> > > FYI, I lost interest after the first paragraph and skimmed the rest.
> >  I've
> > > missed quite a lot of what you've said lately, because I didn't want to
> > wade
> > > through long passages.  The same is true for me of some of Niklas's notes
> > as
> > > well.

> > > Request to the group: take more time to write shorter notes.  Go ahead
> > and
> > > write a stream-of-consciousness draft to help you figure out what you
> > really
> > > want to say, and then trim way down to the essence, before sending.  Or,
> > as
> > > I've heard it put, "blather, condense, repeat" -- before sending.

> > > Thanks,  - Conal

> > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <

> > > st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

> > > > Hi Conal, this is Craig,

> > > > I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
> > > > description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing that
> > > > is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
> > > > discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that evolution.
> > > > Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to explaining
> > > > their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
> > > > abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
> > > > consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I had
> > > > before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my core
> > > > value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who is
> > > > a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
> > > > absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially anti-abortion
> > > > to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense of
> > > > inclusion and possibility.

> > > > Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My main
> > > > pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
> > > > those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always expressed
> > > > in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
> > > > Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
> > > > conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For me
> > > > the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
> > > > other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle and not so subtle
> > > > judgment of the side that most call anti-abortion.

> > > > What I am missing in the statement of positions is a sense of empathy
> > > > for the "other" side. I have learned something about the side that
> > > > favors non-judgment in terms of abortion. I have increased my skills
> > > > of empathy and self-empathy as I read and react to different
> > > > statements of perspective. I have not experienced much empathy or
> > > > perspective for the totality of the experience of the side that favors
> > > > much more consideration of the unborn one, except for the post from
> > > > Niklas which was as some have pointed out more philosophical than
> > > > experiential. I don't want this to be taken as a knock on Niklas. I
> > > > have adequately expressed my appreciation for him elsewhere. Actually,
> > > > the expansion of my mind is an important part of my experience on
> > > > boards like

> On Oct 1, 1:36 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > Hi Craig,...

> > read more >>

> > Do you have any strategies that you use or would suggest to reach your

> > > admirable conciseness?\

> > Yes: write stream-of-consciousness in your personal journal.  In the
> > process, distill the essence of what you're trying to say.  Only then
> begin
> > writing for group consumption and aim for getting the essence across in
> as
> > few words as possible.

> I intend to write more concisely. And when a long post hits me, I will
> write a summary at the beginning. Then you and others can read the
> summary and decide if you want to go further. Or, of course, you can
> just skip the whole thing and those who want to can move with me
> meandering through feelings, needs, thoughts and the like. In my
> experience of NVC trainings and the like, the pace is maddeningly slow
> as we sort out everyone's logistical needs. Needs living and
> consciousness as one dear friend put it is "messy". I will try to get
> to the more essential expression, but there is a certain terror
> bubbling up that I will revert to more jackalish content that will
> really piss you and others off. I want connection and clarity together
> as my primary values. For a Google forum, conciseness is not a very
> high value to me. No ease and fun. Do you or anyone object to my
> proposed strategy of summary/body when I am moved to make a longer
> post?

> > It occurs to me now that I think and write professionally, often working
> > with word limits, and that you might not have as much practice as I in
> > conciseness.  So another suggestion: get help.  Take a class, find a
> mentor,
> > find an online group that reviews and helps improve each other's writing
> --
> > especially clarity & conciseness.

> I am not sure how one thinks professionally, but your concision seems
> to be a reflection of your professional writing. I appreciate it.

> Now we have added clarity to my writing faults as you experience them.
> I am not sure that is a fair evaluation. I think that my expression
> has been TOO CLEAR and direct, if too wordy. I am a member of a
> writing group, though more focused fiction and screen plays that non-
> fiction. I have been a professional writer in my past as a trial and
> appellate attorney. There the RULES were very clear. Something that
> did not comply was rejected or the judges would stop reading at the
> page limit. It led to forced conciseness, a living of sorts, and a lot
> of unhappy, sleepless nights. No hungry duck there.

> I doubt I will join another group. Sharing ideas without exploring
> empathy as a value and practice is unappealing.

> > Alternatively, forget about conciseness and find a different forum that
> > doesn't ask so much discipline and work.  nvc-evolves can't be the only
> game
> > in town for exchanging ideas.

> This sounds like a concise though indirect threat or demand. It is not
> connected in any pre-conventional, conventional, or post-conventional
> NVC form or spirit. If this energy stems from concision, then give me
> prolixity. I will not leave a shamed puppy jackal with my tail between
> my legs. If I decide to leave it will only be after all needs are on
> the table and it seems the best strategy to meet those needs. Sorry if
> this is to OFNR, but it is the best I will do.

> If it meets your unexpressed "needs" to kick me off or if that is your
> strategy for giving me an "F: grade on your forum, I have no power
> with or over to stop you. You are the moderator and Google gives you
> that power with the click of a mouse. I would prefer that we move this
> to an empathy based discussion, but as Kelly Bryson was reported to me
> as having said, if you can't do empathy, do honesty. If nothing else,
> jackal honesty is more concise and a lot easier. So there you have a
> mixed scream in giraffe and jackal honesty.

> > Do these suggestions help?

> Yes and no. That is all I say. Dont want to fall into prolixity.

> > - Conal

> > 2008/10/1 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

> > > Conal, this is Craig:

> > > Part of me appreciates your request for conciseness. Given all that I
> > > want to say and how often I want to say it, I am not sure I can comply
> > > as easily as I would like. For me to write less takes a great deal of
> > > discipline and work that I am not sure I want to put into my posts
> > > here. It is something that I would reserve for more polished writing
> > > for publication. I am experiencing needs for fun and ease which are
> > > threatened by shortening my posts too much. I guess I am experiencing
> > > it like a rule or a form that I am champing at a bit at rather than a
> > > request, which I believe you are intending. But then what I am
> > > stimulated about is on me. I am triggered a bit by "wade" but again
> > > that is about me. It seems like there might be a less loaded word.
> > > Anyway, I know I tend to write "too much". I think maybe a strategy
> > > would be for me to break it down into smaller chunks. It might obviate
> > > some of the hurt and pain that has come alive of late. I commit right
> > > now to ponder how and whether I will shorten posts. Pondering is not
> > > exactly doable, but it is the best I can do with my wife reminding me
> > > that it is lunch time in the background. Do you have any strategies
> > > that you use or would suggest to reach your admirable conciseness?

> > > I differ in my response to Niklas's long posts. They are like a balm
> > > in Gilead to me. They stimulate all kinds of connection, aha's, and
> > > wonderment. Not just the two take offs from my posts, but earlier
> > > posts in Sex and Evolution and elsewhere  that had such deep and
> > > profound meaning for me. I am not sure I am a little boy cocking my
> > > head in curiosity as Niklas described it, but I am definitely a man
> > > transported to places in my consciousness where I like to go to and
> > > savor. Mmm, Mmm, good. Maybe Niklas and I and others who like like it
> > > long and slow can identify when a long post is coming. Or mayben we
> > > could write a precise at the start and then others can decide if they
> > > want to wade in deeper. (Oops and I said I was triggered by wade. )
> > > Or maybe we could start some off post exchanges, but Lea and Gedding
> > > were  such a profound part of the Sex and Evolution thread for me.

> > > I would love to hear reactions and strategies from others.

> > > All the best, and hoping for more concision, less prolixity, Craig.

> > > Shortly, Craig.

> > > On Oct 1, 12:50 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > > Hi Craig.

> > > > FYI, I lost interest after the first paragraph and skimmed the rest.
> > >  I've
> > > > missed quite a lot of what you've said lately, because I didn't want
> to
> > > wade
> > > > through long passages.  The same is true for me of some of Niklas's
> notes
> > > as
> > > > well.

> > > > Request to the group: take more time to write shorter notes.  Go
> ahead
> > > and
> > > > write a stream-of-consciousness draft to help you figure out what you
> > > really
> > > > want to say, and then trim way down to the essence, before sending.
>  Or,
> > > as
> > > > I've heard it put, "blather, condense, repeat" -- before sending.

> > > > Thanks,  - Conal

> > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <

> > > > st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

> > > > > Hi Conal, this is Craig,

> > > > > I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
> > > > > description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing
> that
> > > > > is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
> > > > > discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that
> evolution.
> > > > > Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to
> explaining
> > > > > their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
> > > > > abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
> > > > > consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I
> had
> > > > > before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my
> core
> > > > > value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who
> is
> > > > > a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
> > > > > absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially
> anti-abortion
> > > > > to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense
> of
> > > > > inclusion and possibility.

> > > > > Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My
> main
> > > > > pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
> > > > > those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always
> expressed
> > > > > in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
> > > > > Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
> > > > > conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For
> me
> > > > > the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
> > > > > other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle

> read more >>

> I've placed you on moderated status in the group, meaning (as I understand)
> that your posts will not show up until I indicate.  Perhaps between the two
> of us, we can work out a clearer understanding of my intentions for having
> this group and whether and how you and I can both enjoy your continued
> contributions.

> Below, you asked me for suggestions to help you reach conciseness.  I guess
> you weren't too excited about them, and I don't have any others at the
> moment, though some new ones may emerge.  I also offered you a suggestion
> for meeting your needs without this group.  After all, your participation
> here is just one strategy of many.

> Take care,  - Conal

> 2008/10/1 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

> > On Oct 1, 1:36 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > Hi Craig,...

> > > read more >>

> > > Do you have any strategies that you use or would suggest to reach your

> > > > admirable conciseness?\

> > > Yes: write stream-of-consciousness in your personal journal.  In the
> > > process, distill the essence of what you're trying to say.  Only then
> > begin
> > > writing for group consumption and aim for getting the essence across in
> > as
> > > few words as possible.

> > I intend to write more concisely. And when a long post hits me, I will
> > write a summary at the beginning. Then you and others can read the
> > summary and decide if you want to go further. Or, of course, you can
> > just skip the whole thing and those who want to can move with me
> > meandering through feelings, needs, thoughts and the like. In my
> > experience of NVC trainings and the like, the pace is maddeningly slow
> > as we sort out everyone's logistical needs. Needs living and
> > consciousness as one dear friend put it is "messy". I will try to get
> > to the more essential expression, but there is a certain terror
> > bubbling up that I will revert to more jackalish content that will
> > really piss you and others off. I want connection and clarity together
> > as my primary values. For a Google forum, conciseness is not a very
> > high value to me. No ease and fun. Do you or anyone object to my
> > proposed strategy of summary/body when I am moved to make a longer
> > post?

> > > It occurs to me now that I think and write professionally, often working
> > > with word limits, and that you might not have as much practice as I in
> > > conciseness.  So another suggestion: get help.  Take a class, find a
> > mentor,
> > > find an online group that reviews and helps improve each other's writing
> > --
> > > especially clarity & conciseness.

> > I am not sure how one thinks professionally, but your concision seems
> > to be a reflection of your professional writing. I appreciate it.

> > Now we have added clarity to my writing faults as you experience them.
> > I am not sure that is a fair evaluation. I think that my expression
> > has been TOO CLEAR and direct, if too wordy. I am a member of a
> > writing group, though more focused fiction and screen plays that non-
> > fiction. I have been a professional writer in my past as a trial and
> > appellate attorney. There the RULES were very clear. Something that
> > did not comply was rejected or the judges would stop reading at the
> > page limit. It led to forced conciseness, a living of sorts, and a lot
> > of unhappy, sleepless nights. No hungry duck there.

> > I doubt I will join another group. Sharing ideas without exploring
> > empathy as a value and practice is unappealing.

> > > Alternatively, forget about conciseness and find a different forum that
> > > doesn't ask so much discipline and work.  nvc-evolves can't be the only
> > game
> > > in town for exchanging ideas.

> > This sounds like a concise though indirect threat or demand. It is not
> > connected in any pre-conventional, conventional, or post-conventional
> > NVC form or spirit. If this energy stems from concision, then give me
> > prolixity. I will not leave a shamed puppy jackal with my tail between
> > my legs. If I decide to leave it will only be after all needs are on
> > the table and it seems the best strategy to meet those needs. Sorry if
> > this is to OFNR, but it is the best I will do.

> > If it meets your unexpressed "needs" to kick me off or if that is your
> > strategy for giving me an "F: grade on your forum, I have no power
> > with or over to stop you. You are the moderator and Google gives you
> > that power with the click of a mouse. I would prefer that we move this
> > to an empathy based discussion, but as Kelly Bryson was reported to me
> > as having said, if you can't do empathy, do honesty. If nothing else,
> > jackal honesty is more concise and a lot easier. So there you have a
> > mixed scream in giraffe and jackal honesty.

> > > Do these suggestions help?

> > Yes and no. That is all I say. Dont want to fall into prolixity.

> > > - Conal

> > > 2008/10/1 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

> > > > Conal, this is Craig:

> > > > Part of me appreciates your request for conciseness. Given all that I
> > > > want to say and how often I want to say it, I am not sure I can comply
> > > > as easily as I would like. For me to write less takes a great deal of
> > > > discipline and work that I am not sure I want to put into my posts
> > > > here. It is something that I would reserve for more polished writing
> > > > for publication. I am experiencing needs for fun and ease which are
> > > > threatened by shortening my posts too much. I guess I am experiencing
> > > > it like a rule or a form that I am champing at a bit at rather than a
> > > > request, which I believe you are intending. But then what I am
> > > > stimulated about is on me. I am triggered a bit by "wade" but again
> > > > that is about me. It seems like there might be a less loaded word.
> > > > Anyway, I know I tend to write "too much". I think maybe a strategy
> > > > would be for me to break it down into smaller chunks. It might obviate
> > > > some of the hurt and pain that has come alive of late. I commit right
> > > > now to ponder how and whether I will shorten posts. Pondering is not
> > > > exactly doable, but it is the best I can do with my wife reminding me
> > > > that it is lunch time in the background. Do you have any strategies
> > > > that you use or would suggest to reach your admirable conciseness?

> > > > I differ in my response to Niklas's long posts. They are like a balm
> > > > in Gilead to me. They stimulate all kinds of connection, aha's, and
> > > > wonderment. Not just the two take offs from my posts, but earlier
> > > > posts in Sex and Evolution and elsewhere  that had such deep and
> > > > profound meaning for me. I am not sure I am a little boy cocking my
> > > > head in curiosity as Niklas described it, but I am definitely a man
> > > > transported to places in my consciousness where I like to go to and
> > > > savor. Mmm, Mmm, good. Maybe Niklas and I and others who like like it
> > > > long and slow can identify when a long post is coming. Or mayben we
> > > > could write a precise at the start and then others can decide if they
> > > > want to wade in deeper. (Oops and I said I was triggered by wade. )
> > > > Or maybe we could start some off post exchanges, but Lea and Gedding
> > > > were  such a profound part of the Sex and Evolution thread for me.

> > > > I would love to hear reactions and strategies from others.

> > > > All the best, and hoping for more concision, less prolixity, Craig.

> > > > Shortly, Craig.

> > > > On Oct 1, 12:50 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Craig.

> > > > > FYI, I lost interest after the first paragraph and skimmed the rest.
> > > >  I've
> > > > > missed quite a lot of what you've said lately, because I didn't want
> > to
> > > > wade
> > > > > through long passages.  The same is true for me of some of Niklas's
> > notes
> > > > as
> > > > > well.

> > > > > Request to the group: take more time to write shorter notes.  Go
> > ahead
> > > > and
> > > > > write a stream-of-consciousness draft to help you figure out what you
> > > > really
> > > > > want to say, and then trim way down to the essence, before sending.
> >  Or,
> > > > as
> > > > > I've heard it put, "blather, condense, repeat" -- before sending.

> > > > > Thanks,  - Conal

> > > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <

> > > > > st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Hi Conal, this is Craig,

> > > > > > I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
> > > > > > description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing
> > that
> > > > > > is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
> > > > > > discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that
> > evolution.
> > > > > > Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to
> > explaining
> > > > > > their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
> > > > > > abortion have been important to me,

> My need is for cooperation and helping.
> I know that i get SOO frustrated when this happens to me, either
> booted of a WoW guild because someone misinterpreted what i said, or
> off a web forum because i have been labeled as a "trooler" or
> something because i explained an opinion different or new to what the
> dominating authority understood or liked.

> I am sencing (perhaps i am off the mark) that there is some animosity,
> unresolved need for acceptance and connection not met from earlier
> posts perhaps?

> I notice there were a number of threads on abortion and morality.
> I did not look at any of them as that does not interest me, and i also
> know that these things are taught to us primarily thru Jackal tactics
> (guild, shame, fear, and other emotional tricks), that it is hard to
> impossible to discuss rationally without being swayed by emotions.

> That is not to say that emotions are to be ignored, just that the
> emotions are linked to needs met/unmet elsewhere.
> Usually deep within the subconscious.  And it is very hard at times to
> find out what that need is, and instead the emotions fall on the
> arguments/conversation, or the partys involved.

> So i steer clear.  :-)

> Actually as i think about it, those points are very important to the
> deepening of NVC, i might start a tread about that later!

> So my request is;
> Is there animosity, unresolved feelings and needs?
> Is there a power move being played on someone, (banning their posts,
> or limiting them or something)?
> Was it to do with the abortion and morality posts?  :-D

> I think im out of the loop here,

> I feel worried when i read that someone is using Power-Over tactics to
> change someone's status.
> My need is for cooperation and helping.
> I know that i get SOO frustrated when this happens to me, either
> booted of a WoW guild because someone misinterpreted what i said, or
> off a web forum because i have been labeled as a "trooler" or
> something because i explained an opinion different or new to what the
> dominating authority understood or liked.

> I am sencing (perhaps i am off the mark) that there is some animosity,
> unresolved need for acceptance and connection not met from earlier
> posts perhaps?

> I notice there were a number of threads on abortion and morality.
> I did not look at any of them as that does not interest me, and i also
> know that these things are taught to us primarily thru Jackal tactics
> (guild, shame, fear, and other emotional tricks), that it is hard to
> impossible to discuss rationally without being swayed by emotions.

> That is not to say that emotions are to be ignored, just that the
> emotions are linked to needs met/unmet elsewhere.
> Usually deep within the subconscious.  And it is very hard at times to
> find out what that need is, and instead the emotions fall on the
> arguments/conversation, or the partys involved.

> So i steer clear.  :-)

> Actually as i think about it, those points are very important to the
> deepening of NVC, i might start a tread about that later!

> So my request is;
> Is there animosity, unresolved feelings and needs?
> Is there a power move being played on someone, (banning their posts,
> or limiting them or something)?
> Was it to do with the abortion and morality posts?  :-D

> I have needs for brevity, on topic discussions , and a reduction in traffic
> .

> I am feeling overwhelmed at the number and length of messages as I have
> needs for conciseness and relevance

> So my requests, which is also a possible strategy for this group are.

> 1/ To keep all messages under 100 words of original material;

> 2/ For each individual to limit themselves to one post per day

> 3/ To ensure that each message is concerned with the topic of NVC evolving.
> If not to communicate privately with the individual involved.

> So would everyone be willing to check in (in a 100 words or less) their
> feelings and needs concerning this post.

> John feeling hopeful
>  ------------------------------

> *From:* nvc-evolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nvc-evolves@googlegroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Angela Harms
> *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2008 12:58 PM
> *To:* nvc-evolves@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Conciseness, please

> 2008/10/2 Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com>

> Conal, This is the equivalent of a husband telling a wife, by-by
> honey, there are many places you can go to get your needs met. This
> marriage was just one of many strategies you can choose. You don't
> have to live here, there are plenty of places to live.

> If my husband didn't want to be with me anymore, I'm sure I'd ask if he's
> ok talking about it, but if he weren't, I'd wish him well and go (sobbing)
> to look for empathy elsewhere. If I insisted on sticking with him, when he
> said he didn't want that, I hope he'd feel confident in using force to
> protect himself.

> That's how it looks to me if my request to talk was a request. If it were a
> demand, he'd probably resort to force sooner.

> I have invested
> months in relationships here. My very heart and soul have been
> invested here, I have propsed a strategy that you have ignored. Is not
> a core principle of NVC to put all needs on the table and a strategy
> will emerge? Where is NVC and needs in your world whan a heart is
> aching? Sure I can survive without NVC Evolves. Meet your needs
> elsewhere is all I get.

> The above makes me think that you are demanding, Craig. And in my
> experience, that's a sure way to get the other person to run screaming from
> the room.

> Hey Angela,

> this stimulated a reaction in me:

> > The above makes me think that you are demanding, Craig. And in my
> > experience, that's a sure way to get the other person to run screaming
> > from the room.
> I've had many painful situations in my life, where other people would think
> I'm demanding something and they sort of ran screaming from the room. And
> what I would've loved in that moment was awareness on the part of the other
> person that if I was connected to their needs, i.e. aware of them, that I
> would care about them. I would've wished that the other person would have
> had enough presence and awareness of the beauty of his or her needs, so that
> my needs could be heard equally. That what he or she heard as demand was
> actually me in pain and agony about something, with no real intention to
> harm or threat. From that experience, I see demands coming from the fear,
> that it could be impossible that my needs would be received as beautiful, as
> a gift of life to be loved. And I see tragedy in continuing that game by
> hearing and interpreting that as a demand.

> Up to this point I conclude from this, that there are no demands. There are
> people in pain, desperately looking for connection. And they either get it
> or they don't. Whether I receive somebody else's pain as a demand is not
> dependent on what he says or how he says it, but on my self-connection. Or
> in other words, somebody else's demand is only a demand to me, when a part
> of me agrees that I should comply without including my needs. As long as I
> see my needs as beautiful gifts of life which are only to be loved, I have
> no trouble hearing somebody's pain, because I don't even get the idea that I
> would have to give something up. That's what I want to focus on, because
> nobody benefits when I interpret the other person's pain as a demand,
> however expressed. And since I want to strengthen my self-connection
> anywhere, independent from the circumstances, this challenge lies along the
> way. I'd like to invite you all to do the same.

> I'm looking for reactions, hoping for understanding and further input.
> Warmly
> Niklas
> --
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen:
> http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

> As for "hearing a demand", I see two different meanings in use, sometimes
> leading to confusion.  The more direct meaning (closest to literal
> interpretation) is inferring (accurately or not) that someone has an
> attachment to getting what they're asking for.  A second meaning is very
> like making a demand.  It's when the request *hearer* is attached to the the
> request *maker* getting what they ask for.  The first sense of hearing a
> demand can help connection, e.g. for empathy, while the second is most
> likely to be thwart connection.

> I think Angela is saying that if you make a demand then the other person is
> likely to join you in your attachment, leading to an internal conflict from
> which they run screaming.

> I think you are saying that if you make a demand, it'd be awful nice if the
> other person was able *not* to join you in your attachment to getting what
> you ask for, so that they had a better chance to tune in to your need.

> I agree with both of these statements.

> Angela & Niklas: how do these paraphrases fit?

>   - Conal

> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Niklas Wilkens <Vor...@gmx.de> wrote:

>> Hey Angela,

>> this stimulated a reaction in me:

>> > The above makes me think that you are demanding, Craig. And in my
>> > experience, that's a sure way to get the other person to run screaming
>> > from the room.
>> I've had many painful situations in my life, where other people would
>> think I'm demanding something and they sort of ran screaming from the room.
>> And what I would've loved in that moment was awareness on the part of the
>> other person that if I was connected to their needs, i.e. aware of them,
>> that I would care about them. I would've wished that the other person would
>> have had enough presence and awareness of the beauty of his or her needs, so
>> that my needs could be heard equally. That what he or she heard as demand
>> was actually me in pain and agony about something, with no real intention to
>> harm or threat. From that experience, I see demands coming from the fear,
>> that it could be impossible that my needs would be received as beautiful, as
>> a gift of life to be loved. And I see tragedy in continuing that game by
>> hearing and interpreting that as a demand.

>> Up to this point I conclude from this, that there are no demands. There
>> are people in pain, desperately looking for connection. And they either get
>> it or they don't. Whether I receive somebody else's pain as a demand is not
>> dependent on what he says or how he says it, but on my self-connection. Or
>> in other words, somebody else's demand is only a demand to me, when a part
>> of me agrees that I should comply without including my needs. As long as I
>> see my needs as beautiful gifts of life which are only to be loved, I have
>> no trouble hearing somebody's pain, because I don't even get the idea that I
>> would have to give something up. That's what I want to focus on, because
>> nobody benefits when I interpret the other person's pain as a demand,
>> however expressed. And since I want to strengthen my self-connection
>> anywhere, independent from the circumstances, this challenge lies along the
>> way. I'd like to invite you all to do the same.

>> I'm looking for reactions, hoping for understanding and further input.
>> Warmly
>> Niklas
>> --
>> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen:
>> http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger