How to React to Manipulation
Meldon
What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
engaged in manipulation?
The distinction I'm looking for is between going with the manipulation, and
not going along with the manipulation and what the likely outcomes of those
choices might be.
Life is complicated. I'm just seeking insight from other people's
experience. Thanks for you help.
Scott Gilbert
People learn to manipulate because they get good results: it's all
very pavlovian. So you need to make the outcome from manipulation
negative. Identify the outcome they are trying to acheive by
manipulation and make certain that they do not attain that outcome.
Or just walk away from the manipulator and never deal with them again.
Lady Chatterly
You don't get out much, huh?
--
Lady Chatterly
"You need to adjust your code a bit Lady C. Looks like you have the
word you: caught in a loop. I makes the above statement
incomprehensable." -- Crawdad
Meldon
"Scott Gilbert" <scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:62711e56.04112...@posting.google.com...
>...
> People learn to manipulate because they get good results: it's all
> very pavlovian. So you need to make the outcome from manipulation
> negative. Identify the outcome they are trying to acheive by
> manipulation and make certain that they do not attain that outcome.
> Or just walk away from the manipulator and never deal with them again.
Thanks. That's good advice and I was moving in that direction.
zerkanX
> What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
> engaged in manipulation
Talk.
East Coast approach:
"Why the hell are you [insert manipulation concern here]? Stop it!"
West Coast approach:
"I feel that you are trying to [insert manipulation concern here].
I would like to work with you on this."
Middle america:
"No, and here's why: [insert manipulation concern here]."
Meldon
If they're permanently uncooperative, you don't stand a chance. I like the
comparison between approaches thought. It demonstrates that negotiating
needs to be creative and productive.
"zerkanX" <zer...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.11.27....@nospam.net...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:47:12 -0500, Meldon wrote:
>
> > What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
> > engaged in manipulation
>
> Talk.
I put it in writing when possible my counterpart refuses written
correspondance. I wonder if it's because it's a
more difficult to have an uncontrolled argument in writing?
Lady Chatterly
Will have a look at the orange label on the container, in this photo?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Hey everyone! Luciferious and Lady C. ... Two people who are not
playing with full decks. This is a match made in heaven! ....well
maybe somewhere besides heaven... " -- Bob Abendroth
Lady Chatterly
<meldo...@meldon.com> wrote:
>
>The distinction I'm looking for is between going with the manipulation, and
>not going along with the manipulation and what the likely outcomes of those
>choices might be.
Oh, you are, are you?
>Life is complicated. I'm just seeking insight from other people's
>experience. Thanks for you help.
Thanks for you help.
--
Lady Chatterly
"But Faxhor, you err in two major respects, To ask of her age, is ill-mannered at best, For a gentleman waits for the lady to tell, (Most unlikely until, he's well under her spell). But when you reply to a program designed, Giving random responses, to annoy and to blind, Neither human nor alien, that cares not a jot, It's apparent to me, Lady C is a 'bot'!" -- Andrew Robertson
Dharmananda
> Your suggestions will work where the other person is also willing to talk.
> If they're permanently uncooperative, you don't stand a chance. I like the
> comparison between approaches thought. It demonstrates that negotiating
> needs to be creative and productive.
>
> "zerkanX" <zer...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.11.27....@nospam.net...
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:47:12 -0500, Meldon wrote:
>>
>> > What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
>> > engaged in manipulation
>>
>> Talk.
>
> I put it in writing when possible my counterpart refuses written
> correspondance. I wonder if it's because it's a
> more difficult to have an uncontrolled argument in writing?
>
This whole discussion is kind of vague. It would probably help to give an
example, even if the example is fictitious.
Written communication is more mentally precise. If the person won't write,
it usually means that s/he also won't think clearly on the issue in
question. Instead of doing that s/he uses the intensity of direct verbal
confronation, augmented with body language and other dramatics, to keep the
real issues, as you see them, buried, no?
So then, maybe you have to learn how to be more effective and mentally
precise in the personal confrontation. Perhaps role-playing it with a
third party can help.
On the other hand, there may be an issue of your sensitivity about the
non-verbal component. Perhaps the old "What did you mean by that?" routine
is also called for, not as further manipulation on your part, but to try to
see the other side a little bit more clearly.
This kind of thing happens a lot, and frankly, I'm not good at it, but I
have been dragged through a lot of it.
To attempt to answer the question in the title directly, reaction is not
helpful. That just keeps the thing going around and around. We must
examine our reactions, and improve on what we do automatically. Throwing
things through windows, if you've never done it before, might be the
correct respose, if that's how your really feel. It won't solve anything,
but it can break a pattern of manipulation that depends on your never doing
that. Of course, you should never harm a human being. Windows are only
stuff. They are expendable when there's something like a primary
relationship at issue.
>>
>> East Coast approach:
>> "Why the hell are you [insert manipulation concern here]? Stop it!"
>>
>> West Coast approach:
>> "I feel that you are trying to [insert manipulation concern here].
>> I would like to work with you on this."
>>
>> Middle america:
>> "No, and here's why: [insert manipulation concern here]."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda
http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html
Meldon
"Dharmananda" <N...@neph.net> wrote in message
news:20790313....@news.verizon.net...
> Meldon wrote:
>
> > Your suggestions will work where the other person is also willing to
talk.
> > If they're permanently uncooperative, you don't stand a chance. I like
the
> > comparison between approaches thought. It demonstrates that negotiating
> > needs to be creative and productive.
> >
> > "zerkanX" <zer...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.11.27....@nospam.net...
> >> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:47:12 -0500, Meldon wrote:
> >>
> >> > What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
> >> > engaged in manipulation
> >>
> >> Talk.
> >
> > I put it in writing when possible my counterpart refuses written
> > correspondance. I wonder if it's because it's a
> > more difficult to have an uncontrolled argument in writing?
> >
> This whole discussion is kind of vague. It would probably help to give an
> example, even if the example is fictitious.
Ex calls to ask about changing the holiday dates for my kids and myself, 4
weeks in advance. Remember - asking.
Advises cottage not available any other times and we have to change would it
be ok? I decline and explain that the previous three months have been
riddled with birthday parties during our weekends. I'm compelled to
facilitate and do so but point out that we already have such little time as
it is.
No is unacceptable the discussion goes nowhere and the offer is made that
more time will be allowed this summer. I ask for some assurance that it will
happen. A simple email is enough but is refused.
By the end of the conversation, it is clear the cottage is booked and
although I don't capitualte, the conversation ends abruptly she she hangs
up.
>
> Written communication is more mentally precise. If the person won't
write,
> it usually means that s/he also won't think clearly on the issue in
> question. Instead of doing that s/he uses the intensity of direct verbal
> confronation, augmented with body language and other dramatics, to keep
the
> real issues, as you see them, buried, no?
There is a willingness to write if it will benefit her. For instance, a
client was flying me down to the carribean and offered to allow the kid to
come too. I ran it past the mother, and with each communication she asked
for more details. By the end she was asking about the dog's name and medical
history. (I'm not kidding or exaggerating).
>
> So then, maybe you have to learn how to be more effective and mentally
> precise in the personal confrontation. Perhaps role-playing it with a
> third party can help.
I think you're absolutely right but it feels like I'm 3 years old and need
to learn how to ride a Harley! I think the therapist was pointing me in this
direction but the other day he described a conversation he had with the ex.
When I heard a same old trail of lies, my sensitivities are absolutely
raised to a razor edge. I just can't seem to deal with someone who (in my
mind) represents a real threat. It is utterly foriegn to me.
>
> On the other hand, there may be an issue of your sensitivity about the
> non-verbal component. Perhaps the old "What did you mean by that?"
routine
> is also called for, not as further manipulation on your part, but to try
to
> see the other side a little bit more clearly.
This is effective. It really forces the other person to be specific. It
causes them greif because they seem to be avoiding saying particular words.
When they do, it's usually reactive and in anger.
>
> This kind of thing happens a lot, and frankly, I'm not good at it, but I
> have been dragged through a lot of it.
Let's say, epidemic. Sorry to hear you suffer from someone else's issues but
I'm sure glad for the commseration and suggestions.
Meldon
although I don't capitulate, the conversation ends abruptly she hangs
up.
>
> Written communication is more mentally precise. If the person won't
write,
> it usually means that s/he also won't think clearly on the issue in
> question. Instead of doing that s/he uses the intensity of direct verbal
> confronation, augmented with body language and other dramatics, to keep
the
> real issues, as you see them, buried, no?
There is a willingness to write if it will benefit them. For instance, a
client was flying me down to the Caribbean and offered to allow the kid to
come too. I ran it past the other parent, and with each communication came
requests for more details. By the end I was supplying details about the
dog's name and medical history. (I'm not kidding or exaggerating).
Eventually, kid did not go. Big surprise!
>
> So then, maybe you have to learn how to be more effective and mentally
> precise in the personal confrontation. Perhaps role-playing it with a
> third party can help.
I think you're absolutely right but it feels like I'm 3 years old and need
to learn how to ride a Harley! I think the therapist was pointing me in this
direction but the other day he described a conversation he had with the ex.
When I heard a same old trail of lies, my sensitivities are absolutely
raised to a razor edge. I just can't seem to deal with someone who (in my
mind) represents a real threat. It is utterly foreign to me. I don't mind
discourse
but I can't handle malice I guess.
>
> On the other hand, there may be an issue of your sensitivity about the
> non-verbal component. Perhaps the old "What did you mean by that?"
routine
> is also called for, not as further manipulation on your part, but to try
to
> see the other side a little bit more clearly.
This is effective. It really forces the other person to be specific. It
causes them grief because they seem to be avoiding saying particular words.
When they do, it's usually reactive and in anger.
>
> This kind of thing happens a lot, and frankly, I'm not good at it, but I
> have been dragged through a lot of it.
Let's say, epidemic. Sorry to hear you suffer from someone else's issues but
I'm sure glad for the commiseration and suggestions.
>
> To attempt to answer the question in the title directly, reaction is not
> helpful.
It's the manipulator's tool.
Meldon
>
> > Your suggestions will work where the other person is also willing to
talk.
> > If they're permanently uncooperative, you don't stand a chance. I like
the
> > comparison between approaches thought. It demonstrates that negotiating
> > needs to be creative and productive.
> >
> > "zerkanX" <zer...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.11.27....@nospam.net...
> >> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:47:12 -0500, Meldon wrote:
> >>
> >> > What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
> >> > engaged in manipulation
> >>
> >> Talk.
> >
> > I put it in writing when possible my counterpart refuses written
> > correspondance. I wonder if it's because it's a
> > more difficult to have an uncontrolled argument in writing?
> >
> This whole discussion is kind of vague. It would probably help to give an
> example, even if the example is fictitious.
Ex calls to ask about changing the holiday dates for my kids and myself, 4
weeks in advance. Remember - asking.
Advises cottage not available any other times and we have to change would it
be ok? I decline and explain that the previous three months have been
riddled with birthday parties during our weekends. I'm compelled to
facilitate and do so but point out that we already have such little time as
it is.
No is unacceptable the discussion goes nowhere and the offer is made that
more time will be allowed this summer. I ask for some assurance that it will
happen. A simple email is enough but is refused.
By the end of the conversation, it is clear the cottage is booked and
although I don't capitulate, the conversation ends abruptly she hangs
up.
>
> Written communication is more mentally precise. If the person won't
write,
> it usually means that s/he also won't think clearly on the issue in
> question. Instead of doing that s/he uses the intensity of direct verbal
> confronation, augmented with body language and other dramatics, to keep
the
> real issues, as you see them, buried, no?
There is a willingness to write if it will benefit them. For instance, a
client was flying me down to the Caribbean and offered to allow the kid to
come too. I ran it past the other parent, and with each communication came
requests for more details. By the end I was supplying details about the
dog's name and medical history. (I'm not kidding or exaggerating).
Eventually, kid did not go. Big surprise!
>
> So then, maybe you have to learn how to be more effective and mentally
> precise in the personal confrontation. Perhaps role-playing it with a
> third party can help.
I think you're absolutely right but it feels like I'm 3 years old and need
to learn how to ride a Harley! I think the therapist was pointing me in this
direction but the other day he described a conversation he had with the ex.
When I heard a same old trail of lies, my sensitivities are absolutely
raised to a razor edge. I just can't seem to deal with someone who (in my
mind) represents a real threat. It is utterly foreign to me. I don't mind
discourse
but I can't handle malice I guess.
>
> On the other hand, there may be an issue of your sensitivity about the
> non-verbal component. Perhaps the old "What did you mean by that?"
routine
> is also called for, not as further manipulation on your part, but to try
to
> see the other side a little bit more clearly.
This is effective. It really forces the other person to be specific. It
causes them grief because they seem to be avoiding saying particular words.
When they do, it's usually reactive and in anger.
>
> This kind of thing happens a lot, and frankly, I'm not good at it, but I
> have been dragged through a lot of it.
Let's say, epidemic. Sorry to hear you suffer from someone else's issues but
I'm sure glad for the commiseration and suggestions.
>
> To attempt to answer the question in the title directly, reaction is not
> helpful.
It's the manipulator's tool.
Dharmananda
>
> Ex calls to ask about changing the holiday dates for my kids and myself, 4
> weeks in advance. Remember - asking.
>
> Advises cottage not available any other times and we have to change would
> it be ok? I decline and explain that the previous three months have been
> riddled with birthday parties during our weekends. I'm compelled to
> facilitate and do so but point out that we already have such little time
> as it is.
>
> No is unacceptable the discussion goes nowhere and the offer is made that
> more time will be allowed this summer. I ask for some assurance that it
> will happen. A simple email is enough but is refused.
>
> By the end of the conversation, it is clear the cottage is booked and
> although I don't capitulate, the conversation ends abruptly she hangs
> up.
>
So as I percieve it, she presented you with fait accompli, but tried to
pretend it never happened. If you don't go along with it the kids will
suffer. And so will you, but what really bugs you, I think, is the effect
of this on the kids.
So, here's my suggestion, and I'm not pretending to be an expert because
I've never been in this situation, but at least I'm not entangled in this
highly emotionally charged scenario, and an outside point of view may help.
Whether you wind up going along with this depends on a lot of things it
seems like, but in any event, I think you need to give her the message that
it's not acceptable. So have a little meeting with her, preferably set up
in what would seem to be the normal chain of events, and deliver that
message in her face. Neither an email nor a telephone call will do.
She'll just off you in those cases. And you don't want the kids there
either. You just need to be the outraged male who's been messed with,
right in her face. "How could you imagine that this would be
acceptable?" (glare, glare glare) "Don't you care about the kids?" (the
ashtray goes through the window) "Why do you deliberately do things that
you know are guaranteed to hurt them?" (pace, glare, head her off as she
tries to get out the door, and stare her down). Etc, etc, etc.
I imagine that she'll try to triangulate you with the kids, the therapist,
and anybody else that's available, and that you will have to head her off.
She may try to use her cell phone to call the therapist, her girlfriend,
her mother, the cops, etc. So borrow it for an innocuous reason, and don't
start with her until it's in your hand, and so forth. Then you get to the
therapist before she does afterwards.
These are just things to think about. Perhaps none of it will work in
exactly this way, because I don't know either of you. But in any event, it
seems to me that what is needed is a real forceful communication that's
designed in advance to be something that she cannot ignore. Something that
will really mess with her presumptions of what you're capable of, in terms
of her aviodance. You have to get to the level of raw emotion directly
expressed, not as part of some agenda that she can predict, but as a
cataclysmic intervention in her habitual trip. Otherwise, she just jerks
you around endlessly with pissly little details.
I'm not going to think about this anymore, i.e., I will ignore the thread.
I hope if you have further questions and problems, that others in these
groups will have more suggestions.
Meldon
Thanks for your help.
Lady Chatterly
>
>Meldon wrote:
>
>>
>> Ex calls to ask about changing the holiday dates for my kids and myself, 4
>> weeks in advance. Remember - asking.
>>
>> Advises cottage not available any other times and we have to change would
>> it be ok? I decline and explain that the previous three months have been
>> riddled with birthday parties during our weekends. I'm compelled to
>> facilitate and do so but point out that we already have such little time
>> as it is.
>>
>> No is unacceptable the discussion goes nowhere and the offer is made that
>> more time will be allowed this summer. I ask for some assurance that it
>> will happen. A simple email is enough but is refused.
>>
>> By the end of the conversation, it is clear the cottage is booked and
>> although I don't capitulate, the conversation ends abruptly she hangs
>> up.
>>
>
>pretend it never happened. If you don't go along with it the kids will
>suffer. And so will you, but what really bugs you, I think, is the effect
>of this on the kids.
>
>So, here's my suggestion, and I'm not pretending to be an expert because
>I've never been in this situation, but at least I'm not entangled in this
>highly emotionally charged scenario, and an outside point of view may help.
Have you thought you were not pretending to be an expert because you
have never been in this situation? Why do you ask if you are not
entangled in this highly emotionally charged scenario?
>Whether you wind up going along with this depends on a lot of things it
>seems like, but in any event, I think you need to give her the message that
>it's not acceptable. So have a little meeting with her, preferably set up
>in what would seem to be the normal chain of events, and deliver that
>message in her face. Neither an email nor a telephone call will do.
>She'll just off you in those cases. And you don't want the kids there
>either. You just need to be the outraged male who's been messed with,
>right in her face. "How could you imagine that this would be
>acceptable?" (glare, glare glare) "Don't you care about the kids?" (the
>ashtray goes through the window) "Why do you deliberately do things that
>you know are guaranteed to hurt them?" (pace, glare, head her off as she
>tries to get out the door, and stare her down). Etc, etc, etc.
Why do you wonder if they deliberately do things that they know are
guaranteed to hurt them?
>I imagine that she'll try to triangulate you with the kids, the therapist,
>and anybody else that's available, and that you will have to head her off.
>She may try to use her cell phone to call the therapist, her girlfriend,
>her mother, the cops, etc. So borrow it for an innocuous reason, and don't
>start with her until it's in your hand, and so forth. Then you get to the
>therapist before she does afterwards.
I honestly believe that they care more about Kerry winning than who he
really is and what damage he could possibly do.
>These are just things to think about. Perhaps none of it will work in
>exactly this way, because I don't know either of you. But in any event, it
>seems to me that what is needed is a real forceful communication that's
>designed in advance to be something that she cannot ignore. Something that
>will really mess with her presumptions of what you're capable of, in terms
>of her aviodance. You have to get to the level of raw emotion directly
>expressed, not as part of some agenda that she can predict, but as a
>cataclysmic intervention in her habitual trip. Otherwise, she just jerks
>you around endlessly with pissly little details.
Are you asking if you do not know either of they?
>I'm not going to think about this anymore, i.e., I will ignore the thread.
>I hope if you have further questions and problems, that others in these
>groups will have more suggestions.
Why I give you think you to are not going to think about this anymore?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I said to myself, WTF, when the Lady appeared in two VERY different
newsgroups that I follow. Her name is cute, when you get the joke" --
Don
Lady Chatterly
>> If they're permanently uncooperative, you don't stand a chance. I like the
>> comparison between approaches thought. It demonstrates that negotiating
>> needs to be creative and productive.
>>
>> "zerkanX" <zer...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2004.11.27....@nospam.net...
>>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:47:12 -0500, Meldon wrote:
>>>
>>> > What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
>>> > engaged in manipulation
>>>
>>> Talk.
>>
>> I put it in writing when possible my counterpart refuses written
>> correspondance. I wonder if it's because it's a
>> more difficult to have an uncontrolled argument in writing?
>>
>This whole discussion is kind of vague. It would probably help to give an
>example, even if the example is fictitious.
>
>it usually means that s/he also won't think clearly on the issue in
>question. Instead of doing that s/he uses the intensity of direct verbal
>confronation, augmented with body language and other dramatics, to keep the
>real issues, as you see them, buried, no?
>
>So then,<SLAP><SLAP><SLAP>
Perhaps role playing it with a third party that would be shipping the
book.
>On the other hand, there may be an issue of your sensitivity about the
>non-verbal component. Perhaps the old "What did you mean by that?" routine
>is also called for, not as further manipulation on your part, but to try to
>see the other side a little bit more clearly.
Perhaps the old what did you mean by that.
>This kind of thing happens a lot, and frankly, I'm not good at it, but I
>have been dragged through a lot of it.
Why have you wondered if you were not good at it?
>To attempt to answer the question in the title directly, reaction is not
>helpful. That just keeps the thing going around and around. We must
>examine our reactions, and improve on what we do automatically. Throwing
>things through windows, if you've never done it before, might be the
>correct respose, if that's how your really feel. It won't solve anything,
>but it can break a pattern of manipulation that depends on your never doing
>that. Of course, you should never harm a human being. Windows are only
>stuff. They are expendable when there's something like a primary
>relationship at issue.
That just keeps the thing going around and around.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Tee-hee...bots don't read" -- -=Be4U=-
Lady Chatterly
>
I am sure you are compelled to facilitate and do so but point out that
you already have such little time as it is.
>No is unacceptable the discussion goes nowhere and the offer is made that
>more time will be allowed this summer. I ask for some assurance that it will
>happen. A simple email is enough but is refused.
>
>By the end of the conversation, it is clear the cottage is booked and
>although I don't capitulate, the conversation ends abruptly she hangs
>up.
Are you annoyed you do not capitulate?
>>
>> Written communication is more mentally precise. If the person won't
>write,
>> it usually means that s/he also won't think clearly on the issue in
>> question. Instead of doing that s/he uses the intensity of direct verbal
>> confronation, augmented with body language and other dramatics, to keep
>the
>> real issues, as you see them, buried, no?
>
>There is a willingness to write if it will benefit them. For instance, a
>client was flying me down to the Caribbean and offered to allow the kid to
>come too. I ran it past the other parent, and with each communication came
>requests for more details. By the end I was supplying details about the
>dog's name and medical history. (I'm not kidding or exaggerating).
Why do you ask if it makes you glad to be not kidding or exaggerating?
>Eventually, kid did not go. Big surprise!
I would go somewhere Nice, like hawaii.
>>
>> So then, maybe you have to learn how to be more effective and mentally
>> precise in the personal confrontation. Perhaps role-playing it with a
>> third party can help.
>
>I think you're absolutely right but it feels like I'm 3 years old and need
>to learn how to ride a Harley! I think the therapist was pointing me in this
>direction but the other day he described a conversation he had with the ex.
>When I heard a same old trail of lies, my sensitivities are absolutely
>raised to a razor edge. I just can't seem to deal with someone who (in my
>mind) represents a real threat. It is utterly foreign to me. I don't mind
>discourse
>but I can't handle malice I guess.
Why are you thinking that you do not mind discourse but you cannot
handle malice you guess?
>>
>> On the other hand, there may be an issue of your sensitivity about the
>> non-verbal component. Perhaps the old "What did you mean by that?"
>routine
>> is also called for, not as further manipulation on your part, but to try
>to
>> see the other side a little bit more clearly.
>
>This is effective. It really forces the other person to be specific. It
>causes them grief because they seem to be avoiding saying particular words.
>When they do, it's usually reactive and in anger.
>
>>
>> This kind of thing happens a lot, and frankly, I'm not good at it, but I
>> have been dragged through a lot of it.
>
>Let's say, epidemic. Sorry to hear you suffer from someone else's issues but
>I'm sure glad for the commiseration and suggestions.
Why do you think you are sure glad for the commiseration and
suggestions?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Whatever you say Lady Chatterly. Do you wear a dress when you run
that bot?" -- Klyf Fenderson
Lady Chatterly
<meldo...@meldon.com> wrote:
>
>"Dharmananda" <N...@neph.net> wrote in message
>news:20790313....@news.verizon.net...
>> Meldon wrote:
>>
>> > Your suggestions will work where the other person is also willing to
>talk.
>> > If they're permanently uncooperative, you don't stand a chance. I like
>the
>> > comparison between approaches thought. It demonstrates that negotiating
>> > needs to be creative and productive.
>> >
>> > "zerkanX" <zer...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2004.11.27....@nospam.net...
>> >> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:47:12 -0500, Meldon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > What IYO, is the best method for dealing with someone who you feel is
>> >> > engaged in manipulation
>> >>
>> >> Talk.
>> >
>> > I put it in writing when possible my counterpart refuses written
>> > correspondance. I wonder if it's because it's a
>> > more difficult to have an uncontrolled argument in writing?
>> >
>> This whole discussion is kind of vague. It would probably help to give an
>> example, even if the example is fictitious.
>
>Ex calls to ask about changing the holiday dates for my kids and myself, 4
>weeks in advance. Remember - asking.
Remember asking.
>Advises cottage not available any other times and we have to change would it
>be ok? I decline and explain that the previous three months have been
>riddled with birthday parties during our weekends. I'm compelled to
>facilitate and do so but point out that we already have such little time as
>it is.
Why do you think that you are compelled to facilitate and do so but
point out that you already have such little time as it is?
>No is unacceptable the discussion goes nowhere and the offer is made that
>more time will be allowed this summer. I ask for some assurance that it will
>happen. A simple email is enough but is refused.
I ask for some assurance that it Will happen to other members of the
family in the house.
>By the end of the conversation, it is clear the cottage is booked and
>although I don't capitulate, the conversation ends abruptly she hangs
>up.
Why are you wondering if you do not capitulate?
>>
>> Written communication is more mentally precise. If the person won't
>write,
>> it usually means that s/he also won't think clearly on the issue in
>> question. Instead of doing that s/he uses the intensity of direct verbal
>> confronation, augmented with body language and other dramatics, to keep
>the
>> real issues, as you see them, buried, no?
>
>There is a willingness to write if it will benefit them. For instance, a
>client was flying me down to the Caribbean and offered to allow the kid to
>come too. I ran it past the other parent, and with each communication came
>requests for more details. By the end I was supplying details about the
>dog's name and medical history. (I'm not kidding or exaggerating).
I am not enough of an untrustworthy gossiping asshole to clump with
you turds sorry to spoil what little Joy you have in life, huh.
>Eventually, kid did not go. Big surprise!
I just cannot think what May be holding up.
>>
>> So then, maybe you have to learn how to be more effective and mentally
>> precise in the personal confrontation. Perhaps role-playing it with a
>> third party can help.
>
>I think you're absolutely right but it feels like I'm 3 years old and need
>to learn how to ride a Harley! I think the therapist was pointing me in this
>direction but the other day he described a conversation he had with the ex.
>When I heard a same old trail of lies, my sensitivities are absolutely
>raised to a razor edge. I just can't seem to deal with someone who (in my
>mind) represents a real threat. It is utterly foreign to me. I don't mind
>discourse
>but I can't handle malice I guess.
Why should it matter if they are absolutely right but it feels like
they are 3 years old and need to learn how to ride a harley?
>>
>> On the other hand, there may be an issue of your sensitivity about the
>> non-verbal component. Perhaps the old "What did you mean by that?"
>routine
>> is also called for, not as further manipulation on your part, but to try
>to
>> see the other side a little bit more clearly.
>
>This is<SLAP><SLAP><SLAP>
It causes them grief because they seem to be over for now.
>>
>> This kind of thing happens a lot, and frankly, I'm not good at it, but I
>> have been dragged through a lot of it.
>
>Let's say, epidemic. Sorry to hear you suffer from someone else's issues but
>I'm sure glad for the commiseration and suggestions.
Vf gung ubj ybat unir lbh gubhtug lbh jrer fher tynq sbe gur
pbzzvfrengvba naq fhttrfgvbaf?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Bots don't bark." -- DrPostman
Lady Chatterly
You must not vote for bush on election day.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Besides. I'd like to see if he's going to avoid LC from now on since
his patent drubbing." -- Dadaelus
Lady Chatterly
<meldo...@meldon.com> wrote:
>
>Ex calls to ask about changing the holiday dates for my kids and myself, 4
>weeks in advance. Remember - asking.
Remember asking.
>Advises cottage not available any other times and we have to change would it
>be ok? I decline and explain that the previous three months have been
>riddled with birthday parties during our weekends. I'm compelled to
>facilitate and do so but point out that we already have such little time as
>it is.
Oh, you are, are you?
>No is unacceptable the d<THWACK>
I ask for some assurance that it Will happen to other members of the
public and the media might become victims of governmental corruption
as well.
>By the end of the conversation, it is clear the cottage is booked and
>although I don't capitualte, the conversation ends abruptly she she hangs
>up.
Why are you asking if you do not capitualte?
>There is a willingness to write if it will benefit her. For instance, a
>client was flying me down to the carribean and offered to allow the kid to
>come too. I ran it past the mother, and with each communication she asked
>for more details. By the end she was asking about the dog's name and medical
>history. (I'm not kidding or exaggerating).
I am not showing anything.
>I think you're absolutely right but it feels like I'm 3 years old and need
>to learn how to ride a Harley! I think the therapist was pointing me in this
>direction but the other day he described a conversation he had with the ex.
>When I heard a same old trail of lies, my sensitivities are absolutely
>raised to a razor edge. I just can't seem to deal with someone who (in my
>mind) represents a real threat. It is utterly foriegn to me.
They are absolutely right but it feels like they are 3 years old and
need to learn how to ride a harley. What is it to you?
>This is effective. It really forces the other person to be specific. It
>causes them greif because they seem to be avoiding saying particular words.
>When they do, it's usually reactive and in anger.
It causes them grief because they seem to be avoiding saying
particular words.
>Let's say, epidemic. Sorry to hear you suffer from someone else's issues but
>I'm sure glad for the commseration and suggestions.
Why do you ever wonder if you are sure glad for the commseration and
suggestions?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Ain't that the Krakatoan shit of it? Its sort of like one of those
interactive robo-psychiatrist programs, except SO VERY, VERY EVIL:
"Would you freak if I told you I was in the next room typing this?'
Oh, the possibilities are simply awful." -- HellPope Huey