The Anger Thing...
SandyG
we cannot afford" yadda yadda yadda. Emotions are emotions. They just *are*.
It is how we react to them - what we do with them - that can get us into
trouble.
A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation is
too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her and told her "You
know, I feel very angry with you right now because of ____________". No
shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just spelled it out. Then it was
done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I think that is a lot healthier than
denying that I am angry and instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is
going to "take me back out".
I don't think *any* emotion is right or wrong. It just *is*. How we choose
to handle them is the key.
--
- Sandy
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the
light."
- Dylan Thomas
tedw
Resentment is wrong.
tedw
I don't think denying your angry is a good thing or carrying a grudge.
In addition to telling the person you were angry
it might have been good to say you knew you were wrong for being
angry. However, you don' t think so.
Ted L.
"SandyG" <moll...@askme.net> wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation is
> too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her and told her "You
> know, I feel very angry with you right now because of ____________". No
> shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just spelled it out. Then it was
> done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I think that is a lot healthier than
> denying that I am angry and instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is
> going to "take me back out".
Very healthy. And the fact that you were able to your friend that you
were angry with her indicates what good friends you are.
--
Ted L.
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
Tex
wrote:
> This is one of my pet peeves with AA. The whole "anger is an emotion that
>we cannot afford" yadda yadda yadda. Emotions are emotions. They just *are*.
>It is how we react to them - what we do with them - that can get us into
>trouble.
>
>A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation is
>too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her and told her "You
>know, I feel very angry with you right now because of ____________". No
>shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just spelled it out. Then it was
>done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I think that is a lot healthier than
>denying that I am angry and instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is
>going to "take me back out".
>
>I don't think *any* emotion is right or wrong. It just *is*. How we choose
>to handle them is the key.
What's to be peeved about? It doesn't say we can't or won't have
it...it says we can't afford it and that we have to be free of it. It
doesn't say to deny having it ... in fact it speaks of doing so will
lead to worse things ... the way I read it ... it doesn't address
anger as something bad ... rather it puts the focus on the
alkie...just like it talks about it not being alcohol ... it's us the
alkie the focus is on.
Seems to me your pet peeve is more on or with how aa people go on
about it and the twists they apply to what it really says.
>It is how we react to them - what we do with them - that can get us into
>trouble.
It seems from the above sentence you grasp what it says in the book
... Your tale describes taking some action (becoming free of it) once
you recognized you had it ...Then moving on.
Mark Warner
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation is
That's when I said "Fuck you".
--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying
marioneta del calcetín
Very healthy?
During my recovery, I learned that this drama queen was an emotions
addict. I learned that attitude can pre-determine emotion, that altered
attitude can pre-determine 'instinctive' emotions *and* resultant actions.
If the Big Book is correct where it says "So our troubles, we think, are
basically of our own making", drama queens can still cling to attitudes
that result in a double fix - first with the anger, and then the
resolution. Is what, on the evidence, may well have been a double fix of
needless drama, really healthy, Dr Ted?
tedw
You need to work a little on your clarity. Whatever your trying to
say, doesn't come across
well.
Anger is not healthy by any means.
F.H.
> Ted L. wrote:
>> In article <hkqhco$fu4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "SandyG" <moll...@askme.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The
>>> situation is too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her
>>> and told her "You know, I feel very angry with you right now because
>>> of ____________". No shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just
>>> spelled it out. Then it was done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I
>>> think that is a lot healthier than denying that I am angry and
>>> instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is going to "take me
>>> back out".
>>
>> Very healthy. And the fact that you were able to your friend that you
>> were angry with her indicates what good friends you are.
>>
>>
>
> Very healthy?
> During my recovery, I learned that this drama queen was an emotions
> addict. I learned that attitude can pre-determine emotion, that altered
> attitude can pre-determine 'instinctive' emotions *and* resultant actions.
Is an attitude that can pre-determine emotion an attachment?
http://www.purifymind.com/NonAttach.htm
> If the Big Book is correct where it says "So our troubles, we think, are
> basically of our own making", drama queens can still cling to attitudes
> that result in a double fix - first with the anger, and then the
> resolution. Is what, on the evidence, may well have been a double fix of
> needless drama, really healthy, Dr Ted?
Sometimes the resolution involves a roll in the hay which in /my/ drama
queen experiences generally felt /quite/ healthy although /later/.....,
I wasn't always sure...., for some vague reason.
marioneta del calcetín
> marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>> Ted L. wrote:
>>> In article <hkqhco$fu4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> "SandyG" <moll...@askme.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The
>>>> situation is too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her
>>>> and told her "You know, I feel very angry with you right now because
>>>> of ____________". No shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just
>>>> spelled it out. Then it was done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I
>>>> think that is a lot healthier than denying that I am angry and
>>>> instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is going to "take me
>>>> back out".
>>>
>>> Very healthy. And the fact that you were able to your friend that
>>> you were angry with her indicates what good friends you are.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Very healthy?
>> During my recovery, I learned that this drama queen was an emotions
>> addict. I learned that attitude can pre-determine emotion, that
>> altered attitude can pre-determine 'instinctive' emotions *and*
>> resultant actions.
>
> Is an attitude that can pre-determine emotion an attachment?
For me, generally, attitudes detach faster than I'm aware of opinions
detaching.
>
> http://www.purifymind.com/NonAttach.htm
Attached to non attachment - can that poor Guru win?
>
>> If the Big Book is correct where it says "So our troubles, we think,
>> are basically of our own making", drama queens can still cling to
>> attitudes that result in a double fix - first with the anger, and then
>> the resolution. Is what, on the evidence, may well have been a double
>> fix of needless drama, really healthy, Dr Ted?
>
> Sometimes the resolution involves a roll in the hay which in /my/ drama
> queen experiences generally felt /quite/ healthy although /later/.....,
> I wasn't always sure...., for some vague reason.
Was the roll in the hay the hidden intention?
F.H.
Hmmm, if he leaves footprints he has lost. Can one not /embrace/ an idea
without becoming attached? I very much like the story of Zhuang-Tzu's
wife. I think I can do as he did but..., that example may be among the
easiest.
>>> If the Big Book is correct where it says "So our troubles, we think,
>>> are basically of our own making", drama queens can still cling to
>>> attitudes that result in a double fix - first with the anger, and
>>> then the resolution. Is what, on the evidence, may well have been a
>>> double fix of needless drama, really healthy, Dr Ted?
>>
>> Sometimes the resolution involves a roll in the hay which in /my/
>> drama queen experiences generally felt /quite/ healthy although
>> /later/....., I wasn't always sure...., for some vague reason.
> Was the roll in the hay the hidden intention?
Yes. I was but a grasshopper then, attached to physical sensations and
vulnerable to trickery.
JoeRaisin
> This is one of my pet peeves with AA. The whole "anger is an emotion that
> we cannot afford" yadda yadda yadda. Emotions are emotions. They just *are*.
> It is how we react to them - what we do with them - that can get us into
> trouble.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation is
> too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her and told her "You
> know, I feel very angry with you right now because of ____________". No
> shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just spelled it out. Then it was
> done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I think that is a lot healthier than
> denying that I am angry and instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is
> going to "take me back out".
>
> I don't think *any* emotion is right or wrong. It just *is*. How we choose
> to handle them is the key.
>
I have always understood the AA stance on anger to mean we need to
handle it just the way you did. To me, it is the hanging on to anger
and other negative emotions that cause the trouble.
Had you not dealt with it fairly promptly, anger has a way simmering and
building up pressure to the point that a calm confrontation becomes less
and less likely. When we act out on anger we often end up doing or
saying things for which we later must make amends.
So I agree with you, having the emotions is not the problem, what we do
with them shows how we have grown.
JoeRaisin
But a drama queen wouldn't have done what Sandy did. A good drama queen
would have spent a good couple of days telling everyone who would listen
how she had been wronged and who had wronged her. If there was a
confrontation it wold have been loud and righteous with all the details
of how she had "told her" being related, once again, to all who would
hold still long enough to hear the story.
Gossip, righteous indignation and martyrdom are the tools of the drama
queen and used frequently.
The way I handle such confrontations are to first understand what
brought about the anger within me. That makes the, "when you did ______
I felt angry" discussion easier. I may or may not reveal all the ins
and outs regarding the source of my feelings, that depends upon the
relationship I have with the person. Either way it is important to me
that I own my emotions rather than blame them on the other person.
Charlie M. 1958
The way I look at it is that anger is natural and normal. But if it
isn't handled the right way (as described above) it turns into
resentment. And it's the resentment that will eat our lunch.
JoeRaisin
> SandyG wrote:
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The
>> situation is too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called him
>> and told him "You know, I feel very angry with you right now because
>> of ____________".
>
> That's when I said "Fuck you".
>
And then she said, "You wish."
JoeRaisin
Agreed
marioneta del calcetín
Thus you believe that a good drama queen couldn't move the drama to a
third arena, for an epilogue; - and get one more fix from an audience as
gullible as you? :-)
JoeRaisin
Well, had she detailed how she was wronged, and given a blow by blow
description of how she had told the offender off then I would say you
were probably right.
Since she did none of that, and only discussed that "something" had
gotten her angry and then how she handled it (in a general sense) then I
see no drama queen type behavior here.
Granted, your threshold as to what constitutes a drama queen may be
lower than mine - to each his own.
But if sharing a general story pertaining to the topic at hand makes one
a drama queen then by your reckoning this news group is chock full of
drama queens with myself being one of the worst offenders - and so be it.
F.H.
My take as well.
F.H.
"You wish baldy."
F.H.
LOL, a wisdom gained through pain? Prior attachments? <g>
JoeRaisin
Well, yeah - if she were talking to me.
marioneta del calcetín
> marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>> JoeRaisin wrote:
>>> marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>>>> Ted L. wrote:
>>>>> In article <hkqhco$fu4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> "SandyG" <moll...@askme.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The
>>>>>> situation is too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called
>>>>>> her and told her "You know, I feel very angry with you right now
>>>>>> because of ____________". No shouting. No raised voice or
>>>>>> accusations. Just spelled it out. Then it was done. Over. Let it
>>>>>> go and moved on. I think that is a lot healthier than denying that
>>>>>> I am angry and instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is
>>>>>> going to "take me back out".
>>>>>
>>>>> Very healthy. And the fact that you were able to your friend that
>>>>> you were angry with her indicates what good friends you are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very healthy?
>
> Granted, your threshold as to what constitutes a drama queen may be
> lower than mine - to each his own.
My threshold? I was merely questioning Dr Tedl's diagnostic authority.
AFAIK, no one can stop you being a Dr here too, Dr Joe!
Dr Marioneta
JoeRaisin
WOW - then I totally misunderstood what you were talking about.
When you said:
> Thus you believe that a good drama queen couldn't move the drama to a
third arena, for an epilogue; - and get one more fix from an audience as
gullible as you? :-)
In response to my saying:
>> But a drama queen wouldn't have done what Sandy did. A good drama
queen would have spent a good couple of days telling everyone who would
listen how she had been wronged and who had wronged her. If there was a
confrontation it wold have been loud and righteous with all the details
of how she had "told her" being related, once again, to all who would
hold still long enough to hear the story.
>
I just assumed that you were asserting that Sandy was being a drama
queen both in the way she dealt with her anger and in posting the story
here,
My mistake.
marioneta del calcetín
>
> WOW - then I totally misunderstood what you were talking about.
>
> When you said:
>
> > Thus you believe that a good drama queen couldn't move the drama to a
> third arena, for an epilogue; - and get one more fix from an audience as
> gullible as you? :-)
>
> In response to my saying:
>
> >> But a drama queen wouldn't have done what Sandy did. A good drama
> queen would have spent a good couple of days telling everyone who would
> listen how she had been wronged and who had wronged her. If there was a
> confrontation it wold have been loud and righteous with all the details
> of how she had "told her" being related, once again, to all who would
> hold still long enough to hear the story.
> >
>
> I just assumed that you were asserting that Sandy was being a drama
> queen both in the way she dealt with her anger and in posting the story
> here,
>
> My mistake.
Not to worry, doc. I had opined, a long time ago, that Sandy was a drama
queen. However, on the evidence in that particular post, there was no
way one could assert anything other than not enough evidence for
diagnosis; thus imo Dr Ted's diagnosis of 'very healthy' was mere ad
hominem.
Dr Sock.
nipntuk
another express anger. Extinguishing anger would seem less realistic than
managing one's reactions to it. I'm not remotely expert on the differences
between cortical and limbic emotions, or whether emotional intelligence is a
valid precept, or much else on the subject. I do think I get an instant when my
thoughts can influence the direction of my reactions - emotional and otherwise,
and I am responsible for whatever choice I might make then.
As one who is by no means a master at controlling my emotions or reactions to
them, I guess I have no real business telling others what it's all about. But I
do tend to think it's not entirely an either/or proposition between controlling
emotions or being controlled by them. Maybe sometimes so, other times not. Maybe
in the shades between those things is where the 'balance' can be found. Whatever
the case, I'm still learning, and quite fallible.
Charlie M. 1958
>
> Everyone seems to have a different definition of what one word means. Of
> course the connotation by tedw is always predictable...bad, sin, he's
> always in his judgement mode. He must be angry at a lot of people
> because the 'wisdom' of his pronounceents is not immediately recognized.
> The language is tricky. Like there is a word called 'disappointment'
> that could be used in many cases instead of the more emotional
> connotation of anger. If you take out whips and knock over tables in the
> temples and condemn the people running them, that would probably be
> anger and since Jesus is sinless, it is by a de facto definition, not a
> sin. However if he had gone up to them and said he was 'disappointed' in
> their use of the temple, that would have been a different connotation.
> Besides what could be more angry than throwing people into the fiery pit?
This goes hand-in-hand with my "proof" that god is insane.
If the definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and
over again and expecting different results, I submit that god (at least
the one I was raised with) keeps creating imperfect human beings and
getting angry when they act on those imperfections. So, by definition,
he is insane.
He should really either start making us perfect or lower his
expectations. :-)
JoeRaisin
Okay, now that our confusion has been resolved - how should such a
situation be dealt with?
If one has been angered by the words and/actions of another what, in you
opinion, IS the healthy course of action?
Lets just say, for the sake of this discussion, that post about having
been angered and subsequently approaching the person and clearing the
air, had not been posted by someone you have pre-determined to be a
drama queen.
RonG
"JoeRaisin" <joerai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hks764$ie4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The healthy course of action is to spend time ploting against the person
with a get even scheme and strike at the first opportunity.
RonG
nipntuk
Former Girlfriend spent all her waking hours trying to cook up ways to get back
at her ex over his taking custody of her kids. She was totally consumed by it,
trying to uncover ways the IRS might go after him, how she might screw him out
of his share in their business, filing motions against him every time he
sneezed. Ultimately she ended up killing herself during a relapse. Man did she
get even....
tedw
> marioneta del calcet n wrote:
> > Ted L. wrote:
First of all, do nothing until calm. Observe yourself until the anger
goes away. After that, speak up to the person
about what they did wrong. Or sometimes don't speak up. Really, it
depends on the situation what your further action
would be.
JoeRaisin
No, that's the FUN way - I asked for the healthy way...
The healthy way is rarely fun...
tedw
> On 2010-02-08 23:10:34 -0600, marioneta del calcetín <marion...@cast.net> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ted L. wrote:
> >> "SandyG" <molly...@askme.net> wrote:
>
> >>> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation
> >>> is too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her and told her
> >>> "You know, I feel very angry with you right now because of
> >>> ____________". No shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just
> >>> spelled it out. Then it was done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I
> >>> think that is a lot healthier than denying that I am angry and instead
> >>> carrying a grudge. I don't think that is going to "take me back out".
>
> >> Very healthy. And the fact that you were able to your friend that you
> >> were angry with her indicates what good friends you are.
>
> > Very healthy?
> > During my recovery, I learned that this drama queen was an emotions
> > addict. I learned that attitude can pre-determine emotion, that altered
> > attitude can pre-determine 'instinctive' emotions *and* resultant
> > actions.
>
> > If the Big Book is correct where it says "So our troubles, we think,
> > are basically of our own making", drama queens can still cling to
> > attitudes that result in a double fix - first with the anger, and then
> > the resolution. Is what, on the evidence, may well have been a double
> > fix of needless drama, really healthy, Dr Ted?
>
> school, church as to what is good and what is bad and how to react.
> Anger is a learned emotion as are most. Christians, as I understand,
> want to change that teaching into something new. Love and forgiveness,
> charity and care, not being judgmental, not being exclusionary. If
> what I understood was correct, I don't see much Christianity going on
> the world I see anoter self proclaimed power exercising control and
> judgment over other people. Jesus would turn over in his grave to have
> his reformation, even revolution, twisted to fit the old ways of
> exclusions, judgment, punishement is what is happening to the poor and
> sick. tedw considers himself a Christian but he is more interested in
> self promotion than Christian principles, more interested in judging
> other people wrong and proclaiming himself right(eous) and is blind to
> the fact that his narcissistic, self centered ways are anathema to what
> Jesus taught before the editors worked in a little hellfire/brimstone
> and swords so his disciples wouldn't taste the same fate as he did.
Jesus is not in his grave. But I agree that Jesus is not too happy
with what Christians
have done with Christianity (not all).
And I certainly havent been a good example of a Christian myself. I
don' think you will find me proclaiming
I am righteous.
I will claim I am better than the criminal alcoholic, drug addict that
I used to be. But I still fall short. I have hope that God is not yet
done changing me.
Self-promotion? How?
tedw
> JoeRaisin wrote:
> > marioneta del calcet n wrote:
> >> JoeRaisin wrote:
> >>> marioneta del calcet n wrote:
> >>>> Ted L. wrote:
> >>>>> "SandyG" <molly...@askme.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The
> >>>>>> situation is too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called
> >>>>>> her and told her "You know, I feel very angry with you right now
> >>>>>> because of ____________". No shouting. No raised voice or
> >>>>>> accusations. Just spelled it out. Then it was done. Over. Let it
> >>>>>> go and moved on. I think that is a lot healthier than denying that
> >>>>>> I am angry and instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is
> >>>>>> going to "take me back out".
>
> >>>>> Very healthy. And the fact that you were able to your friend that
> >>>>> you were angry with her indicates what good friends you are.
>
> >>>> Very healthy?
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Granted, your threshold as to what constitutes a drama queen may be
> > lower than mine - to each his own.
>
> My threshold? I was merely questioning Dr Tedl's diagnostic authority.
> AFAIK, no one can stop you being a Dr here too, Dr Joe!
>
> Dr Marioneta
I would prefer to be a Colonel rather than a Dr. You know, like
Colonel Sanders.
SandyG
Exactly.
--
- Sandy
"Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of
the light." - Dylan Thomas
Rob D.
> This is one of my pet peeves with AA. The whole "anger is an emotion that
> we cannot afford" yadda yadda yadda. Emotions are emotions. They just *are*.
> It is how we react to them - what we do with them - that can get us into
> trouble.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation is
> too complicated to spell out here. Anyway, I called her and told her "You
> know, I feel very angry with you right now because of ____________". No
> shouting. No raised voice or accusations. Just spelled it out. Then it was
> done. Over. Let it go and moved on. I think that is a lot healthier than
> denying that I am angry and instead carrying a grudge. I don't think that is
> going to "take me back out".
>
> I don't think *any* emotion is right or wrong. It just *is*. How we choose
> to handle them is the key.
>
> - Sandy
Or, as I am constantly telling people in confession, emotions are not
sins. They are the language of the heart. It is what we DO with them
that can lead us into sin. (Putting it in only slightly different
terms.)
Rob
Rob D.
wrote:
> SandyG wrote:
>
> > A couple of weeks ago, I got angry with a friend of mine. The situation is
> > know, I feel very angry with you right now because of ____________".
>
>
Again, very healthy.
Rob D.
Which was, once more, very healthy.
marioneta del calcetín
That pre-determined was then, as distinct from now. However my opinion
that the evidence in this instance is insufficient for a conclusion
remains the same. BTW, I don't believe resentments have fatal power over
me, but I cannot speak for others.
That aside, IIRC, Sandy did mention uncontrollable emotions in this
context, claiming it is what one does with them that matters. On that
evidence, I believe Sandy would certainly benefit by practicing how to
predetermine, by changing her attitudes, what triggers her emotions.
Have no idea what benchmark would best suit anyone else, but my
emotional responses to news broadcasts give me real time feed back as to
exactly where my attitudes are at.
marioneta del calcetín
>
>
> I would prefer to be a Colonel rather than a Dr. You know, like
> Colonel Sanders.
Actually, you do have a striking resemblance to a famous Colonel
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/colonel_klink.jpg
JoeRaisin
So your answer is, "no comment."
I was just asking how you generally handle being angry with someone.
Not at a new report, but towards a person.
Emotions are emotions and I am going to experience many points on the
spectrum at one time or another. The behaviors following the emotions
are what I am asking about.
tedw
> marioneta del calcetín wrote:
> > JoeRaisin wrote:
> >>> Ted L. wrote:
In my opinion, the emotions of anger and resentment are part of the
Ego Life that Christ taught us to lay down so
that we might die and be born again.
"He who loses his life shall gain his life"
Unfortunately, bad translation and the greek uses different words that
are both translated life. Not that anybody here really gives two hoots
I suppose
JoeRaisin
>>> JoeRaisin wrote:
I disagree that resentment is an emotion. It is the result of unhealthy
behavior in response to an emotion.
marioneta del calcetín
Were that the case I would have made no comment.
>
> I was just asking how you generally handle being angry with someone.
> Not at a new report, but towards a person.
You asked how a non drama queen 'should' behave in as yet unknown
circumstances. That's a silly question.
>
> Emotions are emotions and I am going to experience many points on the
> spectrum at one time or another. The behaviors following the
> emotions are what I am asking about.
And my opinion on that is, - attitudes are more pertinent than any
dogmatic 'should' as to what any consequential behaviors will be.
Military puppets disciplined to live by arbitrary 'should' are a
possible exception to that argument, but AFAIK, a majority of them
ultimately die prematurely, or go crazy if they were not already crazy
when they enlisted.
JoeRaisin
Which is why I reframed the question - How do you do it? You do know
how you respond in such situations don't you?
>
>>
>> Emotions are emotions and I am going to experience many points on the
>> spectrum at one time or another. The behaviors following the
>> emotions are what I am asking about.
>
> And my opinion on that is, - attitudes are more pertinent than any
> dogmatic 'should' as to what any consequential behaviors will be.
>
And what is your "attitude" when you feel angry? More to the point,
what is your behavior when you feel angry?
>
> Military puppets disciplined to live by arbitrary 'should' are a
> possible exception to that argument, but AFAIK, a majority of them
> ultimately die prematurely, or go crazy if they were not already crazy
> when they enlisted.
>
Please enlighten this miserable puppet as to what he can do free himself
from his chains...
I beg of you O-superior one...
marioneta del calcetín
marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>> You asked how a non drama queen 'should' behave in as yet unknown
>> circumstances. That's a silly question.
>>
>
> Which is why I reframed the question - How do you do it? You do know
> how you respond in such situations don't you?
>
"such situations"?
Your questioning has deteriorated from silly to absurd.
F.H.
> I disagree that resentment is an emotion. It is the result of unhealthy
> behavior in response to an emotion.
Joe, I think you might want to take another crack at this one. :)
tedw
Good Luck, F.H., Joe doesn't like to admit he is wrong about things.
marioneta del calcetín
I suspect Joe will *feel* resentment about that crack at him!
F.H.
JoeRaisin
No, it hasn't - you are just being obtuse.
Interesting that you are reluctant to say something other than criticize
others.
JoeRaisin
Oh look, I've been elevated to favored target status - I'm a somebody now...
JoeRaisin
Just did. For all the good it will do.
tedw
> marioneta del calcetín wrote:
> > JoeRaisin wrote:
>
> >>> You asked how a non drama queen 'should' behave in as yet unknown
> >>> circumstances. That's a silly question.
>
> >> Which is why I reframed the question - How do you do it? You do know
> >> how you respond in such situations don't you?
>
> > "such situations"?
> > Your questioning has deteriorated from silly to absurd.
>
> No, it hasn't - you are just being obtuse.
>
> Interesting that you are reluctant to say something other than criticize
> others.
I'm not reluctant. There is just a lot to criticize here.Dont we need
to talk about the negative
to get better? Or would you have us close our eyes to it?
Why do you talk about criticism as if it is a bad thing?
tedw
See what I mean. Instead of thanking you for pointing out where he is
wrong, he makes you wrong for
pointing out his wrong.
Your picking on him! Stop it!
Chronocidal Charlie
Perhaps it's time to de-tox Joe. ;-)
http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/vcca-journal/johns.html
Julia Cameron (1992) in The Artist s Way describes a toxicant we all
know--the "crazymaker." Crazymakers do just as their names suggest: they
drive you crazy. This personality knows just how to create storm
centers. They create confusion and then pretend they want to help solve
the problem. They want to be the center of attention, and they wheel and
deal at your expense. According to Cameron, "crazymakers are small on
responsibility and big on blame."
Crazymakers usually do not have their acts together; they believe the
confusion they create will show others in a negative light. The
crazymaker usually makes a grand entrance into the office setting. Some
are so bold as to announce their arrival--"I m here!" Crazymakers begin
much and finish little, so do not be surprised when you are caught
having to finish their work. When something goes unexpectedly, the
crazymaker is the first to start shouting out blame. Seldom will they
accept responsibility for having made the mess in the first place.
Do not be fooled into thinking the crazymaker means you well. Their own
brand of behavior is there to keep you off guard or make you less
productive, to create tension in relationships, or to get you to do
their work for them.
Do not be silly enough to play the "tit for tat" game with crazymakers.
They have more experience than you because it is a way of life for them.
Acknowledge their presence and let them know that you have your own
agenda and that they are not part of it. Remember it takes at least
three to tango with a crazymaker; and if no one is watching, it is not
worth their effort. Be strong, do not play their game.
These people are referred to as crazymakers. Crazymakers come is a wide
array of personalities. There are the aggressors who will stop at
nothing to get you over to following their will. There are the egotists
who are so full of themselves that there is no room for anyone else to
even have a place. There are those walking "time bombs" -- you know the
type, they can blow at any given moment. There is those with the "poor
me" attitude who always feel like they have been given a bum rap and
that everything they experience is absolutely the worst. There are also
the "authorities" whose attitude is it's their way or no way. There is
help on the way to help you take control of your unhealthy relationships.
JoeRaisin
>>> JoeRaisin wrote:
>>>>> You asked how a non drama queen 'should' behave in as yet unknown
>>>>> circumstances. That's a silly question.
>>>> Which is why I reframed the question - How do you do it? You do know
>>>> how you respond in such situations don't you?
>>> "such situations"?
>>> Your questioning has deteriorated from silly to absurd.
>> No, it hasn't - you are just being obtuse.
>>
>> Interesting that you are reluctant to say something other than criticize
>> others.
>
> I'm not reluctant. There is just a lot to criticize here.Dont we need
> to talk about the negative
> to get better? Or would you have us close our eyes to it?
>
>
>
> Why do you talk about criticism as if it is a bad thing?
>
There is constructive criticism and criticism for the sole purpose of
taking a shot at another.
In this particular thread we are talking about personal response
feelings of anger. It's not a tough question.
Instead of discussing what one might themselves think about the matter,
some here have decided to merely be critical of those who have.
JoeRaisin
Yeah, and you're only wrong when you're possessed by a demon, so it's
not really your fault.
JoeRaisin
I know...
When you wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and the pig likes it.
On the other hand, it's good exercise, it's fun and it passes the time...
marioneta del calcetín
> marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>> JoeRaisin wrote: marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>>
>>>> You asked how a non drama queen 'should' behave in as yet
>>>> unknown circumstances. That's a silly question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is why I reframed the question - How do you do it? You do
>>> know how you respond in such situations don't you?
>>>
>>
>> "such situations"? Your questioning has deteriorated from silly to
>> absurd.
>>
>>
>
> No, it hasn't - you are just being obtuse.
Joe, you've become idiotic.
From your impossibly vague hypothetical, you've now accused *me* of
being obtuse! Haha
>
> Interesting that you are reluctant to say something other than
> criticize others.
>
Amusing that you declined to discuss the positive solution I did offer.
Maybe you're still, at heart, a frightened little marine, determined to
stay obediently powerless over even your own emotions.
Whatever - in this instance, with specifics of your hypothetical /still/
unknown, it is interesting that you seem to imagine you're above criticism.
JoeRaisin
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>> marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>>> JoeRaisin wrote: marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You asked how a non drama queen 'should' behave in as yet
>>>>> unknown circumstances. That's a silly question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I reframed the question - How do you do it? You do
>>>> know how you respond in such situations don't you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> "such situations"? Your questioning has deteriorated from silly to
>>> absurd.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, it hasn't - you are just being obtuse.
>
> Joe, you've become idiotic.
>
> From your impossibly vague hypothetical, you've now accused *me* of
> being obtuse! Haha
>
LOL - yeah, asking how you respond to anger is just so vague.
>>
>> Interesting that you are reluctant to say something other than
>> criticize others.
>>
>
> Amusing that you declined to discuss the positive solution I did offer.
> Maybe you're still, at heart, a frightened little marine, determined to
> stay obediently powerless over even your own emotions.
>
What positive solution? Watch the news to gauge one's "attitude" - talk
about vague.
Characterizing what I've offered on this topic as being 'powerless' over
my emotions simply shows that you have no comprehension of what I've said.
I'm still trying to figure out why, when you feel angry, it is a BAD
thing to calmly approach the person you feel offended you and say, "When
you did _____ I felt ______." clear the air and be done with it.
According to you that makes one a drama queen - as opposed to name
calling and catty asides which apparently marks one as being
intellectually superior.
> Whatever - in this instance, with specifics of your hypothetical /still/
> unknown, it is interesting that you seem to imagine you're above criticism.
Not above criticism at all. I just don't give it any credence when it
is not followed up by an example of why you are being critical of my
approach, you know, such as how you deal with being angry in your own life.
That would be a basis for a discussion - your belittlements and asides
only lengthen the thread, they do not move the discussion forward.
Chronocidal Charlie
> I'm still trying to figure out why, when you feel angry, it is a BAD
> thing to calmly approach the person you feel offended you and say, "When
> you did _____ I felt ______." clear the air and be done with it.
One of the reasons, Joe, and I think you are aware of it also, and was
what I was trying to point out to Sandy, is...
If we were to live, we had to be free of anger. The grouch and the
brainstorm were not for us. They may be the dubious luxury of normal
men, but for alcoholics these things are poison. We turned back to the
list, for it held the key to the future. We were prepared to look for it
from an entirely different angle. We began to see that the world and its
people really dominated us. In that state, the wrong-doing of others,
fancied or real, had power to actually kill. How could we escape? We saw
that these resentments must be mastered, but how? We could not wish them
away any more than alcohol.
This was our course: We realized that the people who wronged us were
perhaps spiritually sick.
Though we did not like their symptoms and the way these disturbed us,
they, like ourselves, were sick too. We asked God to help us show them
the same tolerance, pity, and patience that we would cheerfully grant a
sick friend. When a person offended we said to ourselves, "This is a
sick man. How can I be helpful to him? God save me from being angry. Thy
will be done."
I also, find for myself, invariable, when my anger flares for some
reason, particularly in interpersonal relationships or dealing with
other people, taking a time out to access the situation, in the manner I
suggested to Sandy like a quick ten or mini-4th, I invariably, most
often, find...
Selfishness � self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our
troubles. Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion,
self-seeking, and self-pity, we step on the toes of our fellows and they
retaliate. Sometimes they hurt us, seemingly without provocation, but we
invariably find that at some time in the past we have made decisions
based on self which later placed us in a position to be hurt.
By then I can usually realize the silliness of going to someone and
saying...
"You know, Joe, when I stepped on your toe trying to beat you to the
coffee pot and you called me a clumsy oaf, *I* *felt* *really* *really*
angry at you!"
So perhaps, a simple, "Joe, I'm sorry I stepped on your toe on the way
to the coffee pot this morning." would better serve.
Or perhaps, on close, honest, examination, to the best of your ability
and perhaps after thought and discussing with a confident, you find for
sure that you were faultless and blameless in the incident you can do as
suggested and say:
"This is a sick man. How can I be helpful to him? God save me from being
angry. Thy will be done."
But.. If it boils down to the *fact* that the son of a bitch was
actually using you for a rug or doormat...
Go *yank* the fscken rug out from unner the bastard and see if you can
get in a couple of licks 'fore the sad mother fucker hits the floor and
you can kick shit out of em few times 'fore sumbuddy pulls you off em. ;-)
CC
marioneta del calcetín
> marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>> JoeRaisin wrote:
>>> marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>>>> JoeRaisin wrote: marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You asked how a non drama queen 'should' behave in as yet
>>>>>> unknown circumstances. That's a silly question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I reframed the question - How do you do it? You
>>>>> do know how you respond in such situations don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "such situations"? Your questioning has deteriorated from silly
>>>> to absurd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it hasn't - you are just being obtuse.
>>
>> Joe, you've become idiotic.
>>
>> From your impossibly vague hypothetical, you've now accused *me* of
>> being obtuse! Haha
>>
>
> LOL - yeah, asking how you respond to anger is just so vague.
>
>
>>>
>>> Interesting that you are reluctant to say something other than
>>> criticize others.
>>>
>>
>> Amusing that you declined to discuss the positive solution I did
>> offer. Maybe you're still, at heart, a frightened little marine,
>> determined to stay obediently powerless over even your own
>> emotions.
>>
>
> What positive solution? Watch the news to gauge one's "attitude" -
> talk about vague.
I was talking about your refusal to even ask for elaboration, even when
it was obvious you were lost in your very own pig sty.
The positive solution is to be aware of how attitude predetermines the
power of emotional triggers, over which we (at least the civilians
amongst us) can take control - provided we do what it takes to recognize
where those triggers are active, and alter attitudes to suit.
>
> Characterizing what I've offered on this topic as being 'powerless'
> over my emotions simply shows that you have no comprehension of what
> I've said.
Be careful talking about comprehension, it is clearly not your forte.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why, when you feel angry, it is a BAD
> thing to calmly approach the person you feel offended you and say,
> "When you did _____ I felt ______." clear the air and be done with
> it.
I said nothing of the sort.
You seemed to be seeking a "one size fits all" anger management, which
is so simplistic I haven't bothered responding.
Out in the real world, what I've done, to sufficient extent, is watch
and alter my attitudes; thus prepare myself to leave options open for
the most pertinent outcome in the event I get angry, be it justified, or
not.
Sometimes, when angry, that solution involves the pain of agreeing to
differ, other times it is as easy as saying, "go get fucked."
FWIW I've been comfortable with outcomes ever since my first,
deliberate, attitude change; back when I started with some little AA
book, called "Just For Today" IIRC.
Having said that, I think it advisable you now report back to Colonel
Klink, Sergeant Schultz. I'm confident He will take apt care of you.
F.H.
Step 12.5
Having put a cork in the bottle and having had a spiritual /awakening/
of sorts we lived on a pink cloud until we discovered the dreaded
Mr.Lizard has no interest in serenity, not now, not ever. In addition to
the suggestions below, it is also helpful when dealing with Mr.
Lizard....., learn to laugh, especially at ones self.
(dedicated steppers might want to add the serenity prayer a few times a
day, Mr. Lizard hates /that/.)
Mr. Lizard:
The Lizard Brain is concerned with survival. It sits at the base of the
skull, at the top of the spine. It's our old brain. Evolutionists will
tell you that we've had it since we were - well - Lizards. The Lizard
Brain's reaction to everything, if it has one at all, is limited to the
following�eat, attack, run away, or fuck. Survival. In today's modern
world our survival isn't so threatened on a daily basis. So what does a
survival focused Lizard Brain do?
It adapts.
Urban myth says if you poll a room for people's greatest fears, the
first will be speaking in public and the second will be fear of death.
This phenomenon is not lost on the Lizard Brain. Concerned with its own
survival, the Lizard Brain has adopted a role as counselor for our
social survival. It remembers when we 'crashed and burned' in a social
situation. It remembers the teacher who singled us out and made us look
foolish in front of the class. But the Lizard Brain is not known for its
finesse. In the Lizard Brain's world, things are pretty black and white,
and never our fault. This makes it a poor consul for the colorful
stratosphere of human relationships.
So our Lizard Brain naturally makes snap judgments. And while our Lizard
Brain is busy reacting the following things are happening:
1) our mind is engaged in this fear based judgment and unfocused on the
task at hand. We are not contributing.
2) Somebody else is picking up on our guarded body language and perhaps
starting to feel cautious or judged themselves. They are not
contributing. The goal is to become conscious of these snap judgments.
Recognize the fear based reaction provided by the Mr. Lizard.
F.H.
> FWIW I've been comfortable with outcomes ever since my first,
> deliberate, attitude change; back when I started with some little AA
> book, called "Just For Today" IIRC.
Perhaps a good topic to kick around here would be *change* versus
/transformation/. Dr. Silkworth seemed keen on the later.
JoeRaisin
No arguments from me on this one. I have said before that to
effectively deal with anger one needs to look at the underlying emotion
as I believe anger is most often (if not always) a cover emotion that
gives us a feeling of power when we feel vulnerable.
That said, assertiveness effective defense against resentment and by
letting someone know when they have raised our ire is a means to an end
in that during such conversations the underlying emotion often becomes
clear if it wasn't before.
Note - I said assertiveness which is different from aggression in that
you put forth your perspective in a way that (hopefully) doesn't raise
the hackles of the other person. Saying "I felt" rather than "you made
me feel" is how I own my emotions and take responsibility for them
rather than trying to fob them off on someone else.
JoeRaisin
Amen - changing the knee-jerk reactions based upon the reasoning of Mr.
Lizard does not occur overnight. Nor (IMHO) is it always consistent
even when we think we have it down.
JoeRaisin
That's all I was asking.
I agree that the individual instances where we become upset or angry are
different every time, but a basic set of 'tools' can be adapted to most
situations.
Learning to recognize when I was becoming angry was my first step.
hopefully catching it before Mr. Lizard (to borrow Frank's reference)
takes over. As I said, that didn't happen overnight but by using that
along a couple of little books (to include the one you mentioned) along
with a bit of one-on-one time with a therapist I saw an attitude change,
like you referred to.
I'm not sure we are all that far apart on this.
JoeRaisin
I'm not sure what the difference is - we should define the terms first.
Otherwise it could degrade into a meaningless back and forth over
semantics... you know how I get...
Chronocidal Charlie
One of the great things about Linux is, most Window Managers have a
screen rotating device where one can flip the screen upside down and
backward to compensate fer the seeming ambiguity of the posts from down
under. Or even my own *right* justified, format flowed ragged/jagged
left, ISO-8859-8-4, convoluted, dubble wap, single weft, quilt work. ;-)
CC
Charlie M. 1958
My theory is that the majority of ARAA disagreements (as well as most AA
disagreements) boil down to folks using different definitions of the
same word.
"Change" and "transformation" /can/ certainly be used synonymously. If
you're going to use them differently, you'd better state your
definitions, Frank. :-)
Tex
<joerai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure what the difference is - we should define the terms first.
>
>Otherwise it could degrade into a meaningless back and forth over
>semantics... you know how I get...
This thread has been a great reminder of why and how f2f aa meetings
end up in clusterfucks when they get off into psycho babble and become
issue & tissue slug fests.
nipntuk
marioneta del calcet�n wrote:
> The positive solution is to be aware of how attitude predetermines the
> power of emotional triggers, over which we (at least the civilians
> amongst us) can take control - provided we do what it takes to recognize
> where those triggers are active, and alter attitudes to suit.
cha-ching!
jimbo
> This thread has been a great reminder of why and how f2f aa meetings
> end up in clusterfucks when they get off into psycho babble and become
> issue & tissue slug fests.
I'm out of tissue so I can't fuck with the issue!!
Jim
Tex
<alw...@impatient.com> wrote:
>My theory is that the majority of ARAA disagreements (as well as most AA
>disagreements) boil down to folks using different definitions of the
>same word.
Araa doesn't deal in theories ... just facts... give us some facts to
back this up! Site some sites and experts ....wait!
Like the 'ONE' who no longer visits said... If it ain't in the 1st 164
it ain't AA.
That 'I think' is the real reason disagreements happen here and other
places too, People refuse to surrender and accept the 1st 164 as not
merely the final word, but as the only word!
That along with forgetting to double check with a *Real Alcoholic*
after reading and studying the 1st 164 to find out what it really says
and means.
Tex
wrote:
Ya can't get off that easy! You got sleeves! Slobber away!
Charlie M. 1958
Oh yeah. Silly me... I forgot that in the first 164 they only used
words that have just /one/ meaning.
Rob D.
>
> That would be a basis for a discussion - your belittlements and asides
> only lengthen the thread, they do not move the discussion forward.
Which is sort of the point.
Rob D.
[Snipped out Lizard Stuff for space]
Excellent stuff, Frank. I don't have the time this am to read it with
justice, but it bears thinking on, and I will do so later.
Rob
F.H.
The irony Gods smile this morning.
F.H.
ROTFL
Tex
<alw...@impatient.com> wrote:
Oh no! What they did is alter meanings to der liking... and tag them
... alkies will understand ... which proves and weeds out those to be
non-alkie ... cause if they don't understand den dey not alkie... see
it's a fail safe ...after all most if not all alkies are
'crazymakers'!
Just remember Charlie ... being one of the chosen ... makes you
special!