Home  •  FAQ  •   Forums

It is currently Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:51 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:05 pm 
Community Leader
Community Leader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 679
Location: Australia
Oh dear. I only just discovered what I caused here.

Keep in mind April that I "took my CL hat off" for that post - partly bc it ISN'T ok by the S/CL rules.

The answer along with Ash's response is that I don't agree. Although I'm a CL I have a mind of my own, independent of the rest of the S/CL team (as does every other leader too). Us S/CLs sometimes have opposing views, but usually they're discussed and agreed upon before those views are reflected on the board. I take responsibility for the fact that I've never explained that I do not want to subscribe to this rule and I will be discussing my position with the S/CL team.

In this thread there've been plenty of references to people without using direct names but we all know who it is being referred to here, right? So come on, what's the difference? At least using names is open rather than cloaking it in elusive allusions (I should be a poet). I think this offers a transparency to the community which I believe is reassuring. I may be wrong. Allusions, I've found, also often results in people thinking it's them being discussed or referred to when it isn't, which is not what I would want to happen to me. Another result when this vague referencing occurs is that the person being referred to doesn't realise it's them. Eg: A thread could be made saying "stop this XYZ behaviour" but the people doing it may not realise it's them.

I've never agreed with this rule and I don't have to, but as a CL there should be consistency bc evidently it IS confusing for people. Ash has PMed me to raise her concerns about the use of Jody's name in that thread. I was trying to help. (But now I'm going back to making vague references to the people we all know we're talking about anyway). The reason, the very specific reason I used a specific name in that thread is bc I believe that the unnamed person I was addressing has a particular issue with the person she has posted to and if that issue was to be resolved, esoteric allusions will not suffice. If the issue was only an issue of wording, or an issue which was broader than what I believe to be about one person's problem with another, I'd not have used names. You will not get to see where I was taking that thread and how I was planning to address this as it's been locked. So, in that circumstance, it is entirely ineffective. If all of my posts refer to direct names then they too will be locked an rendered redundant. So if I want to be effective I have to make those vague allusions to people we all know are being referred to. So be it. I do want to help and if the framework of the board resticts how I do that then I am prepared to comprimise.

That a person I may post to repeatedly chooses to insult the person whose name I may directly write is not something I encourage by using the name in the first place. That is "the antagonist's" choice, not mine. I believe it's a very important skill to be able to refer to people whilst:

1. Keeping the topic on YOU
and
2. Being respectful of the person who's being referenced.

I do not invite antagonism. Indeed, avoiding direct name reference for fear that the antagonism will occur is IMHO enablement. ie: "She'll take this opportunity to antagonise so you shouldn't give her the opportunity in the first place." But what I give is an opportunity NOT to anatagonise AND to understand better why someone may repeatedly choose to do so.

There's more to this as well, but it's not for public ears and I will be addressing that accordingly.

Personally it think my views are inaccordance with the new policy not to have hard and fast rules, bc every situation is different. Some situations can be just as effectively addressed, if not more effectively addressed without name usage. Others cannot and the situation here I believe is of the latter category.

And I could not possibly have explained this without making really obvious references to the people involved. But in not naming names, I've abided by the rules, which IMHO is kinda dumb.

So, I hope you understand April that I'm not saying it is ok by the board. It's just my personal opinion. Us CL's can be rebels too ya know! ;) This thread has shown me exactly why I need to revisit my stance on this, for the harmony of the board if not bc I personally subscribe to it.

_________________
~ Sarah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:25 pm 
Senior Community Leader
Senior Community Leader
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 3007
Location: Denver
Sarah wrote:
The reason, the very specific reason I used a specific name in that thread is bc I believe that the unnamed person I was addressing has a particular issue with the person she has posted to and if that issue was to be resolved, esoteric allusions will not suffice. If the issue was only an issue of wording, or an issue which was broader than what I believe to be about one person's problem with another, I'd not have used names. You will not get to see where I was taking that thread and how I was planning to address this as it's been locked. So, in that circumstance, it is entirely ineffective.

...

That a person I may post to repeatedly chooses to insult the person whose name I may directly write is not something I encourage by using the name in the first place. That is "the antagonist's" choice, not mine. I believe it's a very important skill to be able to refer to people whilst:

1. Keeping the topic on YOU
and
2. Being respectful of the person who's being referenced.

...

And I could not possibly have explained this without making really obvious references to the people involved. But in not naming names, I've abided by the rules, which IMHO is kinda dumb.


That's just the thing, Sarah. Why are we referencing people at all? Why are we not working with one individual on their core issues inside themselves rather than talking about someone else, directly or indirectly?

Ash wrote:
"I'm talking directly to you, Bethany, about what Sally, Suzie and Cindy all did and said" becomes "I'm talking directly to you, Bethany, about how you feel when you see injustice, what you think about when you see people doing things that go against your moral code."


I don't see the purpose in talking about other people at all in this setting. If we're really trying to help someone through a rough patch, why aren't we focusing on the core issue (feelings of injustice, perhaps) rather than the manifestations of the problem (Member Mary in particular)?

Sarah wrote:
If the issue was only an issue of wording, or an issue which was broader than what I believe to be about one person's problem with another, I'd not have used names.

But perhaps that's where we differ. Are you saying that it's not only possible but entirely likely and possibly a regular phenomenon in which one person can just randomly dislike another person without it being rooted in anything at all? These these dislikes and personality clashes just materialize out of thin air? That there's nothing inside a person - whether their mindset, their way of thinking, their perception, their past experiences - which heavily influences and antagonizes those interactions?

I guess that's a fundamental difference between you and I. I do believe that the things we dislike (or like) in other people are the very things we dislike (or like) in ourselves. I really do believe that other people are mirrors of ourselves. Whether it's a direct mirror (what you do is what I do) or more of a fun-house mirror (what you do is what I would loathe to see myself do), I definitely believe that strong reactions to other people are self-rooted -- which is precisely why I have such a strong aversion to referencing other people. I don't believe that talking about other people will get anyone anywhere - except into a whirlwind of drama and an all-out flame war (if left unattended.)

Sarah wrote:
You were right that I was emotional yesterday and I think my post was over the top. I apologise that I didn't keep better check of my emotion. The hit and run stuff, as you pointed out, isn't true of you and was out of line of me.

So using that theory here, what do you think it was inside yourself that had you in an emotional place when you first opened the CC? What was going on inside your head? In your heart? Were there similarities between present and past situations that triggered the strong emotional response?

You see what I'm getting at? The reaction you had was entirely based inside yourself and had pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else, least of all a third person.

I don't claim to be perfect in this -- withholding the emotional posts until such a time that I've worked through my own "how did I get to this emotional place and how do I separate my stuff from really helping this other person" part -- though I do my best. I think that's what bothered me - was that you were able to step back from the emotional part but still continued to focus on a third party. If you were able to see that your emotions were internally grown, I would have hoped you would have been able to work on focusing the conversation in that light as well: "This stuff is internal to you, let's focus on you, forget about that other person."

It's not that there's a Rule From Ash that decrees "Thou Shalt Not Utter The Name of Another" for crying out loud! That would be dumb!

The goal that I put forth for everyone is that we focus more on the things over which we have control in a larger-picture sense. The things that get us the most upset are not the single incidences of spilled milk. They are the things that pile up all our lives that push so many buttons that we are stressed to the maximum and end up crying over the spilled milk.

Side note: in the book, I think I talked about how I literally yelled at my then-husband one time. One of us had literally spilled some milk in the kitchen. I started screaming at him for using paper napkins to wipe it up. It wasn't about the milk. It was all the stuff I attached to it. The fact that he was kind of "intellectually challenged" shall we say. That he was barely earning an income. That he was a pie-in-the-sky dreamer who expected the world to cater to his every whim. That he expected everything for nothing. That he felt the world owed him a happy, rich life. That I was, by default, expected to hold everything together, to be the realist, to be the pragmatist, to earn enough income to cover for his flights of fancy & every dream he had. I was enraged that he would be so damn thoughtless and inconsiderate as to use the frickin' paper napkins which are consumable and costly compared to a dish towel which could be washed and reused! So yeah, me screaming at him had very little to do with the milk. It was more about MY bigger picture and everything *I* had attached to it & allowed to build up.

That's where I'm going with this. I'm hoping I've made the distinction more clear. If things are still unclear or fuzzy, I will be glad to try again another way.

_________________
Like BPD Recovery on Facebook.
Follow BPD_Recovery on Twitter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:51 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:00 pm
Posts: 861
I personally think it's easy to decide I have a reason for picking on a person... (such as, that that person repeatedly insults another), but the truth is, isn't that just a reason I am finding to act in an inappropriate way myself? If there is a personal issue you have with that person, that's one thing (and still inappropriate done in that manner), but to do it just because they are insulting Someone, imo, spells issues.

Ummm, I think I will decide now that I am "just gonna ignore the board rules", because I feel like I want to pick on someone who insults people. That reeks of entitlement.

_________________
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ---Winston Churchill

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -- Robert H. Goddard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:15 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 991
I think that it is possible to talk about a 3rd person in appropriate ways. And I agree that there is value in learning how to do that. But I don't believe in practice till you get it right. More like, be conservative and don't until you know how to get it right. Well, reasonably decently right.

I somewhat agree with both Ash and Sarah.

And, see, there's an example where I think it's not inappropriate to mention them, making reference to what they said. It was a reference that was non-judgemental and that was focused on expressing my own ideas.

But there are also times when I don't share a thought, simply because I'm unable to do so without making inappropriate or questionable references to other people.

_________________
Ellen K.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:39 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:00 pm
Posts: 991
Another thought. When talking about people in our lives, non-board members (as in, mentioning them in relations to our own issues, which may involve relationships with those others), it's approprite to keep those people anonymous. And we here usually do that.

I think at times people apply that same thinking to issues with other board members. And that is not appropriate. In that case, it's better, in my view, to actually name the person. (I'm not saying it's okay, just better than the anonymous thing.) But, best to talk to the person directly, or to find away to talk about the issue without making references, direct or indirect, to the other person. (And that may mean waiting to discuss the issue, or finding some place besides here to discuss it.)

_________________
Ellen K.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:35 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 738
Location: Reality ~ It's a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there!
I tried very hard in the past to discuss specific behaviors that I found troublesome and the response was basically "we all know who you are taking about so why don't you just admit you don't like this person" when what I was talking about was specific issues and not my like or dislike of the person engaging in the behaviors. Since using "veiled references" was seen as a bad thing, I went to speaking more directly by naming names instead. I agree that there are times we speak about something and people assume it is about them when the person we may have been speaking to is clueless that the message pertains to them. I try to be as clear as possible and yet I will sometimes see evidence that my words were misunderstood anyway. The more vaguely I have to speak about something, the more likely it is that I will be misunderstood because I don't have the opportunity to be as direct as I would prefer.

I don't agree with the theory that the things we don't like in others are things we don't like about ourselves. I don't like criminal behavior (such as rape, for example) and yet I have not engaged in such behaviors myself. I don't even see where that could be called a "fun house" mirror since there is no trace of that behavior in my own reflection so what I would be looking at would not involve my own reflection in any way. There are things that people do that are not acceptable and I do not have the tolerance to put up with people who insist on doing those things. If those people insist on being the way they are, then my only means of protecting myself is to put as much distance as possible between us.

I also don't think the things we like in others are necessarily traits we possess. I often like things about other people that have nothing to do with my own personal traits. At the same time, there are things I dislike about myself and yet I am not bothered by those same traits in others. I believe that it is possible to respond to other people in a way that is not about us personally.

I have seen that the majority of conflicts on the board are resolved by people speaking directly with each other rather than speaking with others about another person so I don't think there is much point in dragging another person into a conversation that should be limited to the those involved. The posts that start out something like "you are not being fair to this other person" would be best started by the person who thinks they are being treated unfairly rather than by people attempting to advocate for someone else. As an example, I believe that it would have been more appropriate for April to have addressed Sarah and/or me in Conversation Corner rather than to address "is this okay?" with the entire community, mainly because there was no way for her to address the issue by doing exactly what she was opposing in the first place.

I suppose it is a reality that people with BPD are more sensitive and tend to have strong emotional responses, even to neutral information. The number of highly emotional threads over something like therapy choices, for example, has surprised me at times. This is apparently why there is this concept that one must "walk on eggshells" around a person with BPD and yet that is not effective. We don't have trigger warnings because we are not responsible for the feelings of others. It is up to each of us to keep our emotions in check so we can communicate effectively.

Whenever I sense strong emotions in someone else's words, I go back and read the words at face value and respond as if the emotions were not present. I have used this technique to work with angry people in the past because it diffuses the person's anger when you don't respond to the anger directly but rather focus on the issue itself. If a person is having strong emotions as a result of something the read here, it would be best to step away and come back when the emotions are in check. I have had to do this myself when I was triggered by something. The more we can put our feelings aside and stick with the facts, the more we will be able to have discussions that don't end with someone threatening to leave because they got their knickers in a knot (that is such a fun expression I had to use it).

_________________
The question of suicide:
Keep it a question.
It's not really an answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:46 am 
New Member
New Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 96
Denim Blue wrote:
I don't agree with the theory that the things we don't like in others are things we don't like about ourselves. I don't like criminal behavior (such as rape, for example) and yet I have not engaged in such behaviors myself. I don't even see where that could be called a "fun house" mirror since there is no trace of that behavior in my own reflection so what I would be looking at would not involve my own reflection in any way. There are things that people do that are not acceptable and I do not have the tolerance to put up with people who insist on doing those things. If those people insist on being the way they are, then my only means of protecting myself is to put as much distance as possible between us.


I believe your mirror is severely distorted. I see in your behavior exactly what you claim to not be able to tolerate from others. In fact, the intolerable behavior you attribute to others is actually your own.

Quote:
I have seen that the majority of conflicts on the board are resolved by people speaking directly with each other rather than speaking with others about another person so I don't think there is much point in dragging another person into a conversation that should be limited to the those involved. The posts that start out something like "you are not being fair to this other person" would be best started by the person who thinks they are being treated unfairly rather than by people attempting to advocate for someone else. As an example, I believe that it would have been more appropriate for April to have addressed Sarah and/or me in Conversation Corner rather than to address "is this okay?" with the entire community, mainly because there was no way for her to address the issue by doing exactly what she was opposing in the first place.


It has been addressed by the person MANY MANY times and it falls on deaf ears because no one else supports it for fear of being accused of exactly what you accuse me of. I don't advocate for anyone in particular, I advocate for justice. I won't address you in CC Denim, because you take it as an invitation and opportunity to continue your outrageous bullying. And I don't believe you can speak about how best to solve conflicts when you have caused the biggest conflict in the 6 years that I have been coming to this site. All I see is hypocrisy in your words. You are in absolutely no position to tell me how to be more appropriate until you can get a handle on behaving appropriately yourself.

Quote:
I suppose it is a reality that people with BPD are more sensitive and tend to have strong emotional responses, even to neutral information. The number of highly emotional threads over something like therapy choices, for example, has surprised me at times. This is apparently why there is this concept that one must "walk on eggshells" around a person with BPD and yet that is not effective. We don't have trigger warnings because we are not responsible for the feelings of others. It is up to each of us to keep our emotions in check so we can communicate effectively.


Denim, I see you as the most emotional member on this board. Your flat written affect and words that contradict your actual behavior do not hide the emotions behind it.

Quote:
If a person is having strong emotions as a result of something the read here, it would be best to step away and come back when the emotions are in check. I have had to do this myself when I was triggered by something. The more we can put our feelings aside and stick with the facts, the more we will be able to have discussions that don't end with someone threatening to leave because they got their knickers in a knot (that is such a fun expression I had to use it).


Have you ever considered taking some of your own advice? I haven't seen you step away when you are triggered. That's why there is a problem here.
Do you depend on people staying silent, stepping away instead of speaking out against your continued "antagonistic" behavior? Is'nt this why it has been allowed to continue? The rules are for everyone except you to follow, right?



Sarah...

I actually agreed with everything you said in the CC (except for your apology) and only objected to the references to the third party because I thought it was hurtful to watch the very thing you objected to continue on. I've seen time and time again that discussing the problem only becomes an invitation for the person causing the problem to continue the unacceptable behavior (which I see happening here too, so it's a no win situation). I don't think this is generally true, just in this particular conflict.

_________________
I do what the voices in my cockatiel's head tell me to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:08 am 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 738
Location: Reality ~ It's a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there!
April15 ~ Since you don't offer much in the way of support on the board and you tend to mainly post criticism of other people, I don't really trust your views. You are still welcome to share them if you don't leave as you suggested you were doing, though. Many of the things you have posted confirms to me that I can't really trust your feedback to be accurate, especially in light of the fact that you have tried to stir things up in the past. I suggest you do exactly what you suggested I do and look at your own issues.

_________________
The question of suicide:
Keep it a question.
It's not really an answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:17 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:00 pm
Posts: 861
Denim Blue wrote:
April15 ~ Since you don't offer much in the way of support on the board and you tend to mainly post criticism of other people, I don't really trust your views. You are still welcome to share them if you don't leave as you suggested you were doing, though. Many of the things you have posted confirms to me that I can't really trust your feedback to be accurate, especially in light of the fact that you have tried to stir things up in the past. I suggest you do exactly what you suggested I do and look at your own issues.


April,

Agreed. It seems like the only time you come here is to vent and then bail on your post (which you just did in the political thread), or to criticize someone or something that is going on in the community, and to stir up trouble. I realize that I have gone through periods like this in the past, myself, and sometimes our issues drive these types of actions. I think at some point you could step down from pointing at other's difficulties and trying to convince them how wrong they are, and point the finger back to yourself to find out why it's so important for you to change someone else's behaviors, and to criticize everything in your world.

_________________
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ---Winston Churchill

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -- Robert H. Goddard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:57 pm 
Community Leader
Community Leader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 679
Location: Australia
Ash

I think we agree much more than you realise. Your approach is from the ground to the top. Mine was working from the top down to the ground. Had the thread in question not been locked you would have seen where I was taking it.

I'll use Lucy and Sam as examples. So Sam seems to have a big problem with Lucy and keeps on expressing this in her behaviour to Lucy. I don't actually see Sam having this problem with anyone else but Lucy. So my approach is:

Me: Hey Sam! Don't you reckon all this stuff about Lucy might really be about you?
Sam: No, why would you say that?
Me: You said this, this and this. Kinda sounds like a problem to me
Sam: Oh yeah, I see it now, I guess I do have an issue with Lucy.
Me: So what is it about Lucy that bothers you so much do you think, given it's your problem. Does she remind you of someone? Yourself, your mother, your father etc etc?
Sam: Well actually, come to think of it, she does this thing all the time that really reminds me of my terribly abusive mother. It makes me really angry bc that was the stuff that lead to me being abused/neglected.
Me: Ah! So do you think this might REALLY be about your feelings about your mother?
Sam: Yeah, I think it is.
Me: So what can you do now to work through those feelings about your mother so you don't keep projecting them onto innocent Lucy, or indeed anyone else who may remind you of your mother in this way?

I think you get my drift. Working on the core issues by looking at one and then extending that to something deeper, greater. Hey, it's what my T does and it works a treat (not that I'm a therapist, but his example is as good to me as any around here). Ash, I've had nearly 15 years of psychotherapy so you'll never find me not not endorsing the core issue approach, which is where I take most of my posts here. I really thought you realised that. Anyway, at the very least, you do now.

I do not agree that we only dislike people bc they remind us of ourselves. I believe myself to be a pretty cool person, even though the BPD self-doubt emerges from time to time. I can tell you that I don't like Ivan Mallatt bc he's a psychopathic mass murderer with no regard for human life. He doesn't remind me of myself at all. It's very common that people dislike in others what they dislike in ourselves, but I think to say it's always the case is generalising and simplistic. My example above may show another reason (projecting someone other than yourself onto another person). But that's all an aside anyway.

Quote:
Sarah wrote:
You were right that I was emotional yesterday and I think my post was over the top. I apologise that I didn't keep better check of my emotion. The hit and run stuff, as you pointed out, isn't true of you and was out of line of me.

So using that theory here, what do you think it was inside yourself that had you in an emotional place when you first opened the CC? What was going on inside your head? In your heart? Were there similarities between present and past situations that triggered the strong emotional response?

I see what you're getting at and will actually answer you right here (even though I think the question is rhetorical) - bc I'm not sure if you're hinting that I'm not doing my self-reflection here. So the person who I addressed on CC bothered me so much bc I'm constantly seeing the S/CL team complain about how exhausting this war is for us/the board, and I just felt nothing was really being done about it (nothing obviously effective enough for it to stop anyway). It bothered me bc someone else is being treated unacceptably and in not doing something about it, the S/CL team are condoning it. It causes a whole wave of disruption and factioning in the community. It bothered me that such unacceptable behaviour would get tip-toed around and meanwhile the S/CL team are getting complaints from all over the board about how disturbing it is to them, and we all end up struggling with the burden of that traffic too (I'm sure you take on that burden more than anyone Ash). It's such a waste of resources. There are other things related to this which I don't think are appropriate for public reading which I will raise with you off board.

Although April has raised her own issues with the naming stuff, as have you, I have a PMs from other board members supporting and encouraging my approach - and not bc they're all friends of the person who by default is being defended, but bc they too were similarly appalled by the post I was responding (at first a little reactively) to.

Quote:
It's not that there's a Rule From Ash that decrees "Thou Shalt Not Utter The Name of Another" for crying out loud!


Well I certainly hope not too! Dumb-arama alright! I don't know if this is written for my benefit or for others' but I don't actually see you that way Ash. If I did I think it would be best for me to resign as a CL. I see you as reasonable, I just don't always agree with you.

I do agree with you on the bigger picture thing, but in accordance with the grey principle, sometimes it's not the best way, IMO.

April

Thanks for your comment. You and I usually see pretty much eye to eye on most things so I take on board the comments you've made about using another's name. It's a bit of a shame though bc, although I can see that doing this can and often has lead to disruption, it also means that certains issues can't be tackled directly. I don't like using PM communication when calling someone on their stuff bc I've experienced so many people becoming abusive or similar without the community as witness. However, if I'm to approach someone with direct name usage PM would probably be the best medium to communicate, which I won't do bc of past experience, so I guess there are the limitations of what I can offer here. And that's ok I guess. I don't want disruption either.

But the disruption IMHO is often a result of people letting their issues take over. Name usage isn't absolutely destructive but people sometimes react like it is. My feelings on this are that if we avoid using names bc people react badly (through their personal issues) then stoppping it is enabling. However a safe and harmonious environment is also important to allow people to do self work. It's a subtle balancing act.

I hope people read this bc sometimes it seems there's little consideration given by many community members as to what a balancing act it is being a CL in a community of people with mental health issues, so diverse, all different and unique, with different needs, perspectives, opinions, aims and even agendas (sometimes).

Denim and Aqua

From what I've seen April's comments to you both are usually critical bc she often sees destructive aspects of your behaviour, which is often supported and reinforced by many other members. The people who she thinks you're being destructive to are the ones she's supporting, as I see it.

_________________
~ Sarah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:04 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:00 pm
Posts: 861
Denim and Aqua

From what I've seen April's comments to you both are usually critical bc she often sees destructive aspects of your behaviour, which is often supported and reinforced by many other members. The people who she thinks you're being destructive to are the ones she's supporting, as I see it.[/quote]

Yea, BS. If you go back and look at April's postings over the years, she is critical most often.

_________________
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ---Winston Churchill

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -- Robert H. Goddard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:19 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 738
Location: Reality ~ It's a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there!
Sarah ~ If my personal dislike of Jody (I would not have called it dislike until today) has to do with my mother or anyone else in my past, then how would I explain any original negative feelings about those people? Is it not possible to dislike someone for who they are or what they do rather than transfer the feelings for one person onto another person? I generally don't transfer my feelings for one person onto another person and it makes no sense to me why other people would do that. If I did that then I would have to dislike anyone who reminded me of Jody! Why would I do that rather than to keep my feelings about someone specific to that person? I have never felt the way I do about Jody with anyone else in my past, ever! I don't know why this suggestion keeps coming up but the fact is that there is no transference and I am not the only one who responds to Jody in the same way. Obviously everyone else is not transferring their feelings about someone in my past onto Jody so why would you think I am doing that? I am quite simply responding to Jody the same way other people have responded to her and yet she does not get that people are responding to her behavior. Even the people who are close to Jody have issues with her behavior. It seems to me that the common denominator here is Jody! It is sad that she can't see that and make the necessary changes to her own behavior because if she took feedback personally, she just might become a more likable person instead of continuing to wonder why people don't like her. Anyway, if your point of that CC was to have me look at my past for reasons why Jody bothers me, that was not likely to happen even if the thread had not been closed. I don't know how to be any clearer that I am responding to Jody's behavior and not transferring anyone else's behavior onto her.

_________________
The question of suicide:
Keep it a question.
It's not really an answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:18 pm 
Senior Community Leader
Senior Community Leader
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 3007
Location: Denver
Sarah, I may have done a poor job in explaining the "mirror" concept. We can certainly dislike mass murders even if they are completely different from us. Just because we dislike something in someone does not mean we automatically have that trait or characteristic inside ourselves. Using more words to lay it out, I would say:

What we see and like in other people are the very things we like within ourselves or traits that we wish to emulate and foster within ourselves. What we see and dislike in other people are the very things we dislike within ourselves or traits that we wish to abolish within ourselves or ensure we never obtain.

We can dislike a mass murderer because we wish to never become a mass murderer and that, in and of itself, is a reflection of who we are. What we see in a mass murderer is the reflection of our opposite.

We like our role models. We like them because we wish to emulate them. We wish to enhance their traits within our own selves. We wish to become more like them, at least in certain ways.

Denim, my theory is that your father didn't let you get away with anything even remotely close to some of the actions you've witnessed others here "get away with." This makes you angry (in my theory) because you were held to such high standards and suffered such severe consequences (trauma/abuse) as a result of attempting something infinitesimal by comparison that you're outraged others aren't receiving nearly the consequences your experience has taught you should accompany those kinds of actions. You were subjected to harsh consequences so it's not fair that others do not get similar harsh consequences.

As such, there is (in my theory) a level of jealousy and anger toward people who seemingly "get away with unacceptable behaviour." Seeing someone trounce over your edicts ("stay away from me") triggers your rage because your past taught you that if you trounced over your father's edicts, there would be hell to pay at the hands of someone seriously enraged by the lack of 'respect for the boundary.'

You may not be the only one responding to Behaviour Pattern XYZ the way you do. That may, in fact, be absolutely true. It may also be that other people have similar issues in their past that trigger the same or similar buttons for them.

I have issues with passive aggression. It's based on my past experiences and when I encounter PA, my button has been pushed and I feel triggered. I cannot control the other person's PA behaviours but I can control my own behaviour. I needn't flip out and get in their face about how clueless, rude, insulting, hostile, nasty, vile their behaviour is. I can simply assert a boundary with a consequence.

"I would be happy to speak with you on this subject however I will not tolerate PA behaviour. If you insist on displaying PA behaviour, I will ignore your words until such time that I have a reasonable assurance through deeds not words that the PA will be kept to a minimum. Now, would you like to continue our discussion on the original subject?"

If they continue pulling PA stuff, I walk away. I don't explain to them how I thought they were being PA. I don't tell them how wrong they were to have behaved that way. I don't do or say anything to violate the consequence I set forth.

For me, PA is my big trigger. For you, it may be "getting away with" things. For other people, it may be the repeated misspelling of a certain word or a grammar or punctuation style triggers an "unfairness" button that other people aren't held to the same levels of expectation they were. It can be any number of things for any number of people.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Daisy's past was influencing Sally's dislike of Janice's behaviour. That would be outright absurd so I'm glad we agree there!

_________________
Like BPD Recovery on Facebook.
Follow BPD_Recovery on Twitter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:32 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 1800
Location: texas
sarah,

i want to say i understood your CC. i didnt bitch about it to anyone, anywhere. you told me you were not taking sides and i saw you werent. i knew what your objective was.

i have one teensy thing to clarify. it takes at least 2 to have a war. or argument. i have not said shit, done shit and i have ignored or occasionally responded in a positive manner. but i am not in a war, i havent been in a long time. my 60's slogan..remember it? "what if they gave a war and nobody came?" well, i dont go to them. not anymore.

please sarah, Ash, and all mods do not include me in the "war". as long as im respectful, i dont address anyone directly when i know they dont like me, and i abide by the agreements, i feel im doing my job here and behaving. and its not hard at all, finally.

i invite you or any mod to tell me in ANY way possible what you think i do wrong and to listen to my side about it and consider it.

i have to agree with the concept of what bugs the shit outta us in others is exactly what we dont like in ourselves. (could be something done TO us even and the helpless feeling comes back to us) once we see that, and it could be a feeling from our childhood even, this will free us immensely from reacting. i have a "billy jack" tshirt i treasure that says exactly that same concept. when one looks deeply, it becomes very true. not easily related, and it may take digging, but its true.

nothing has stopped the flaming yet. cant we just expect i will be flamed by someone and move on? it isnt fair, it wont be fair to newbies, but i am quite strong enough to take it and move on after i shake my head a few times.

how about ya just let it happen and everyone look away? i dont know how this would work unless it was given a special exemption, as the board cant have the whole place flaming and being shitty to others. so maybe newbies and oldies just have to say, here is the exception, jody can take it.

hell, i dont know. that wont help anyone doing it and indeed may be enabling...

yall figure it out and what you want with it all. thats why your mods. lol.

_________________
"no one can walk on you unless you lay down first"
-old saying-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:46 pm 
Community Leader
Community Leader
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 679
Location: Australia
Ash

I understand. Thank you for explaining it further. I agree.

Aqua

And your posts are most often abrassive and aggressive, as the last one again displays and as you've been called on time after time. You also stand out to me as one of the most critical members of the BPDR community so I think turning the finger around is most appropriate now. When you call 'bullshit' it's time to look in the mirror bc that's exactly the moment your audience stops listening to you - as I just did. Speak with respect and you will receive it. You need to make some movement on this Aqua.

April has written many supportive posts to me. This isn't black and white.

Denim

If you didn't have what appears to be some kind of pathological attraction to communicating with, stating your negative feelings for and thus provoking another specific individual I may not be hinting at you engaging in tranference. Everyone has triggers and at times transfers (including people without a need for mental health support) and I really don't think you're any exception. Just bc you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening.

I 100% agree with Ash on her assessment of your position.

It does seem, considering your brick wall to any self-reflection which may actually be helpful to you (and others), that our CC thread was going to be a fruitless exercise, so Ash, thank you for saving me from wasting my time. Your behaviour in the thread you wrote to Jody on CC is unacceptable - full stop. It needs to stop. I would hope that getting to the bottom of it was the best way to deal with it. But your unwillingness to even consider why your behaviour is unacceptable, let alone why you do it at all, shows me that you will not stop. This indicates that if someone else comes along who triggers you in this severe way, you will continue to engage in destructive behaviour with that person too. And that says you're not ready for this environment IMO. This place is about Healthy Happy Living and that's not what you're doing.

I will not discuss this issue with you any further Denim. You've made it clear that it's a complete waste of my time and, once again, leadership resources.

_________________
~ Sarah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:51 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 738
Location: Reality ~ It's a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there!
Sarah wrote:
This indicates that if someone else comes along who triggers you in this severe way, you will continue to engage in destructive behaviour with that person too.


Sarah ~ I don't think you are hearing that there is no one else whom I respond to in this way. This is a unique situation and not one from the past nor one I ever expect to experience again in the future. I understand that you are not going to waste your time responding but I feel I need to restate this because you do not seem to understand that there is no "someone else" to worry about.

_________________
The question of suicide:
Keep it a question.
It's not really an answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:09 am 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 738
Location: Reality ~ It's a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there!
There is some insight I have gained from this situation. I had never before seen people with BPD in the "Fatal Attraction" context and now I understand where that perception comes from! When the man in the movie told the woman with BPD to leave him alone, she broke into his home and boiled his kids' pet rabbit on his stove. For some reason "leave me alone" just does not seem to sink in when dealing with toxic people.

_________________
The question of suicide:
Keep it a question.
It's not really an answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:55 am 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:00 pm
Posts: 861
Sarah wrote:
Ash
Aqua

And your posts are most often abrassive and aggressive, as the last one again displays and as you've been called on time after time. You also stand out to me as one of the most critical members of the BPDR community so I think turning the finger around is most appropriate now. When you call 'bullshit' it's time to look in the mirror bc that's exactly the moment your audience stops listening to you - as I just did. Speak with respect and you will receive it. You need to make some movement on this Aqua.

April has written many supportive posts to me. This isn't black and white.



The same to April - turn the finger around. I feel as if you aren't being fair, and honestly, April and I have rarely had a problem. But I have Always noticed her critical nature, and the fact that she really does little work on herself on the boards. That doesn't mean I think I haven't done the same. I KNOW I have, and I make sure I take the time to address that in every situation, if you haven't noticed... This is not a battle of "me vs. anyone", and I don't appreciate you trying to make it that way, Sarah. I was simply pointing out the reality of the situation. That's what I see. I'm tired of you, April, me, jody, Candle, and the whole nine yards of it stepping in where they don't belong. As long as everyone is "telling" people to turn the finger around, aren't they just going to turn around and tell them where they are going wrong? Is that what this board is about, is having people continually tell me what I need to change, while they sit on their high horses? I think I just went through a very tough period of seeing and admitting some things about myself, and I honestly don't need your crap right now. I was doing immensely well until I decided to give my pov based on what I went through! Shame on me!

_________________
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ---Winston Churchill

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -- Robert H. Goddard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:53 pm 
Senior Community Leader
Senior Community Leader
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 3007
Location: Denver
Could we all take a step back and breathe?

Nothing we're talking about here is life-shattering. I don't think we need this level of emotional investment. Let's try to remember our tools and not take things personally or make assumptions.

_________________
Like BPD Recovery on Facebook.
Follow BPD_Recovery on Twitter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:12 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:00 pm
Posts: 861
Oh I'm not taking it personally. I simply see the idiocracy of the situation.

_________________
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ---Winston Churchill

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -- Robert H. Goddard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:22 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 1800
Location: texas
i havent told anyone anything.

i dont even speak to any of yall who made it clear im not welcome to.

im still in this shit...and i dont get it. i am going to stop posting for now and take this to email to the mods to get shit straight. no big deal, i just need a breather and a time out to gather my thoughts and skills. to quit wasting energy on bs.

so many assumptions and shit is floating around, my head spins. words like war, repercussions, and bs which i have no part of and have not gotten into. it isnt helping, no one is shutting up, and the same lies are still being circulated regardless.

i need the mods to step in with me (work with me on what can i do and how to keep handling things in a good way) and see a solution to this because nothing i have tried works.

_________________
"no one can walk on you unless you lay down first"
-old saying-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:17 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:00 pm
Posts: 861
Ash wrote:
Denim, my theory is that your father didn't let you get away with anything even remotely close to some of the actions you've witnessed others here "get away with." This makes you angry (in my theory) because you were held to such high standards and suffered such severe consequences (trauma/abuse) as a result of attempting something infinitesimal by comparison that you're outraged others aren't receiving nearly the consequences your experience has taught you should accompany those kinds of actions. You were subjected to harsh consequences so it's not fair that others do not get similar harsh consequences.

As such, there is (in my theory) a level of jealousy and anger toward people who seemingly "get away with unacceptable behaviour." Seeing someone trounce over your edicts ("stay away from me") triggers your rage because your past taught you that if you trounced over your father's edicts, there would be hell to pay at the hands of someone seriously enraged by the lack of 'respect for the boundary.'

You may not be the only one responding to Behaviour Pattern XYZ the way you do. That may, in fact, be absolutely true. It may also be that other people have similar issues in their past that trigger the same or similar buttons for them.

I have issues with passive aggression. It's based on my past experiences and when I encounter PA, my button has been pushed and I feel triggered. I cannot control the other person's PA behaviours but I can control my own behaviour. I needn't flip out and get in their face about how clueless, rude, insulting, hostile, nasty, vile their behaviour is. I can simply assert a boundary with a consequence.

"I would be happy to speak with you on this subject however I will not tolerate PA behaviour. If you insist on displaying PA behaviour, I will ignore your words until such time that I have a reasonable assurance through deeds not words that the PA will be kept to a minimum. Now, would you like to continue our discussion on the original subject?"

If they continue pulling PA stuff, I walk away. I don't explain to them how I thought they were being PA. I don't tell them how wrong they were to have behaved that way. I don't do or say anything to violate the consequence I set forth.

For me, PA is my big trigger. For you, it may be "getting away with" things. For other people, it may be the repeated misspelling of a certain word or a grammar or punctuation style triggers an "unfairness" button that other people aren't held to the same levels of expectation they were. It can be any number of things for any number of people.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that Daisy's past was influencing Sally's dislike of Janice's behaviour. That would be outright absurd so I'm glad we agree there!


What I am wondering is "why jody?".... and I hope that is ok to ask.

There are plenty of people here who go waaaaaaaaay out-of-line according to what would ever be acceptable around others irl, according to anyone with simply high standards, yet Denim isn't angry at them. So why does that theory work? I have written things to Denim in the past that are not nice, but she didn't touch it. So have others here....and she does not respond in that way to them. So what's the key?

_________________
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ---Winston Churchill

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -- Robert H. Goddard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:20 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:00 pm
Posts: 861
Ahh, nm, I saw the part about "stay away from me", I have not noticed that was the part that kept triggering it.

_________________
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ---Winston Churchill

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow. -- Robert H. Goddard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:54 pm 
Community Member
Community Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 1800
Location: texas
that is the question i would really like to know.

"why jody?" what have i done? in exact, clear terms.

aqua , i havent messed with you at all in a long time. nor have i messed with or spoken to the other (s) who obviously dont like me.

i chose that behavior. i still choose it. i modified it a bit but the core of respect and not messing with someone (negatively) still stands.

yet, it never stops. i dont know what else to do. i honestly dont. so i asked the mods to look at it and tell me. i dont mind letting it go on but that is not good for the board as a whole.

when i can post to someone in a thread, begin another thread about it (a issue i am working on in real) and get it used as if im boiling pet rabbits, something is very wrong. very.

i am saying this to you, to everyone, seriously, honestly, and calmly.

so exactly, lets get to the bottom of this. why me? what have i done? why do i need to punished? for what? whose problem is it? is there anything i can actually do? i have wanted to ask this a long time, but thought being silent and allowing it to continue would work. it didnt.

if i had some behavior harming someone, i could see the issue. i dont. if i pmed , or emailed, or said ugly things. i dont. this is why im so confused. i honestly would do my best to stop the behavior bugging someone if they only told me what it was. (if i could stop it, posting by guidelines just to make someone happy would not be in that)

i just dont get it. im trying.

_________________
"no one can walk on you unless you lay down first"
-old saying-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why is it okay?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:18 pm 
Senior Community Leader
Senior Community Leader
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 3007
Location: Denver
Jody, I think it's not so much that you've directly provoked Aqua or anyone else, per se.

I think it's that you consistently seem to be at the center of or closely positioned to the center of some drama or another. You may not directly or intentionally cause the drama but the fact remains that you are still very closely associated with drama. At a place like this where we're all aiming to minimize and ideally eliminate drama from our lives, it can be very frustrating to see the same players continually in the Drama Spotlight.

That's just my :2cents - take it for what it's worth or toss it. I certainly don't speak for Aqua - just sharing my POV.

_________________
Like BPD Recovery on Facebook.
Follow BPD_Recovery on Twitter.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group