From: aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Subject: re:  response to ed
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
Date: 16 Nov 1992 15:14 EST  

>: It is my guess that, since my name was quite prominently displayed in this 
>: message, Ed was trying to draw me out.  Well, I'm here.  And I have a 

>Nope, not at all.  Your name was drawn merely as an example.  Anyone would've
>done as an example.  Tell you what ... replace "Teresa" with "Person A".  

Since this is your usual way of formatting examples, by *not* using it, you 
made it personal.

>: > If others do not love and respect you, it is because they do not
>:             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: >love and respect themselves - they cannot give what they do not have.  
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
>: This is patently false when given as an absolute, as you have done here.  
>: It could also be because "they" feel them *unworthy* of love and respect.  

>Then it seems that, by definition, if one feels unworthy of love and respect,
>then there is lacking love for oneself, is it not?

Ed, you're reaching here.  Grammatically speaking, I could not have meant what 
you imply here.  Allow me to be more clear.  I may not love or respect John Doe
(I hope there's no one here by that name) because I feel *him* unworthy of 
love and respect.  If you check the grammar, that's what I said. 

>No one asked you to love or respect *anyone*.  In my readings, I have, from 
>time to time, come across psychological reports that talk about perps.  In 
>the ones that I have seen, the lack of self-love is, in the author's 
>professional opinion, a motivating factor in the abuse.

And *I* believe that lack of self-love is *caused* by the abuse.

>: Ed, please do not presume that you know me *or* what I think.  You know 
>: neither.  You do not have my experience (not being a survivor yourself), 

>But I *do* know you, and, to somedegree, how and why you think as you do.

No, you *think* you know me, how I think and why I think as I do.

>You forget that we have had a personal history, and we had been friends in
>the past.  Besides, your name was just used here as an example, as I mentioned
>before.

And it was based on that past association that I resented the personalization
of your post.  It is because of the "personal history" that seeing my name in
your post made it personal. 

>Who told you I wasn't a survivor?  You and I have had many long-distance
>phone conversations about both my abuse and your abuse.

Allow me to be more clear.  The newsgroup is alt.SEXUAL.ABUSE.recovery.  I made 
the worst engineering error, I ASSUMED that people would realize that by using
the generic "survivors", I was talking about survivors of SEXUAL abuse.  In our
conversations, you never mentioned *any* sexual abuse.

>I'm always interested in what you have to say, Teresa.  You are a very bright
>and intelligent, logically-minded engineer.  I value your opinions.

Yeah, I noticed. [sarcasm intended]

>: you.  I think you place yourself too far above us with your pronouncements 
>: on asar, telling us how recovery *should* be done, and YOU ARE NOT A 
>: SURVIVOR.  

>Again, how can you make such absolute statements when you *know* that they are
>false?

I did not know them to be false.  You never mentioned sexual abuse.

>: And, when someone questions what you say, you go on the attack instead 
>: of trying to explain further.  In other words, it *appears* as if you 
>: feel that you know everything there is to know and have no need to explain 
>: yourself to others.  Since we are survivors and you are not, it would seem 
>: that perhaps we know more than you about survivors' issues, and that you 
>: might learn more by *listening* to us.  IMHO.  

>You make the distinction between *us* and *you*.  Curious - why do you do this?

Once again, allow me to be more clear.  "Us" is survivors of sexual abuse...
"you" is Ed.  Why do I do it?  Because you make these pronouncements of how 
healing is to be done, and, until recently, no one here knew anything about 
*your* abuse.  

>Do you see yourself so separate from me?  

Based on the above, yes.

>I hardly know *everything* there is to know - 

But your posts have the tenor of this omniscient.  This has been pointed out
to you before, by me and others, in posts and e-mail.  And you have not 
responded.  It should be clear to you by now that the *way*, the *tone*
you use when posting hurts and angers some people.  Your message may be good,
may even be useful, but if it isn't read and understood, no one can act on 
the information contained in the message.  *That* is all I'm trying to say.
All that I tried to say in the above paragraph.  All that many of us have 
tried to tell you.  Your personal style is your personal style, and you may
change it or not (and this goes for all posters) based on your own thoughts.
But *this* is why people misunderstand.  And this is why they question some
posts and posters.  Those misunderstandings *should* be cleared up...it's 
what communication is all about, and IMHO is something that would be 
helpful for all of us on asar.  It's a skill many of us are lacking.  But, 
if someone questions one of my posts, and I refuse to answer their question,
I've just slammed a door in their face.  I wouldn't be surprised if they 
don't knock on it again. 

>Well, like I said before, his name, too, was just used as an EXAMPLE.  But why
>did you take the post so personally, seeing as (1) it was NOT addressed to you,
>and (2) it was pretty clear that it was an example?

Why did you answer something with the name "Ed" in it???


-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery