From: enigma@netcom.com (Enigma)
Subject: Re: For Ed/not a flame/an observation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:53:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.002532.15254@u.washington.edu> taylor@hardy.u.washington.edu (Allen D. Taylor) writes:
>
>In article <BxJDAB.IF0@twwells.com> Free Amazon wrote:
>>Ed,
>>
>>Teressa's not the only one who has been bothered by your responses. I 
>>hope you can hear what she's said.
>>
>>Some people who read asar are much more sensitive to your remarks than 
>>others depending on where they are in their recovery.
>>
>{major chunk deleted}
>>
>>This is not a flame. This stuff is very scary. People are hurt by words 
>>all the time. I don't want you to hurt but I would like you to stop 
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I do not intend this post as picking on Free Amazon.  I am using this
>statement as a starting point because to me it symbolizes a problem I have
>with ASAR.  Please note, I am not telling anyone here what to say or not
>say, just what I feel about _how_ a number of poster express themselves. 

[text deleted for brevity]

>When a posting bothers me, and lots do besides Ed's, I look to myself to
>find out why.  Why look to myself?  Because I am the only one that I can
>change.  I am not perfect, but a goal of mine is to never tell someone
>else how to live.  Instead I will tell them how _I_ live.  I try to use I
>words instead of You words.  I do that even inside my mind, but most
>especially when I am talking about something that upset me.
>
>>
>>Please consider your answers carefully.
>
>This sounds to _me_ to be very directive and controlling.  On the other
>hand, I have no way of knowing if that was your intent.  All I can tell is
>that is how I read it.  I know that I resist direction strongly. 
>Therefore, I will often read directiveness into something when it is not
>there.   I am using this as an honest example of how I read postings.  My
>assumption of your directiveness is therefore disarmed and I don't get
>upset about it and I don't feel called upon to respond to you in any
>negative, judgemental or directive controlling way.

I am in general agreement with what you've said here, but there is one
point I think is worth mentioning:  we are allowed to ask for what we
want.  If that doesn't work, *then* what you said applies.  In your
example, Free Amazon said "I would like you to stop", and said "please
consider your answers carefully".  This is okay.  This is perfectly
reasonable to ask.  Of course, Ed is free to ignore her request.  In
which case, oh well.  

To use a non-loaded example (I hope), suppose that you and I are at a
party, and you persist in whistling off-key.  Suppose further that
it's really bugging me.  I am free to ask you to stop, but if you
*don't* stop, I have to deal with it.  As you put it, that's *my*
stuff.  I can ignore it, or go in another room, or go home, or even
learn to enjoy it.  If I start to obsess and try to control you, to
make you stop whistling, I am hurting myself (and probably annoying
you). 

>
>I hope that last sentence doesn't read as directed at you.  It isn't.  It
>is directed at me.  Because that is how I used to be and, without the 12
>steps, would probably still be.

Me too.  I used to be the most arrogant, egotistical know-it-all you
ever met.  I have to watch myself pretty carefully to make sure I
don't slip back into my old ways.  In fact, I had to delete a whole
chunk of this post because I was doing it again.  I hope the rest of
the post is okay (not judgmental or controlling or egotistical...).
I guess I better add the standard disclaimer: the above is my opinion
only, and what the heck do I know?  If anybody wants to flame me about
it, I promise to take it as constructive criticism.  :)

-- 
Holly McGrath   <enigma@netcom.com> 
1803 Mission Street, #339          
Santa Cruz, CA 95060              
(408) 479-4072  (voice mail)     
Newsgroups: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery