"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:150120040044540882%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... There seems to be an assumption that I say to my wife the same sorts of things I say here and therefore that I come across the same way (whatever that is.)

I'll have to say that I don't assume that. Quite the contrary - I assume
that you DON'T tell your wife these things.


Yes, I've told her I want more emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy -- but she doesn't know what I mean by those terms and I can't say I know for sure myself.

That is part of what I mean by "setting your marriage up for failure". You
want something, can't be happy without it, can't say what it is, she can't
psychically divine it, and you believe she couldn't provide it anyway. I
don't know how you define "setup for failure", but that does it for me.


I suspect that her comment was more emotional than rational

I'd suspect her comment was more intuitive than either emotional or
rational. Even though you don't *tell* her these things, she is able to
pick up on some of it anyway, you know.
I appreciate whoever it was (Doug?) who seems to understand why I am obsessed by all this.

In the great scheme of things, it probably doesn't *matter* why you are
obsessed with this at all. What does matter is what you do about it.
I want also to reply to two specific comments. First, Joy said You really need to start thinking of your wife as a unique individual in
her own right, not just as Your Wife, sort of a one dimensional character
who is supposed to Meet Your Needs. I'm sorry it comes across that way. Perhaps I do too much think of her that way -- but I also think it is because in the interests of anonymity I decided not to use her name here and so in the process of referring to her by her role rather than her name it is easy also to think of her that way.

My impression of how you seem to perceive your wife has nothing at all to do
with whether you refer to her by name or by role. Lots of people refer to
their SO by role, for anonymity sake. That by itself means nothing.
Rather, I get that impression from how you describe your relationship with
your wife. You seem to paint a one-dimensional picture of her.

Joy

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> writes:
"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message news:150120040044540882%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... There seems to be an assumption that I say to my wife the same sorts of things I say here and therefore that I come across the same way (whatever that is.) I'll have to say that I don't assume that. Quite the contrary - I assume that you DON'T tell your wife these things. Yes, I've told her I want more emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy -- but she doesn't know what I mean by those terms and I can't say I know for sure myself. That is part of what I mean by "setting your marriage up for failure". You want something, can't be happy without it, can't say what it is, she can't psychically divine it, and you believe she couldn't provide it anyway.

That's quite the summary! I hope Ted thinks about it.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ZmGNb.1508$2L6.669@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
(I'll reply to the substance of the rest of your comments when I
respond to Doug.)
My impression of how you seem to perceive your wife has nothing at all to do with whether you refer to her by name or by role. Lots of people refer to their SO by role, for anonymity sake. That by itself means nothing. Rather, I get that impression from how you describe your relationship with your wife. You seem to paint a one-dimensional picture of her.

I'm not an artist Joy. I haven't attempted to paint anything like a
complete picture of her -- this isn't a novel, but an attempt to
discuss some things that trouble me. Is it any surprise that what
comes across is distorted? You've been posting here for roughly a
year, as best I can tell. I do not know where you live, how old you
are, how many kids (if any) you have, whether you are married or not.
Some of that probably is contained in your posts, and if I took the
time I could probably dig it out. As far as I'm concerned, you've
painted no picture of yourself at all, except perhaps as someone who
believes my wife played no role hatsoever, unconscious though it might
be, in my being unhappy. Is that an accurate perception of what
you've posted? I doubt it.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:79defc04.0401161240.5919b080@posting.google.c om... "Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
in message news:<ZmGNb.1508$2L6.669@bignews6.bellsouth.net>... (I'll reply to the substance of the rest of your comments when I respond to Doug.) My impression of how you seem to perceive your wife has nothing at all
to do with whether you refer to her by name or by role. Lots of people refer
to their SO by role, for anonymity sake. That by itself means nothing. Rather, I get that impression from how you describe your relationship
with your wife. You seem to paint a one-dimensional picture of her. I'm not an artist Joy. I haven't attempted to paint anything like a complete picture of her -- this isn't a novel, but an attempt to discuss some things that trouble me. Is it any surprise that what comes across is distorted?

There isn't any one thing I can point to to show why it seems that way to
me, either - it is just an impression I've built up by reading what you've
said and how you said it over time. More of an intuitive thing than a
concrete thing, if that makes sense.

You've been posting here for roughly a year, as best I can tell. I do not know where you live, how old you are, how many kids (if any) you have, whether you are married or not. Some of that probably is contained in your posts, and if I took the time I could probably dig it out.

FWIW, I've been posting here about three years, I think, maybe more - don't
remember for sure when I started. Divorced, two kids. There is a lot
included in previous posts, or if for some reason it would help you to know
more then e-mail me - do the obvious with the address. There's a little
more below, too.

As far as I'm concerned, you've painted no picture of yourself at all, except perhaps as someone who believes my wife played no role hatsoever, unconscious though it might be, in my being unhappy. Is that an accurate perception of what you've posted? I doubt it.

Geez, if that is the impression that I've given you I haven't done a good
job explaining at all.

Incidentally, I'm really not trying to give you a hard time with my posts -
I just find your case interesting, so I feel motivated to try to be helpful,
at least as far as giving you alternative perspectives. (That and I seem to
get this compulsion to play devils advocate). While my personality is
clearly vastly different from yours, and my needs are vastly different, I
identify a bit because I too stayed in an unhappy marriage with someone that
I was not at all compatible with for many years - 23 in my case. I do have
considerable experience with feeling "trapped" in a situation that there
seems to be no way out of - I, too, felt that I *couldn't* divorce, and
*had* to stay married. I also have had the experience of spending years and
years wishing my then-spouse could just "grow" to the point where we
wouldn't be so incompatible. I hope this gives some perspective as to why I
respond to your posts, and where I'm coming from when I do.

In article <ie2Ob.84002$na.44479@attbi_s04>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't know. It is an odd list. Some of it is stuff you want from her, some of it is stuff you want from yourself, and some of it is just too vague.

I'll sit on it awhile, as well as not reply too hastily to the rest.
I agree it's vague -- I know the ways I feel bad or unhappy, what seems
to be missing, but I can't yet be precise about what either one of us
can do about some of that. Bottom line is that I want to feel loved --
do I know what it takes to do that? Only partly -- because I've only
felt it partly.

Ted

In article <rYZNb.3656$%86.2079@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Joy
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
Geez, if that is the impression that I've given you I haven't done a good job explaining at all.
That sort of was my point -- although in truth it says more about me
than about you. My focus at times can be very narrow and not easily
diverted -- when we chanced to share an office a few years ago my best
friend from childhood once told me he was very envious of that ability.
I'm not so sure -- for it *does* tend to make me seem very
one-dimensional and aloof. (What's worse is that with my personality
change I can no longer stay on focus -- I'll bear down on something
hard for a brief while until something comes along to distract me or
draw my attention elsewhere. That's not much better!) I'm sure that
affects both how I view the world and the picture I paint of myself and
whatever I'm talking about.
Incidentally, I'm really not trying to give you a hard time with my posts - I just find your case interesting, so I feel motivated to try to be helpful, at least as far as giving you alternative perspectives. (That and I seem to get this compulsion to play devils advocate). While my personality is clearly vastly different from yours, and my needs are vastly different, I identify a bit because I too stayed in an unhappy marriage with someone that I was not at all compatible with for many years - 23 in my case. I do have considerable experience with feeling "trapped" in a situation that there seems to be no way out of - I, too, felt that I *couldn't* divorce, and *had* to stay married. I also have had the experience of spending years and years wishing my then-spouse could just "grow" to the point where we wouldn't be so incompatible. I hope this gives some perspective as to why I respond to your posts, and where I'm coming from when I do.

Thanks. It *does* help.

Ted

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ie2Ob.84002$na.44479@attbi_s04... tedds212@yahoo.com (Seeker) writes: To feel free to share my thoughts and feelings and motivations with my wife without having to censor them out of fear of hurting her or being hurt by her rejecting them or seeming to reject them. Ok, that is your issue, not hers. Notice you aren't asking for something for her, just asking for _you_ to feel differently about something. She can't do that for you. To not be made to feel inadequate and incompetent. Too much like the first one. It isn't really her fault if you feel inadequate or incompetent. What is it around this issue you _do_ want from her?It is an odd list. Some of it is stuff you want from her, some of it is stuff you want from yourself, and some of it is just too vague. Maybe you could make it more about what you really want from her. Then I would say, yeah, share it. You would now have addressed exactly _one_ of the ways that Joy says you are setting yourself up for failure. There are still all the others...

<various snips not shown>

OK, I've mulled this over. I also re-read Joy's response, which seemed to
acknowledge the validity of love-busters. (There are some other points in
that I want to address separately.) Someone recently in one of the
newsgroups (might even have been this one) or mailing lists I read quoted
Mark Twain as saying something like "A cat won't jump twice on a hot stove.
But it won't jump on a cold one either." I am afraid to be emotionally
open and honest with my wife -- something I'd like to be -- because I fear
being burnt: I fear her reaction, whether it be withdrawal (I hurt her) or
counterattack (she hurts me back, in some way.) If indeed she is a "hot
stove" -- it is quite reasonable for me not to touch her (emotionally.) My
need, then, is for her to somehow change not to be so threatening -- to
avoid the love busters. From my perspective that is the case but I admit
I'm afraid to try getting close enough to really find out -- but it sure
does feel hot to me. Your response seems to be saying it's a cold stove --
that the fear is all on my part and unwarranted. How do you propose I find
out which is the case without getting burnt even worse if it is a hot stove?

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ie2Ob.84002$na.44479@attbi_s04... tedds212@yahoo.com (Seeker) writes: To feel free to share my thoughts and feelings and motivations with my wife without having to censor them out of fear of hurting her or being hurt by her rejecting them or seeming to reject them. Ok, that is your issue, not hers. Notice you aren't asking for something for her, just asking for _you_ to feel differently about something. She can't do that for you. To not be made to feel inadequate and incompetent. Too much like the first one. It isn't really her fault if you feel inadequate or incompetent. What is it around this issue you _do_ want from her?It is an odd list. Some of it is stuff you want from her, some of it is stuff you want from yourself, and some of it is just too vague. Maybe you could make it more about what you really want from her. Then I would say, yeah, share it. You would now have addressed exactly _one_ of the ways that Joy says you are setting yourself up for failure. There are still all the others... <various snips not shown> OK, I've mulled this over. I also re-read Joy's response, which seemed to acknowledge the validity of love-busters. (There are some other points in that I want to address separately.) Someone recently in one of the newsgroups (might even have been this one) or mailing lists I read quoted Mark Twain as saying something like "A cat won't jump twice on a hot stove. But it won't jump on a cold one either." I am afraid to be emotionally open and honest with my wife -- something I'd like to be -- because I fear being burnt: I fear her reaction, whether it be withdrawal (I hurt her) or counterattack (she hurts me back, in some way.) If indeed she is a "hot stove" -- it is quite reasonable for me not to touch her (emotionally.) My need, then, is for her to somehow change not to be so threatening -- to avoid the love busters. From my perspective that is the case but I admit I'm afraid to try getting close enough to really find out -- but it sure does feel hot to me. Your response seems to be saying it's a cold stove -- that the fear is all on my part and unwarranted. How do you propose I find out which is the case without getting burnt even worse if it is a hot stove?

That isn't really what I meant. I don't know how hot or cold a stove
your wife is. But it sounds like it is going to have to be up to you
to gather the courage to start testing it. Someplace, somehow, if you
hope that your wife can meet more of your needs, you have to start
telling her what they are!

Let's suppose she is hot. Then you need to address _that_, if not
directly with her, then in the safer venue of joint counseling. I've
been in a similar position, with things I _didn't_ feel safe bringing
up with my wife alone, and decided that I would pursue in counseling
where there was someone to call her on her behavior if it became
inappropriate.

Or, you could do (something like) the following (in joint counseling):

Ted: Dr. Freud; there are things that I feel I need from my wife which
I'd like to articulate to her, but I'm afraid that if I tell them to
her she'll feel hurt and withdraw, or feel angry and attack me.

Sigmund: I understand your fear Ted. Maybe this is something we can
start with in small pieces.

Mrs. Ted, do you have needs from Ted that you'd like to tell
him about as well?

Mrs. Ted: (nods)

Sigmund: do you think if Ted tells you, say, two things
he would like from you, you can respond without doing the
things Ted is afraid of, but just hearing what he wants and
acknowledging it?

And then you can tell Ted two things he'd like from you, and
Ted's job would be the same.

Mrs. Ted: OK.

Sigmund (to Ted): So nu?

....

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0v1xprbqz0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Or, you could do (something like) the following (in joint counseling): Ted: Dr. Freud; there are things that I feel I need from my wife which I'd like to articulate to her, but I'm afraid that if I tell them to her she'll feel hurt and withdraw, or feel angry and attack me. Sigmund: I understand your fear Ted. Maybe this is something we can start with in small pieces. Mrs. Ted, do you have needs from Ted that you'd like to tell him about as well? Mrs. Ted: (nods) Sigmund: do you think if Ted tells you, say, two things he would like from you, you can respond without doing the things Ted is afraid of, but just hearing what he wants and acknowledging it? And then you can tell Ted two things he'd like from you, and Ted's job would be the same. Mrs. Ted: OK. Sigmund (to Ted): So nu?

You're hired...

I think our current "how do you spend your time, view your spouse as
spending his/her time, and how would you like it to be different" is a step
in that direction. What intrigues me is that throughout these past two
weeks my wife has been asking me "well, how do we categorize this...?" (or
equivalent words.) So she's taking this "assignment" quite seriously. It's
a small way of identifying how things are (in some dimensions) and how
*both* of us would like them to be different.

Ted

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0v1xprbqz0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Or, you could do (something like) the following (in joint counseling): Ted: Dr. Freud; there are things that I feel I need from my wife which I'd like to articulate to her, but I'm afraid that if I tell them to her she'll feel hurt and withdraw, or feel angry and attack me. Sigmund: I understand your fear Ted. Maybe this is something we can start with in small pieces. Mrs. Ted, do you have needs from Ted that you'd like to tell him about as well? Mrs. Ted: (nods) Sigmund: do you think if Ted tells you, say, two things he would like from you, you can respond without doing the things Ted is afraid of, but just hearing what he wants and acknowledging it? And then you can tell Ted two things he'd like from you, and Ted's job would be the same. Mrs. Ted: OK. Sigmund (to Ted): So nu? You're hired...

Actually, I just got that from emacs's "doctor" mode.
I think our current "how do you spend your time, view your spouse as spending his/her time, and how would you like it to be different" is a step in that direction. What intrigues me is that throughout these past two weeks my wife has been asking me "well, how do we categorize this...?" (or equivalent words.) So she's taking this "assignment" quite seriously. It's a small way of identifying how things are (in some dimensions) and how *both* of us would like them to be different.

One of the things that couples therapists have to deal with (well, so
do individual therapists, but it may be more at the forefront for
couples) is

Partner A saying: things are like this.
while
Partner B says: no, things are like that!

To some degree the perceptions of partner A and partner B may be more
important than whatever the truth is, but sometimes it is probably
useful for the therapist to be able to say, somehow, "no, guys, look:
it is really this way, and here are the things that make me see it
that way."

Your current assignment seems like a good one to use either for your
therapist to have a conversation about what things are actually like
in your marriage, or for you two to do that on your own. Which, yes,
is then a good starting place for the conversation "where would you
like things to go?"

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kqvfn3abf7.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Actually, I just got that from emacs's "doctor" mode.

LOL! Now I wonder how many here know what you are referring to?
(Of course, the telling question is, on what machine did you first
encounter emacs?) Your current assignment seems like a good one to use either for your therapist to have a conversation about what things are actually like in your marriage, or for you two to do that on your own. Which, yes, is then a good starting place for the conversation "where would you like things to go?"

Yup. Quite frequently he speaks in terms of our respective realities in a
way that acknowledges both of them as being legitimate.

Ted

nu????? I love it.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0v1xprbqz0.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ie2Ob.84002$na.44479@attbi_s04... tedds212@yahoo.com (Seeker) writes: > To feel free to share my thoughts and feelings and motivations with
my > wife without having to censor them out of fear of hurting her or
being > hurt by her rejecting them or seeming to reject them. Ok, that is your issue, not hers. Notice you aren't asking for something for her, just asking for _you_ to feel differently about something. She can't do that for you. > To not be made to feel inadequate and incompetent. Too much like the first one. It isn't really her fault if you feel inadequate or incompetent. What is it around this issue you _do_ want from her?It is an odd list. Some of it is stuff you want from her, some of it is stuff you want from yourself, and some of it is just too vague. Maybe you could make it more about what you really want from her. Then I would say, yeah, share it. You would now have addressed exactly _one_ of the ways that Joy says you are setting yourself up for failure. There are still all the others... <various snips not shown> OK, I've mulled this over. I also re-read Joy's response, which seemed
to acknowledge the validity of love-busters. (There are some other points
in that I want to address separately.) Someone recently in one of the newsgroups (might even have been this one) or mailing lists I read
quoted Mark Twain as saying something like "A cat won't jump twice on a hot
stove. But it won't jump on a cold one either." I am afraid to be
emotionally open and honest with my wife -- something I'd like to be -- because I
fear being burnt: I fear her reaction, whether it be withdrawal (I hurt her)
or counterattack (she hurts me back, in some way.) If indeed she is a
"hot stove" -- it is quite reasonable for me not to touch her (emotionally.)
My need, then, is for her to somehow change not to be so threatening -- to avoid the love busters. From my perspective that is the case but I
admit I'm afraid to try getting close enough to really find out -- but it sure does feel hot to me. Your response seems to be saying it's a cold
stove -- that the fear is all on my part and unwarranted. How do you propose I
find out which is the case without getting burnt even worse if it is a hot stove? That isn't really what I meant. I don't know how hot or cold a stove your wife is. But it sounds like it is going to have to be up to you to gather the courage to start testing it. Someplace, somehow, if you hope that your wife can meet more of your needs, you have to start telling her what they are! Let's suppose she is hot. Then you need to address _that_, if not directly with her, then in the safer venue of joint counseling. I've been in a similar position, with things I _didn't_ feel safe bringing up with my wife alone, and decided that I would pursue in counseling where there was someone to call her on her behavior if it became inappropriate. Or, you could do (something like) the following (in joint counseling): Ted: Dr. Freud; there are things that I feel I need from my wife which I'd like to articulate to her, but I'm afraid that if I tell them to her she'll feel hurt and withdraw, or feel angry and attack me. Sigmund: I understand your fear Ted. Maybe this is something we can start with in small pieces. Mrs. Ted, do you have needs from Ted that you'd like to tell him about as well? Mrs. Ted: (nods) Sigmund: do you think if Ted tells you, say, two things he would like from you, you can respond without doing the things Ted is afraid of, but just hearing what he wants and acknowledging it? And then you can tell Ted two things he'd like from you, and Ted's job would be the same. Mrs. Ted: OK. Sigmund (to Ted): So nu? ...

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bupebr$k171b$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ie2Ob.84002$na.44479@attbi_s04... tedds212@yahoo.com (Seeker) writes: To feel free to share my thoughts and feelings and motivations with my wife without having to censor them out of fear of hurting her or being hurt by her rejecting them or seeming to reject them. Ok, that is your issue, not hers. Notice you aren't asking for something for her, just asking for _you_ to feel differently about something. She can't do that for you. To not be made to feel inadequate and incompetent. Too much like the first one. It isn't really her fault if you feel inadequate or incompetent. What is it around this issue you _do_ want from her?It is an odd list. Some of it is stuff you want from her, some of it is stuff you want from yourself, and some of it is just too vague. Maybe you could make it more about what you really want from her. Then I would say, yeah, share it. You would now have addressed exactly _one_ of the ways that Joy says you are setting yourself up for failure. There are still all the others... <various snips not shown> OK, I've mulled this over. I also re-read Joy's response, which seemed to acknowledge the validity of love-busters. (There are some other points in that I want to address separately.) Someone recently in one of the newsgroups (might even have been this one) or mailing lists I read quoted Mark Twain as saying something like "A cat won't jump twice on a hot
stove. But it won't jump on a cold one either." I am afraid to be emotionally open and honest with my wife -- something I'd like to be -- because I fear being burnt: I fear her reaction, whether it be withdrawal (I hurt her)
or counterattack (she hurts me back, in some way.) If indeed she is a "hot stove" -- it is quite reasonable for me not to touch her (emotionally.)
My need, then, is for her to somehow change not to be so threatening -- to avoid the love busters. From my perspective that is the case but I admit I'm afraid to try getting close enough to really find out -- but it sure does feel hot to me. Your response seems to be saying it's a cold
stove -- that the fear is all on my part and unwarranted. How do you propose I
find out which is the case without getting burnt even worse if it is a hot
stove? Ted
Ted, I think that it is making yourself vulnerable that cements
relationships
or not. If you can not trust your partner what have you really got.

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kqvfn3abf7.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... Actually, I just got that from emacs's "doctor" mode. LOL! Now I wonder how many here know what you are referring to?

Who knows? But I figure anyone with an MS free household can at least
find out. Nowadays, even macs ship with emacs! (and yes, with
doctor-mode!)
(Of course, the telling question is, on what machine did you first encounter emacs?)

That's hard to remember. I think it was a sun, but more to the point
it was long enough ago so that Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
_meant_ something.

(At the time in the ongoing emacs-vi war, the emacs answer was "but
emacs has _two_ vi-emulators")

"Seeker" <tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bupebr$k171b$1@ID-123438.news.uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ie2Ob.84002$na.44479@attbi_s04...

Someone recently in one of the newsgroups (might even have been this one) or mailing lists I read quoted Mark Twain as saying something like "A cat won't jump twice on a hot
stove. But it won't jump on a cold one either." I am afraid to be emotionally open and honest with my wife -- something I'd like to be -- because I fear being burnt: I fear her reaction, whether it be withdrawal (I hurt her)
or counterattack (she hurts me back, in some way.) If indeed she is a "hot stove" -- it is quite reasonable for me not to touch her (emotionally.)
My need, then, is for her to somehow change not to be so threatening -- to avoid the love busters. From my perspective that is the case but I admit I'm afraid to try getting close enough to really find out -- but it sure does feel hot to me. Your response seems to be saying it's a cold
stove -- that the fear is all on my part and unwarranted. How do you propose I
find out which is the case without getting burnt even worse if it is a hot
stove?

There is something even more important than finding out whether or not the
stove is hot - and that is to stop being a cat.

A cat, once burned, will assume that all stoves are hot. This means that
all stoves are then forever removed from being a useful part of the cats
life. A human, however, has the capacity to recognize that sometimes it is
better to risk getting a little burned, cautiously testing the stove, than
to avoid stoves altogether. Beyond that, a human has the capacity to
recognize that even a known hot stove can often be safely handled, using the
right equipment (i.e. oven mitts and potholders).

Perhaps your therapist can serve as your oven mitt, or perhaps improved
communication with your wife can be a potholder - but the bottom line, it is
better to run a little risk and find out if the stove is hot, and if so how
to use it safely, than it is to just assume the stove is hot - or just fear
the stove is hot - and avoid it forever more.

Joy

In article <jfektraa4n.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's hard to remember. I think it was a sun, but more to the point it was long enough ago so that Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping _meant_ something.

Not to be smug, but mine was probably on a PDP 10 (Tenex) -- long
before Suns even existed!

Ted

In article <e0YPb.17024$LM4.12891@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf
<urf@nospam.com> wrote:
If you can not trust your partner what have you really got.

Trust your partner in what way?
If she's constantly hurting me (in little ways) when I'm not especially
vulnerable, why should I expect it to be any better when I am?

Ted

In article <7XYPb.6613$DX.5839@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Joy
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote:
A cat, once burned, will assume that all stoves are hot. This means that all stoves are then forever removed from being a useful part of the cats life.

Ah, but it was in discovering that all stoves are *not* hot that I
realized the problem wasn't with me, but with the stove. I know all
too painfully well that not all stoves are hot. I would very much like
to have a stove be an intimate part of my life. And I don't want to
have to handle it with oven mitts forever.

(Somehow the metaphor is losing a lot of its vitality about now. Too
bad Mark Twain wasn't talking about something cold...)

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <jfektraa4n.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: That's hard to remember. I think it was a sun, but more to the point it was long enough ago so that Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping _meant_ something. Not to be smug, but mine was probably on a PDP 10 (Tenex) -- long before Suns even existed!

I never actually programmed on PDP 10s. PDP 11s, yes. And then I
helped a little bit once to maintain some software on an (at that
point old) PDP 8, but that job was trying to figure out what someone's
uncommented assembly code did, so I didn't ever actually touch the
computer!

In article <9g3ca7forw.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never actually programmed on PDP 10s. PDP 11s, yes. And then I helped a little bit once to maintain some software on an (at that point old) PDP 8, but that job was trying to figure out what someone's uncommented assembly code did, so I didn't ever actually touch the computer!

I'll see your PDP 8 and raise you a PDP 1. Programmed my thesis
project on a PDP 1.

As I recall, the first version of the "doctor" program I saw was in
fact called "Eliza" -- after Eliza Doolittle -- and probably was
running on some machine at MIT.

Ted

Seeker <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> writes:
In article <9g3ca7forw.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu>, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: I never actually programmed on PDP 10s. PDP 11s, yes. And then I helped a little bit once to maintain some software on an (at that point old) PDP 8, but that job was trying to figure out what someone's uncommented assembly code did, so I didn't ever actually touch the computer! I'll see your PDP 8 and raise you a PDP 1. Programmed my thesis project on a PDP 1.

You win; I'm tapped out. Recall I'm a bit younger than you. By the time
I was an employable age, even that PDP 8 was getting pretty long in
the tooth!
As I recall, the first version of the "doctor" program I saw was in fact called "Eliza" -- after Eliza Doolittle -- and probably was running on some machine at MIT.

Yes, I know it as Eliza too. Though I can't remember why. The first
time I heard about it, it may not have been running in emacs though!

"Seeker" <anon-30263@anon.twwells.com> wrote in message
news:220120041728405823%anon-30263@anon.twwells.com... In article <e0YPb.17024$LM4.12891@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>, urf <urf@nospam.com> wrote: If you can not trust your partner what have you really got. Trust your partner in what way? If she's constantly hurting me (in little ways) when I'm not especially vulnerable, why should I expect it to be any better when I am? Ted

Apparently you do trust your partner. You trust that her responses to
you will always be negative and hurtful.

Ted, it is a paradox. To truly love you must give the person you love
the power to hurt you. Perhaps you have never really been in love just
married.