A comedian made a joke about what things would be "awesome". He said that
Shania Twain at his dressing room wearing nothing but a fur coat and
holding a letter from his wife saying "Have fun" would be awesome. "It
ain't gonna happen. But that would be awesome."

So... most marital vows say something about forsaking all others. But if
your spouse approves, is that vow superceeded? Is it adultry if your
spouse approves?

We don't really need to go into the fact that adding extra people to your
marriage bed is most likely harmful to your marriage.

No, this is not to bait swingers. It is just a hypothetical question.




Cheers,

Noah Spam

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:40:52 -0700, Noah Spam
<NoahSpam@none4me.org> wrote: A comedian made a joke about what things would be "awesome". He said that Shania Twain at his dressing room wearing nothing but a fur coat and holding a letter from his wife saying "Have fun" would be awesome. "It ain't gonna happen. But that would be awesome." So... most marital vows say something about forsaking all others. But if your spouse approves, is that vow superceeded? Is it adultry if your spouse approves?

Yes it is adultery even if your spouse approves, but it's not "cheating".

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Noah Spam wrote:
A comedian made a joke about what things would be "awesome". He said that Shania Twain at his dressing room wearing nothing but a fur coat and holding a letter from his wife saying "Have fun" would be awesome. "It ain't gonna happen. But that would be awesome." So... most marital vows say something about forsaking all others. But if your spouse approves, is that vow superceeded? Is it adultry if your spouse approves? We don't really need to go into the fact that adding extra people to your marriage bed is most likely harmful to your marriage. No, this is not to bait swingers. It is just a hypothetical question.

Yes, it's adultery, and quite likely has some predictable messy
after-shocks. The spouse that said "okay" ends up not being able to
forget it. The spouse that got to taste forbidden fruit starts to yearn
for it. Shania gets pregnant with your "love" child and her husband
(she IS married, you know) ends up raising a child that isn't his. The
child grows up not knowing his true parentage. That's five lives
affected. The orginal couple get divorced, their kids suffer. Their
wealth decreases, they can't buy goods and services, their community is
poorer. Your wife is no longer available to help you with elder care,
your parents have to go into a cheap nursing home.

Adultery isn't a "sin" because God says so, it's a bad idea because the
results are predictable and civilized communities frown on it because of
the aftershocks that reveberate through the entire village.

Stable relationships are the fundamental building block of communities.
The rules exist because this has played out so badly so often before.

Dally

Dally wrote: Noah Spam wrote: Adultery isn't a "sin" because God says so, it's a bad idea because the results are predictable and civilized communities frown on it because of the aftershocks that reveberate through the entire village.

Where are these "civilized communities" today, of which you speak, Dally?
Stable relationships are the fundamental building block of communities. The rules exist because this has played out so badly so often before. Dally

Dally <dally@myself.com> writes:
Noah Spam wrote: A comedian made a joke about what things would be "awesome". He said that Shania Twain at his dressing room wearing nothing but a fur coat and holding a letter from his wife saying "Have fun" would be awesome. "It ain't gonna happen. But that would be awesome." So... most marital vows say something about forsaking all others. But if your spouse approves, is that vow superceeded? Is it adultry if your spouse approves? We don't really need to go into the fact that adding extra people to your marriage bed is most likely harmful to your marriage. No, this is not to bait swingers. It is just a hypothetical question. Yes, it's adultery, and quite likely has some predictable messy after-shocks. The spouse that said "okay" ends up not being able to forget it. The spouse that got to taste forbidden fruit starts to yearn for it. Shania gets pregnant with your "love" child and her husband (she IS married, you know) ends up raising a child that isn't his. The child grows up not knowing his true parentage. That's five lives affected. The orginal couple get divorced, their kids suffer. Their wealth decreases, they can't buy goods and services, their community is poorer. Your wife is no longer available to help you with elder care, your parents have to go into a cheap nursing home.

Or none of these things happen and things are OK. Most of the
"after-shocks" you mention aren't that likely if people take some
care.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:

(snip)

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. None of your
"translations" have anything to do with what I said, or with what I
believe.
Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal and social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the home are ok with it.

This one is the only one which is even somewhat close.
But what I really believe is: behavior between adults is acceptable as
long as it harms no one, and everyone involved is OK with it. In
other words, _you_ have no say over any behavior of mine which doesn't
affect you.

Do you have a better idea for what acceotable behavior between adults
is?

I notice you actually have nothing to say on this except to put words
in _my_ mouth. Are the words you are putting in my mouth something
that you secretely believe? Are they something you are afraid might
be true? Are they straw men?

If you have something to say on your own, I'd thank you to say it
yourself, rather than attributing comments and opinions to me which
are not my comments or my opinions. It is a very basic courtesy.

Doug

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XgO_c.8362$w%6.5087@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal and social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the home are ok with it.

If it involves consenting adults, and does not break any laws, exactly what
is wrong with that?

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2q1o88Fq5os5U1@uni-berlin.de...
SUVs are farm more dangerous than ordinary cars. But people buy them anyhow because they consider the extra risk to be worth whatever benefit having an SUV provides.

We're both on the same page with SUV's (largely being against them), but
aren't SUV's supposidly safer than a regular car for the people in it? That
the crash survival factor outweighs the rollover factor? I don't see the
extra risk except perhaps for the people in the other car. Is that what you
meant?

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip) I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. None of your "translations" have anything to do with what I said, or with what I believe.

Yes they do (IMO). Try to look at what you said more objectively, and less
defensively.
Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal and social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the home are ok with it. This one is the only one which is even somewhat close.

Not true (IMO). More below.
But what I really believe is: behavior between adults is acceptable as long as it harms no one, and everyone involved is OK with it. In other words, _you_ have no say over any behavior of mine which doesn't affect you.

Ah, but it does - albeit (perhaps) indirectly. I know YOU don't
acknowledge that, but Society is much more than a bunch of individuals just
doing their own thing, for their own convenience. There are far too many
selfish people in this world, who ONLY care about doing what THEY feel like
(inside their home, or wherever) (and they think their behavior there is of
no consequence to anyone else - like they are in a vacuum, or something).
So WHO is looking after society?
Do you have a better idea for what acceotable behavior between adults is? I notice you actually have nothing to say on this except to put words in _my_ mouth. Are the words you are putting in my mouth something that you secretely believe? Are they something you are afraid might be true? Are they straw men?

I said what I believe. If people have such liberal attitudes that they no
longer subscribe to ANY moral standards and codes of conduct for our
SOCIETY, the consequences will be...... (Well, what am I talking about? I
think we are already there). It seems that some don't see it, apparently,
or choose not to dwell on it, and/or look the other way, or more likely,
just don't care. As long as THEY are happy "in the privacy of their own
homes", they can do whatever they want, right? (rhetorical)
If you have something to say on your own, I'd thank you to say it yourself, rather than attributing comments and opinions to me which are not my comments or my opinions. It is a very basic courtesy.

You have, on occasion, done the same thing to me in the past, if you will
recall. Is this projection?
Doug

JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:XgO_c.8362$w%6.5087@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal and social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the home are ok with it. If it involves consenting adults, and does not break any laws, exactly
what is wrong with that?

Children? Anybody care about what the children see and learn?
Modeling? Setting good examples? Nah.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bQO_c.1320$ip2.488@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:XgO_c.8362$w%6.5087@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal and social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the home are ok with it. If it involves consenting adults, and does not break any laws, exactly what is wrong with that? Children? Anybody care about what the children see and learn? Modeling? Setting good examples? Nah.

I'm not convinced it's "society's" responsibility to set good examples. It's
more the job of parents.

"JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2q1o88Fq5os5U1@uni-berlin.de... SUVs are farm more dangerous than ordinary cars. But people buy them anyhow because they consider the extra risk to be worth whatever benefit having an SUV provides. We're both on the same page with SUV's (largely being against them), but aren't SUV's supposidly safer than a regular car for the people in it? That the crash survival factor outweighs the rollover factor?

Not according to our "paper of record."

On Aug. 17 the NYT reported that

The gap in safety between sport utility vehicles and passenger cars
last year was the widest yet recorded, according to new federal
traffic data. ... People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle
in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than
people in standard automobiles.

This is no longer available for free at the NYT web site, but I bet if
you google "Safety Gap Grows" and "SUVs" you'll find the story or
something similar.
I don't see the extra risk except perhaps for the people in the other car. Is that what you meant?

There's that too, which certainly ought to be taken into account by
people arguing for socially responsible behavior, but that wasn't what
I was writing about.

Doug

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip) I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. None of your "translations" have anything to do with what I said, or with what I believe. Yes they do (IMO). Try to look at what you said more objectively, and less defensively.

But I'm telling you that they do not. And they are my opinions, so I
can be quite certain, objectively, that you are not representing them
at all.

How can you with a straight face claim to know more about my opinions
than I do? That is surely the ultimate hubris.

Doug

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2q1vl3Fqi9mvU2@uni-berlin.de... "JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2q1o88Fq5os5U1@uni-berlin.de... SUVs are farm more dangerous than ordinary cars. But people buy them anyhow because they consider the extra risk to be worth whatever benefit having an SUV provides. We're both on the same page with SUV's (largely being against them), but aren't SUV's supposidly safer than a regular car for the people in it? That the crash survival factor outweighs the rollover factor? Not according to our "paper of record." On Aug. 17 the NYT reported that The gap in safety between sport utility vehicles and passenger cars last year was the widest yet recorded, according to new federal traffic data. ... People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in standard automobiles. This is no longer available for free at the NYT web site, but I bet if you google "Safety Gap Grows" and "SUVs" you'll find the story or something similar.

Now that I think more about it, you're probably right - I would think an SUV
is harder to drive, and also probably breeds a false sense of security, too.

heh heh - how ironic :)

JWB wrote:
You're taking adultery, listing all the potential pitfalls, and making it a "what if", like adultery is a special case or something. As Doug said, you can get killed by a drunk (or sober) driver merely going to the movies. Just getting out of bed and walking out your front door is full of risks and "what if's".

In that sense it isn't a special case, it's part of the standard
risk/benefit evaluation that we're all doing all the time. I walk to a
movie theater two blocks from my house without having to cross a major
intersection. I rarely go (because of the need for a babysitter, as Tai
points out) so I really only go when it's a movie I'd really like. My
chances of being killed on the way to a movie are so close to zero that
I don't even ponder it. IF, on the other hand, I had to cross a
four-lane highway in the dark on foot without a cross-walk to get to the
multiplex then I'd think twice about whether the movie was worth it. In
fact, society would make jay-walking illegal and discourage people from
attempting it because of the known risks.

Sure, you can argue that it's YOUR life and it's worth your evaluation
of the risk of getting killed to see Spiderman 2, but that's 'cuz you're
young and stupid and need to be protected from yourself. Because it
wouldn't just be YOU that got hurt when you got hit by a car, some poor
sucker who hit you will go through the windshield, some kid gets to see
your decapitated head, your parents grieve for the rest of their life.

Are the chances HIGH of this happening? No, but the down-side is SO
huge, and the upside is SO little, that a reasonable risk/benefit
analysis would say don't cross a four-lane highway in the dark on foot.
I guess I don't understand why this is an issue you want to dissect this way - what makes "adultery" so special in this regard that it warrants a discussion _in this context_ (over say, any other of a million "what if's" involving interaction with people)

The answer to that one is easy. It was the subject of this thread.

Dally

JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bQO_c.1320$ip2.488@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:XgO_c.8362$w%6.5087@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal and> social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the> home> are ok with it.> If it involves consenting adults, and does not break any laws, exactly
what is wrong with that? Children? Anybody care about what the children see and learn? Modeling? Setting good examples? Nah. I'm not convinced it's "society's" responsibility to set good examples.
It's more the job of parents.

Yup. And just who do you think comprises Society? Parents do (and non
parents too, of course). But since society is propagated thru
children.... (etc)

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip) I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. None of your "translations" have anything to do with what I said, or with what I believe. Yes they do (IMO). Try to look at what you said more objectively, and
less defensively. But I'm telling you that they do not. And they are my opinions, so I can be quite certain, objectively, that you are not representing them at all. How can you with a straight face claim to know more about my opinions than I do? That is surely the ultimate hubris. Doug

I wouldn't make it such a blanket statement as that. But - often others
see things in each of us that we don't see ourselves. Is that hubris?
I don't think so.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:42:03 GMT, JWB
<bigtommktyjb543@servo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bQO_c.1320$ip2.488@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:XgO_c.8362$w%6.5087@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal and> social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the> home> are ok with it.> If it involves consenting adults, and does not break any laws, exactly what is wrong with that? Children? Anybody care about what the children see and learn? Modeling? Setting good examples? Nah. I'm not convinced it's "society's" responsibility to set good examples. It's more the job of parents.

Why not?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:42:03 GMT, JWB <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bQO_c.1320$ip2.488@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:XgO_c.8362$w%6.5087@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...>>> Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal
and>> social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the>> home>> are ok with it.>>>> If it involves consenting adults, and does not break any laws, exactly
what> is wrong with that? Children? Anybody care about what the children see and learn? Modeling? Setting good examples? Nah. I'm not convinced it's "society's" responsibility to set good examples.
It's more the job of parents. Why not?

Actually, you don't have to look very hard to see what has been happening to
society (unless you are living in a cave).

(Which....hmmm....is sounding more and more enticing to me, come to think of
it. That way you don't have to see this societal decline anymore. One
of those "out-of-sight, out-of-mind", things).

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncjnml9.pml.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:42:03 GMT, JWB <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:bQO_c.1320$ip2.488@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net... JWB wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:XgO_c.8362$w%6.5087@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...>>> Translation (from Doug's liberal viewpoint): Any and all personal>> and>> social behavior is acceptable, as long as the two individuals in the>> home>> are ok with it.>>>> If it involves consenting adults, and does not break any laws, exactly what> is wrong with that? Children? Anybody care about what the children see and learn? Modeling? Setting good examples? Nah. I'm not convinced it's "society's" responsibility to set good examples. It's more the job of parents. Why not?

For the same reason I'm against outlawing something like cigarettes and
cigars because using them sets "bad examples". I'm all for somewhat
restricting things so people who don't want to see it generally won't, but
it can go way too far (like recent smoking laws).

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:>> (snip)>> I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. None of your> "translations" have anything to do with what I said, or with what I> believe. Yes they do (IMO). Try to look at what you said more objectively, and less defensively. But I'm telling you that they do not. And they are my opinions, so I can be quite certain, objectively, that you are not representing them at all. How can you with a straight face claim to know more about my opinions than I do? That is surely the ultimate hubris. I wouldn't make it such a blanket statement as that.

But you did.

You claimed to know what my opinions were. I told you you were wrong,
and you still maintain that you know my opinions and I don't!

You don't think that is hubris? OK then.

Doug

"Dally" <dally@myself.com> wrote in message
news:2q216mFqfr8dU1@uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: You're taking adultery, listing all the potential pitfalls, and making it a "what if", like adultery is a special case or something. As Doug said, you can get killed by a drunk (or sober) driver merely going to the movies. Just getting out of bed and walking out your front door is full of risks and "what if's". In that sense it isn't a special case, it's part of the standard risk/benefit evaluation that we're all doing all the time. I walk to a movie theater two blocks from my house without having to cross a major intersection. I rarely go (because of the need for a babysitter, as Tai points out) so I really only go when it's a movie I'd really like. My chances of being killed on the way to a movie are so close to zero that I don't even ponder it. IF, on the other hand, I had to cross a four-lane highway in the dark on foot without a cross-walk to get to the multiplex then I'd think twice about whether the movie was worth it. In fact, society would make jay-walking illegal and discourage people from attempting it because of the known risks. Sure, you can argue that it's YOUR life and it's worth your evaluation of the risk of getting killed to see Spiderman 2, but that's 'cuz you're young and stupid and need to be protected from yourself. Because it wouldn't just be YOU that got hurt when you got hit by a car, some poor sucker who hit you will go through the windshield, some kid gets to see your decapitated head, your parents grieve for the rest of their life. Are the chances HIGH of this happening? No, but the down-side is SO huge, and the upside is SO little, that a reasonable risk/benefit analysis would say don't cross a four-lane highway in the dark on foot. I guess I don't understand why this is an issue you want to dissect this way - what makes "adultery" so special in this regard that it warrants a discussion _in this context_ (over say, any other of a million "what if's" involving interaction with people) The answer to that one is easy. It was the subject of this thread.

well, yea :)

But you almost can't discuss it in the context you have without reverting to
"well, *everything* has 'what if' risks"

If you are saying that adultery has a higher level of risk than many other
behaviors, I would agree.

But you are also comparing the "other" person in adultery to someone who
hits a pedestrian, which isn't a great comparison, even though they are
both the "other party". The other person in the relationship is in the
situation by choice. The driver of the car is in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Two very different things.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules or standards for morality in society.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to
put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules or standards for morality in society. No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort.

OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having some
actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
don't recall you ever saying or supporting that.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2q1vl3Fqi9mvU2@uni-berlin.de>... "JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2q1o88Fq5os5U1@uni-berlin.de... SUVs are farm more dangerous than ordinary cars. But people buy them anyhow because they consider the extra risk to be worth whatever benefit having an SUV provides. We're both on the same page with SUV's (largely being against them), but aren't SUV's supposidly safer than a regular car for the people in it? That the crash survival factor outweighs the rollover factor? Not according to our "paper of record." On Aug. 17 the NYT reported that The gap in safety between sport utility vehicles and passenger cars last year was the widest yet recorded, according to new federal traffic data. ... People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in standard automobiles. This is no longer available for free at the NYT web site, but I bet if you google "Safety Gap Grows" and "SUVs" you'll find the story or something similar.

Yup, this is true. SUVs cause more accidents and have a higher
fatality rate than passenger cars. If an SUV hits a passenger car, the
fatality risk to
the passenger car driver is higher.

What most people don't seem to understand is that an SUV is not
considered in the same class as a passenger car. SUVs are classified
as light trucks. Because of that classification, they are exempt from
all the strict safety standards of a typical passenger car.

Not only that, they don't need to bother to meet the same mileage or
emissions standards:

http://www.suv.org/environ.html

"Sport utility vehicles can spew 30 percent more carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars"

Oh, and I can't help but add my pet peeve: we live in the city and the
roads were never designed to accomodate SUVs. I can't tell you how
many times my life has passed before my eyes because an SUV comes
barreling down a street that's not wide enough for us both.

jen

Noah Spam <NoahSpam@none4me.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.04.13.40.51.580483@none4me.org>... A comedian made a joke about what things would be "awesome". He said that Shania Twain at his dressing room wearing nothing but a fur coat and holding a letter from his wife saying "Have fun" would be awesome.

Changing the hypotheticals just slightly, I am curious to know how men
would respond if the wife's letter had the following p.s.:

"P.s. bear in mind what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
"

IOW, if by taking your wife up on her generous offer, you knew she'd
also go out and have her own extramarital fling, would you still
proceed with Shania?

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2q1vl3Fqi9mvU2@uni-berlin.de>... "JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2q1o88Fq5os5U1@uni-berlin.de... > SUVs are farm more dangerous than ordinary cars. But people > buy them anyhow because they consider the extra risk to be worth > whatever benefit having an SUV provides. We're both on the same page with SUV's (largely being against them), but aren't SUV's supposidly safer than a regular car for the people in it? That the crash survival factor outweighs the rollover factor? Not according to our "paper of record." On Aug. 17 the NYT reported that The gap in safety between sport utility vehicles and passenger cars last year was the widest yet recorded, according to new federal traffic data. ... People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in standard automobiles. This is no longer available for free at the NYT web site, but I bet if you google "Safety Gap Grows" and "SUVs" you'll find the story or something similar. Yup, this is true. SUVs cause more accidents and have a higher fatality rate than passenger cars. If an SUV hits a passenger car, the fatality risk to the passenger car driver is higher. What most people don't seem to understand is that an SUV is not considered in the same class as a passenger car. SUVs are classified as light trucks. Because of that classification, they are exempt from all the strict safety standards of a typical passenger car. Not only that, they don't need to bother to meet the same mileage or emissions standards: http://www.suv.org/environ.html "Sport utility vehicles can spew 30 percent more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75 percent more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars" Oh, and I can't help but add my pet peeve: we live in the city and the roads were never designed to accomodate SUVs. I can't tell you how many times my life has passed before my eyes because an SUV comes barreling down a street that's not wide enough for us both.

One more SUV peeve. The "heavy SUVs" (6 thousand pounds or more) are
eligible for a huge tax break if you claim to be buying them for
business use and are self-employed.

_How_ did Detroit get that law through? Grr.

http://www.selfemployedweb.com/suv-tax-deduction-6.htm

Bill in Co. wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules
or standards for morality in society. No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having some actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I don't recall you ever saying or supporting that.

So you mean I was right? That was what I was saying in my first post,
which you objected to - and said I misinterpreted you.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Bill in Co. wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:> So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules or> standards for morality in society. No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having some actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you ever saying or supporting that. So you mean I was right? That was what I was saying in my first post, which you objected to - and said I misinterpreted you.

No, I don't mean you are right and haven't said that I meant that.

The post you are following up is _yours_ not mine.

"Dally" <dally@myself.com> wrote in message
news:2q357hFqutmdU1@uni-berlin.de... Rules exist as a short-hand for people who haven't thought through the consequences of their actions, and to protect people who aren't empowered enough to stand up for themselves for whatever reason.

And what about those people who can and do think through their actions and
who have the security, ability and communication skills to discuss something
like this with their spouse?
If a rule against adultery weren't already invented (and codified in nearly every marriage vow) then it would BE invented.

Historically, if you look back, men were allowed to commit "adultery", and
women haven't been. It's only been in the last two hundred years or so that
women have been allowed to petition for a divorce based on adultery (and if
I wanted to get real specific, I believe the first divorce based on adultery
was in Virginia), and I believe only if a child resulted out of it. Because
of that, I have a little bit of trouble believing that the rules against
adultery were codified because of whatever harm to society.

Jess

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xn%_c.8864$w%6.1776@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Bill in Co. wrote: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:> So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules or> standards for morality in society. No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having some actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you ever saying or supporting that. So you mean I was right? That was what I was saying in my first post, which you objected to - and said I misinterpreted you.


Do you realize you're arguing with yourself?

*You* wrote the "ok then" paragraph, and you also wrote the "so you mean I
was right" reply to it.

in article BT%_c.31617$Ot3.22867@twister.nyc.rr.com, JWB at
bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com
wrote on 9/6/04 10:03 AM:
"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xn%_c.8864$w%6.1776@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Bill in Co. wrote: Doug Anderson wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:>>> So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules or>> standards for morality in society.>> No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to> put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having some actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall you ever saying or supporting that. So you mean I was right? That was what I was saying in my first post, which you objected to - and said I misinterpreted you. Do you realize you're arguing with yourself? *You* wrote the "ok then" paragraph, and you also wrote the "so you mean I was right" reply to it.

I said to myself, "Self,² I said ...

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Bill in Co. wrote: Doug Anderson wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:>>> So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules
or>> standards for morality in society.>> No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to> put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having some actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I don't recall you ever saying or supporting that. So you mean I was right? That was what I was saying in my first post, which you objected to - and said I misinterpreted you. No, I don't mean you are right and haven't said that I meant that. The post you are following up is _yours_ not mine.

I asked you to correct me if I was wrong, and hearing none, assumed I was
right.

Speaking of which, you still haven't explicitly stated that you believe in
having any "moral standards" for society. I've never heard you say
anything to indicate that - in fact, more to indicate just the opposite.
Do you actually deny that? IOW, that people should be free to do as they
see fit (well, as long as nobody gets physically hurt, or whatever)

What moral standards for society have you said you believe in - moral
standards that should exist to protect society?

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Bill in Co. wrote:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:>>>>> So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY rules or>>> standards for morality in society.>>>> No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to>> put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort.>> OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having some> actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I> don't recall you ever saying or supporting that. So you mean I was right? That was what I was saying in my first post, which you objected to - and said I misinterpreted you. No, I don't mean you are right and haven't said that I meant that. The post you are following up is _yours_ not mine. I asked you to correct me if I was wrong, and hearing none, assumed I was right.

You're wrong. I've corrected you on that already.
Speaking of which, you still haven't explicitly stated that you believe in having any "moral standards" for society. I've never heard you say anything to indicate that - in fact, more to indicate just the opposite. Do you actually deny that? IOW, that people should be free to do as they see fit (well, as long as nobody gets physically hurt, or whatever) What moral standards for society have you said you believe in - moral standards that should exist to protect society?

Since you put words in my mouth, insult me, and seem incapable of
reading my words (as opposed to the ideas you have in your brain about
me) it seems pointless to make a serious response.

But I'll give you one anyhow.

My moral standards include:

-honesty

-courtesy

-allowing people the right to live as they please as long as they
don't harm others.

I suspect we agree on the first one. We clearly disagree on the
second two.

Doug

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:> Bill in Co. wrote:>> Doug Anderson wrote:>>> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:>>>>>>> So (again) what you're effectively saying is, let's not have ANY
rules>>>> or standards for morality in society.>>>>>> No, that isn't what I'm saying. Once again, I would ask you not to>>> put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort.>>>> OK then. I must have missed where you said you believed in having
some>> actual standards of morality for society. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but>> I don't recall you ever saying or supporting that.>> So you mean I was right? That was what I was saying in my first
post,> which you objected to - and said I misinterpreted you. No, I don't mean you are right and haven't said that I meant that. The post you are following up is _yours_ not mine. I asked you to correct me if I was wrong, and hearing none, assumed I was right. You're wrong. I've corrected you on that already. Speaking of which, you still haven't explicitly stated that you believe
in having any "moral standards" for society. I've never heard you say anything to indicate that - in fact, more to indicate just the opposite. Do you actually deny that? IOW, that people should be free to do as
they see fit (well, as long as nobody gets physically hurt, or whatever) What moral standards for society have you said you believe in - moral standards that should exist to protect society? Since you put words in my mouth, insult me, and seem incapable of reading my words (as opposed to the ideas you have in your brain about me) it seems pointless to make a serious response. But I'll give you one anyhow. My moral standards include: -honesty -courtesy -allowing people the right to live as they please as long as they don't harm others. I suspect we agree on the first one. We clearly disagree on the second two. Doug

That's not being honest. I've seen you make some discourteous remarks, and
not just to me. Yes, I am guilty too. BUT - I never said I was a Mother
Teresa, and I don't hold myself out to be.

And on the last one, you say "as long as they don't harm others". But how
do you define "harm"? I think you believe it has to be "life threatening",
or it isn't to be construed as harm.

For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS harm.
And that is where we differ - I think. I believe that this society is in
desperate need of a moral compass, and (I believe, from what you have -and
have not - said), you do not believe that. Again - I think that is where
we differ.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:

(snip)
For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS harm. And that is where we differ - I think.

Once again speaking for me. Please don't.

I don't believe in raising kids without morals or principles. My
principles (as outlined in my previous post) aren't the same as yours
in some respects. That doesn't mean that I don't have any. It also
doesn't mean that I don't communicate them to my children.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip) For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS
harm. And that is where we differ - I think. Once again speaking for me. Please don't. I don't believe in raising kids without morals or principles. My principles (as outlined in my previous post) aren't the same as yours in some respects. That doesn't mean that I don't have any. It also doesn't mean that I don't communicate them to my children.

OK for you, and ok for me, and quite a few others, I'm sure. But what
about the rest of society? What about the ones that DON'T?

What does bad parenting do to society? What is the "cost" to society?
Shall we just "let them be"? Do their own thing?

Isn't that what we have now? Plenty of examples .... of social decadence?
of social depravity? and social unrest?

Just because it's always been this way, doesn't mean it should continue to
be this way.

Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: People have to do their own cost-benefit analysis but I agree with those who feel even adultery-with-permission is unlikely to end well.

While I agree with you there, the key point is that we have to trust people
to do their own cost-benefit analysis when it comes to very private behavior
like that, because the alternative to doing so -- trying to legislate
private morals between consenting individuals -- is far too prone to abuse.

And I've seen people in poly relationships happily married to their primary,
and involved in various secondary relationships. It seems to work fairly
well for some people, even if I doubt it would work for me.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: And again, although the sample I know is small, I don't happen to know of any married couple where one of the partners has slept with someone else (with permission) and the couple has gotten divorced.

I'm active enough in geek circles that overlap with poly ones that I do know
a couple who were poly and involved with other people and who got divorced.
Since that's one out of several poly couples I know, I don't know that
either sample can be called representative.

-- Trajan

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:9buu02xrfd.ln2@mail.sfchat.org... Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: People have to do their own cost-benefit analysis but I agree with those who feel even adultery-with-permission is unlikely to end well. While I agree with you there, the key point is that we have to trust
people to do their own cost-benefit analysis when it comes to very private
behavior like that, because the alternative to doing so -- trying to legislate private morals between consenting individuals -- is far too prone to
abuse.

I couldn't agree with you more.
And I've seen people in poly relationships happily married to their
primary, and involved in various secondary relationships. It seems to work fairly well for some people, even if I doubt it would work for me.

I just wonder how they have the time! (Maybe they need only about 3 hours
sleep per 24 hours.)

Tai

Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: And I've seen people in poly relationships happily married to their primary, and involved in various secondary relationships. It seems to work fairly well for some people, even if I doubt it would work for me. I just wonder how they have the time! (Maybe they need only about 3 hours sleep per 24 hours.)

Kids long since out of the house, or choosing not to have kids in the first
place, I think.

The other thing I realized, after posting, was that everyone who I know
who's poly and married was poly first and then married.

Their relationships do seem stable, though -- and I wonder whether the
frequent trouble with "open marriages" is as much because they're
_renegotiating_ the fundamental basis of the relationship as it is any
difference in the stability of relationships which were either monogamous or
non-monogamous to begin with.

-- Trajan

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:e%1%c.9122$w%
For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS
harm. And that is where we differ - I think.

Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would
argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is
GRRRRRRRRRRReat!"

Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't
acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people.
When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond painting
with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon.

Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with "morals
and principles." Why not argue this fairly?

Jennifer

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2q3bbqFqo85nU2@uni-berlin.de...
One more SUV peeve. The "heavy SUVs" (6 thousand pounds or more) are eligible for a huge tax break if you claim to be buying them for business use and are self-employed. _How_ did Detroit get that law through? Grr.

Strange, isn't it? Last year our accountant encouraged us to buy an SUV for
our business. My brother just bought one for his own business, on his
accountant's advice. FWIW, I would be happy to drive an SUV, but our
business runs better using minivans, so we declined to buy one.

Jennifer

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:e%1%c.9122$w% For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS
harm. And that is where we differ - I think. Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone
would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people. When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond painting with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with "morals and principles." Why not argue this fairly? Jennifer

There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without
morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY
others). The drudges of society, so to speak.

So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting society,
and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some
others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house is
my business", End of Story - MEANING that we as a society don't have the
need - or right - to set up or impose ANY moral standards for anybody else.
Or to put it more succinctly, the belief is simply: "society will take care
of itself" (and if it can't, it's not MY responsibility or concern or
business)

Correct me if I'm wrong. But that's what I meant, even if I didn't say
it right the first time.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:e%1%c.9122$w% For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS harm. And that is where we differ - I think. Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people. When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond painting with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with "morals and principles." Why not argue this fairly? Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house is my business"

Putting words in my mouth yet again.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:e%1%c.9122$w% For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS harm. And that is where we differ - I think. Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people. When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond
painting with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with
"morals and principles." Why not argue this fairly? Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak.

I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society
being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that
upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority of
those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas of
"morals and principles" and are following them according to their own
beliefs.

As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would find a
gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and
principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by their
children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed.
So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house
is my business", End of Story - MEANING that we as a society don't have the need - or right - to set up or impose ANY moral standards for anybody
else. Or to put it more succinctly, the belief is simply: "society will take
care of itself" (and if it can't, it's not MY responsibility or concern or business) Correct me if I'm wrong. But that's what I meant, even if I didn't say it right the first time.

I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to
hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly
curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-)

I happen to agree with Doug's general principles of right and wrong
(honesty, decency). It's cliched, and I'm an atheist, but the whole WWJD
(What Would Jesus Do) concept tends to work for me when I'm trying to
determine a moral course of action. I like "do unto others as you would
have them do unto you." I think that sort of barometer is beneficial.

As for laws/standards set up in a society, laws are changeable and reflect
current mores. I agree with most laws. Those I don't approve of, I can
seek to overturn. The "society" is constantly mutating, and what seems
reprehensible at one point in time (interracial marriages, adultery, gay
marriage) can be accepted and rewarded in future times. I think that's a
good thing.

There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it was
acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive, as
is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye
toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years to
come.

Jennifer

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:e%1%c.9122$w%> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS> harm. And that is where we differ - I think. Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone
would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people. When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond
painting with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with
"morals and principles." Why not argue this fairly? Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting
society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house
is my business" Putting words in my mouth yet again.

If you didn't say that, then I must have missed something. I thought you
wrote what goes on in the privacy of my home (and this is generic) is my
business, and nobody else's business - as a philosophy. Where was I
mistaken.

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:e%1%c.9122$w%> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS> harm. And that is where we differ - I think. Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people. When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond
painting with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with
"morals and principles." Why not argue this fairly? Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs.

Does this include the so many being raised today to be irresponsible for
their own actions (because of poor and/or absentee parenting)? Do you say
they are "following their own ideas of morals and principles?"
As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would find
a gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by their children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed. So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting
society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house
is my business", End of Story - MEANING that we as a society don't have the need - or right - to set up or impose ANY moral standards for anybody
else. Or to put it more succinctly, the belief is simply: "society will take
care of itself" (and if it can't, it's not MY responsibility or concern or business) Correct me if I'm wrong. But that's what I meant, even if I didn't
say it right the first time. I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-)

I'm just telling you that I feel that way. But yes, I do tend to see the
negative side of society - never have been too much of a Mary Poppins type.
What I've witnessed over the past few decades has not been encouraging to
me, with the single exception(s) of reporting abuse cases and race
discrimination (and that's about all that has improved in society, I think).
I happen to agree with Doug's general principles of right and wrong (honesty, decency). It's cliched, and I'm an atheist, but the whole WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) concept tends to work for me when I'm trying to determine a moral course of action. I like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I think that sort of barometer is beneficial.

Some people out there need a little more guidance, or their kids are going
to "come out the worse for it". Actually, already are. That's not fair
to them or society.
As for laws/standards set up in a society, laws are changeable and reflect current mores. I agree with most laws. Those I don't approve of, I can seek to overturn. The "society" is constantly mutating, and what seems reprehensible at one point in time (interracial marriages, adultery, gay marriage) can be accepted and rewarded in future times. I think that's a good thing. There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it was acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive, as is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years to come.

So how do you reconcile that optimism with the current 50%+ divorce rate,
and the breakdown in the family unit, and the increasing loss of the
neighborhoods and the "it takes a village" concept?
Jennifer

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Jennifer in Maryland wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:e%1%c.9122$w%>>> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS>> harm. And that is where we differ - I think.>> Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would> argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is> GRRRRRRRRRRReat!">> Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't> acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people.> When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond painting> with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon.>> Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with "morals> and principles." Why not argue this fairly?>> Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house is my business" Putting words in my mouth yet again. If you didn't say that, then I must have missed something. I thought you wrote what goes on in the privacy of my home (and this is generic) is my business, and nobody else's business - as a philosophy.

Find anyplace I've said that.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9Zb%c.216
I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority
of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas
of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs. Does this include the so many being raised today to be irresponsible for their own actions (because of poor and/or absentee parenting)? Do you
say they are "following their own ideas of morals and principles?"

Well, you're making the assumption that those who are irresponsible for
their own actions are that way because of poor and/or absentee parenting. I
think that's a huge step in logic. I think parenting is one factor in why a
person turns out as he/she does, but it's not the only factor.

Further, what do you think of as irresponsible? I might find someone's
actions to be both moral and responsible, while you might say that same
person is immoral and irresponsible. It all comes down to perception, IMO.

Be more specific about "the so many being raised today (who are)
irresponsible for their own actions."
I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-) I'm just telling you that I feel that way. But yes, I do tend to see
the negative side of society - never have been too much of a Mary Poppins
type. What I've witnessed over the past few decades has not been encouraging to me, with the single exception(s) of reporting abuse cases and race discrimination (and that's about all that has improved in society, I
think).

Well, that's something! <g> And I imagine if you're not a WASP male,
you're very relieved that society is moving toward a more colorblind and
open-minded direction. DH still remembers how it felt when he was in
Williamsburg, VA, during an instructional seminar, and as a WASP male, he
was the only one in the crowd at that time who could step forward and be the
person who, during the colonial times, would have been the
landowner/slaveowner/ruler of all he surveys. That's a lesson he and I have
never forgotten.

I believe there is so much that is positive about society, but you might not
be in the position to welcome all the changes, nor are you necessarily in a
position to know all the changes that have come about over the past 50 years
(i.e., they might not have affected you). I would say that improvements
have been made in workplace safety, child labor laws, medicine,
environmental protection, race and gender discrimination, mass
communication, military protection, space exploration, technology. I think
in nearly every aspect, the world has improved.

What I dislike, things like rudeness and incivility in general--well, that
sort of behavior has been around since the dawn of humankind, though there
have been periods of time during which our nation and other nations have had
laws in place that seek to enforce propriety. Those laws never seem to work
all that successfully, though, over the long haul. I think freedom of
choice, of necessity and desire, will typically out.

Certainly for all of humankind, there's been war, starvation, torture,
cruelty toward others, rudeness, murder, and all the other sins you can
imagine. If you can prove to me that (a) those things never existed until
the past (50?) years, and/or (b) those things have presented a larger
problem in the past (50) years than in any 50-year periods prior to 1954 or
so, then you have convinced me that the world now truly is more hellacious
than at any other time. Good luck. :-)

Anyway, it seems to me that your bugaboo is human behavior and your
perception that it has sunk to new lows. I will readily agree that humans
can be nasty, brutish, terrible beings, but there's just no sense in
imagining that their lives have become so much more like that over the past
few decades. Don't you think the more likely explanation is that *you* have
grown during the past 50 years, you miss the early days when life had
clarity for you and people appeared to follow the rules, and you have
personal, firsthand knowledge of this particular time period's decay?

FWIW, the people I know who are as old and older than you find this a
rewarding, exciting time during which to be alive. I wish you could look at
all the positives and write off the negatives as the same sort of dreck
that's been present since time began.
Some people out there need a little more guidance, or their kids are going to "come out the worse for it". Actually, already are. That's not
fair to them or society.

Who decides who needs "a little more guidance"? What sort of guidance do
you have in mind? Who determines what is fair? Do you think that if all
children receive guidance, then all children will benefit society? What
would be fair to society, in terms of what growing children/young adults
should proffer or become?
There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it
was acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive,
as is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years
to come. So how do you reconcile that optimism with the current 50%+ divorce rate, and the breakdown in the family unit, and the increasing loss of the neighborhoods and the "it takes a village" concept?

See the above <g>. Bill, come on. I'm optimistic because I'm living in a
golden age. That's where we are right now. If you went back 250 years and
took a person forward to this time, with the clean water, arable land,
communication and transportation abilities and such, he would have stars in
his eyes from the grandeur and wonder that we have and fail to appreciate
(in some of our cases).

You assume that 50% divorce rate is inherently a bad thing. I don't know
that I would say that's the case, not if it means that people who wanted to
divorce 100 years ago couldn't, either because they were scared, felt
unsupported, or didn't have the legal means to do so.

Perhaps we're moving toward a society without marriage. Perhaps the idea of
marriage is becoming outmoded. Who knows?? We'll be long gone when the
next society refines its ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

Breakdown in the family unit? Increasing loss of neighborhoods? It's all
changing, and it's always changed, and it always will change. Whatever
society chooses to accept and support, that perhaps will become the new
norm. We will have newly acceptable forms of family and neighborhood, such
as already happened in the past decades (single parent families, gay parent
families, interracial neighborhoods, multi-lingual neighborhoods).

You can say, "Hell, no! This isn't what I think of as family and
neighborhood!" Or, conversely, you can work to help those in the community
by supporting the choices they're making to live and get along. Your
choice, but in any case, there's no convincing argument that optimism is
unwarranted.

Jennifer

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:29:45 -0400, Jennifer in Maryland
<JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:e%1%c.9122$w%> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS harm.> And that is where we differ - I think. Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people. When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond painting with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with "morals and principles." Why not argue this fairly? Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs.

Then all people's moral beliefs are equally valid?
As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would find a gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by their children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed.

That's right. They want to intentionally deprive a child of a mother.
That is evil in my book. If I believe stealing is ok, it doesn't make it
right.

We have become weenies with regard to standing up for what good and right,
and we are reaping the rewards for it.
So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house is my business", End of Story - MEANING that we as a society don't have the need - or right - to set up or impose ANY moral standards for anybody else. Or to put it more succinctly, the belief is simply: "society will take care of itself" (and if it can't, it's not MY responsibility or concern or business) Correct me if I'm wrong. But that's what I meant, even if I didn't say it right the first time. I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-)

I don't agree either, but see a problem with the direction our society is
taking. We Americans are particularly problematic. We value personal
freedom over the collective good of society, and more and more people are
"pushing the envelope".
I happen to agree with Doug's general principles of right and wrong (honesty, decency). It's cliched, and I'm an atheist, but the whole WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) concept tends to work for me when I'm trying to determine a moral course of action. I like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I think that sort of barometer is beneficial.

That's nice. Your conscience seems to be pretty well informed. Others'
however might not be.
As for laws/standards set up in a society, laws are changeable and reflect current mores. I agree with most laws. Those I don't approve of, I can seek to overturn. The "society" is constantly mutating, and what seems reprehensible at one point in time (interracial marriages, adultery, gay marriage) can be accepted and rewarded in future times. I think that's a good thing.

And likewise. If I see the need for a new law, I can fight to institute.
This is the nature of our society (at least in the US)
There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it was acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive, as is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years to come.

Are we right now, or were we right then?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:29:45 -0400, Jennifer in Maryland <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: > "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:e%1%c.9122$w% > >> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS harm. >> And that is where we differ - I think. > > Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is > GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" > > Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't > acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people. > When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond painting > with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. > > Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with "morals > and principles." Why not argue this fairly? > > Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs. Then all people's moral beliefs are equally valid?

No. Mine are valid and everyone elses are wrong.

Like that solution? No? Then we have to leave some latitude for
people to make their own decisions about what are valid moral beliefs.
As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would find a gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by their children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed. That's right. They want to intentionally deprive a child of a mother. That is evil in my book. If I believe stealing is ok, it doesn't make it right. We have become weenies with regard to standing up for what good and right, and we are reaping the rewards for it.

Speak for yourself. I'm no weenie on standing up for what is good and
right. Of course I happen to disagree with you on what _is_ good and
right.
So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house is my business", End of Story - MEANING that we as a society don't have the need - or right - to set up or impose ANY moral standards for anybody else. Or to put it more succinctly, the belief is simply: "society will take care of itself" (and if it can't, it's not MY responsibility or concern or business) Correct me if I'm wrong. But that's what I meant, even if I didn't say it right the first time. I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-) I don't agree either, but see a problem with the direction our society is taking. We Americans are particularly problematic. We value personal freedom over the collective good of society, and more and more people are "pushing the envelope".

This I agree with. Though I suspect I disagree about who's pushing
the envelope.

Doug

Bill in Co. <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: So how do you reconcile that optimism with the current 50%+ divorce rate, and the breakdown in the family unit, and the increasing loss of the neighborhoods and the "it takes a village" concept?

Neighborhoods are gone. They're more extant in the inner city right now than
they are in the suburbs; you can thank land-use policy and the habits of
developers and local governments a lot more than you can "moral" changes on
the part of society -- changes that seemed like a good thing in the 1950s
came back to roost in the 1970s and early 1980s.

-- Trajan

trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) writes:
Bill in Co. <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote: So how do you reconcile that optimism with the current 50%+ divorce rate, and the breakdown in the family unit, and the increasing loss of the neighborhoods and the "it takes a village" concept? Neighborhoods are gone. They're more extant in the inner city right now than they are in the suburbs; you can thank land-use policy and the habits of developers and local governments a lot more than you can "moral" changes on the part of society -- changes that seemed like a good thing in the 1950s came back to roost in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Although I agree with you about the reasons (land use and
transportation policies), I think you go a bit far when you say
"neighborhoods are gone." I live in one in a small city (about
140,000) that has had better than average (but still very poor) land
use planning.

Doug

Doug Anderson wrote: Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes: On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:29:45 -0400, Jennifer in Maryland <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> Jennifer in Maryland wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:e%1%c.9122$w%>>>>> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles
IS>>> harm. And that is where we differ - I think.>>>> Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone> would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is>> GRRRRRRRRRRReat!">>>> Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't>> acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all
people.>> When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond
painting>> with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon.>>>> Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with
"morals>> and principles." Why not argue this fairly?>>>> Jennifer>> There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids
without> morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY> others). The drudges of society, so to speak. I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority
of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas
of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs. Then all people's moral beliefs are equally valid? No. Mine are valid and everyone elses are wrong. Like that solution? No? Then we have to leave some latitude for people to make their own decisions about what are valid moral beliefs. As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would
find a gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by
their children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed. That's right. They want to intentionally deprive a child of a mother. That is evil in my book. If I believe stealing is ok, it doesn't make it right. We have become weenies with regard to standing up for what good and
right, and we are reaping the rewards for it. Speak for yourself. I'm no weenie on standing up for what is good and right. Of course I happen to disagree with you on what _is_ good and right.> So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting
society,> and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some> others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic)
house is> my business", End of Story - MEANING that we as a society don't have
the> need - or right - to set up or impose ANY moral standards for anybody
else.> Or to put it more succinctly, the belief is simply: "society will take
care> of itself" (and if it can't, it's not MY responsibility or concern or> business)>> Correct me if I'm wrong. But that's what I meant, even if I didn't
say> it right the first time. I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-) I don't agree either, but see a problem with the direction our society is taking. We Americans are particularly problematic. We value personal freedom over the collective good of society, and more and more people are "pushing the envelope". This I agree with.

If you agree with it, what do you propose be *done* about it? Let
everybody continue to "do their own thing"?

After all, nobody has the right to impose "their" values on others, right?
What goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right?

Do you think people are going to learn by themselves, with "no incentive"?

Bottom line: put down some standards for society to follow, and enforce
them, or just chuck the whole damn thing in the trash can.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:

(snip)
If you agree with it, what do you propose be *done* about it? Let everybody continue to "do their own thing"? After all, nobody has the right to impose "their" values on others, right? What goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right? Do you think people are going to learn by themselves, with "no incentive"? Bottom line: put down some standards for society to follow, and enforce them, or just chuck the whole damn thing in the trash can.

Bottom line: Bill ignores what I say, and puts words into my mouth
for me.

Tony Miller wrote: On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:29:45 -0400, Jennifer in Maryland <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote:> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message> news:e%1%c.9122$w%>>> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles IS>> harm. And that is where we differ - I think.>> Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is> GRRRRRRRRRRReat!">> Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't> acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all people.> When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond
painting> with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon.>> Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with
"morals> and principles." Why not argue this fairly?>> Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas
of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs. Then all people's moral beliefs are equally valid?

NO! Some people have no morals. Period.
As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would
find a gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by
their children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed. That's right. They want to intentionally deprive a child of a mother. That is evil in my book. If I believe stealing is ok, it doesn't make it right. We have become weenies with regard to standing up for what good and right, and we are reaping the rewards for it.

SING IT AGAIN!. Understatement of the year. Total wimpies. It's
either PC time, or run an hide like the cowards we've become as a cociety.
God help us if we take a stand. Some dip**** might object and "be
personally offended".
So, where we differ is, I see this as a MAJOR problem confronting
society, and something needs to be done about it, but I believe Doug (and some others) have the philosophy that "whatever goes on in my (generic) house
is my business", End of Story - MEANING that we as a society don't have the need - or right - to set up or impose ANY moral standards for anybody
else. Or to put it more succinctly, the belief is simply: "society will take
care of itself" (and if it can't, it's not MY responsibility or concern or business) Correct me if I'm wrong. But that's what I meant, even if I didn't
say it right the first time. I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-) I don't agree either, but see a problem with the direction our society is taking. We Americans are particularly problematic. We value personal freedom over the collective good of society, and more and more people are "pushing the envelope".

Now THAT is the Truth. Where is that envelope? Wait a minute. OK,
I see it over there on the floor....
I happen to agree with Doug's general principles of right and wrong (honesty, decency). It's cliched, and I'm an atheist, but the whole WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) concept tends to work for me when I'm trying to determine a moral course of action. I like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I think that sort of barometer is beneficial. That's nice. Your conscience seems to be pretty well informed. Others' however might not be.

MIGHT not be????? Try ARE not!
As for laws/standards set up in a society, laws are changeable and
reflect current mores. I agree with most laws. Those I don't approve of, I can seek to overturn. The "society" is constantly mutating, and what seems reprehensible at one point in time (interracial marriages, adultery, gay marriage) can be accepted and rewarded in future times. I think that's a good thing. And likewise. If I see the need for a new law, I can fight to institute. This is the nature of our society (at least in the US) There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it was acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive,
as is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years
to come. Are we right now, or were we right then?

It's a partially mixed bag. And nobody ever wins.

"...we never win; only the farmers win.." (from The Magnificent Seven, with
Yul Brynner)
-Tony

"Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrncjrhcu.4rb.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:29:45 -0400, Jennifer in Maryland <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: > "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:e%1%c.9122$w% > >> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles
IS harm. >> And that is where we differ - I think. > > Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is > GRRRRRRRRRRReat!" > > Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't > acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all
people. > When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond painting > with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon. > > Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with "morals > and principles." Why not argue this fairly? > > Jennifer There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids
without morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY others). The drudges of society, so to speak. I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority
of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas
of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs. Then all people's moral beliefs are equally valid?

Nope. But people might be moral in ways which we don't see or understand.
I'm not into relativism, but then again, I'm not a black/white thinker,
either, lol. I would say there are certain moral precepts that should be
followed (the honesty, decency, treat each other as you'd wish to be treated
ones), and I believe that the "dregs of society" can instill those values in
ways which Bill might not acknowledge. Or, at least, those dregs might TRY,
but then the kids get out on the street and have their heads turned by all
the rest that's out there.
As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would
find a gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by
their children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed. That's right. They want to intentionally deprive a child of a mother. That is evil in my book. If I believe stealing is ok, it doesn't make it right.

Nope, it all evens out, because some children have no mother, but the other
children (of lesbian parents) get *two* mothers. :-D Okay, I'm being
facetious, but there's no debating something like this, IMO.
I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-) I don't agree either, but see a problem with the direction our society is taking. We Americans are particularly problematic. We value personal freedom over the collective good of society, and more and more people are "pushing the envelope".

It will all work out in the end. It's all just bumps along the road. As
more and more people feel the way you do, changes will be made, and society
could or might veer toward a new direction. At least we have the freedom to
change our laws.
I happen to agree with Doug's general principles of right and wrong (honesty, decency). It's cliched, and I'm an atheist, but the whole
WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) concept tends to work for me when I'm trying to determine a moral course of action. I like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I think that sort of barometer is beneficial. That's nice. Your conscience seems to be pretty well informed. Others' however might not be.

<s> I just believe we don't know what others' consciences are like. I
can't look at a particular situation and damn the people involved as being
immoral or relativistic.
As for laws/standards set up in a society, laws are changeable and
reflect current mores. I agree with most laws. Those I don't approve of, I can seek to overturn. The "society" is constantly mutating, and what seems reprehensible at one point in time (interracial marriages, adultery, gay marriage) can be accepted and rewarded in future times. I think that's
a good thing. And likewise. If I see the need for a new law, I can fight to institute. This is the nature of our society (at least in the US)

Amen to that! Freedom, democracy, and the American way (throw in some pie
and let's all overeat). ;-)
There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it
was acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive,
as is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years
to come. Are we right now, or were we right then?

See, I don't think there's *right* in regard to something societal like
that. If a society in its overall complexity rewards or encourages a
certain behavior, that behavior will flourish. Likewise, if the people in
that society rise up and seek a different direction, ultimately things will
change. If it's a democracy, there'll be changes made to the laws. If it's
not, there will be violence and bloodshed in hopes to attain that change.

If I were of the earlier time, I'd say, heck yeah, my kids should be out
working in the factory at age 7 and bringing home the bacon. Now, I'd say,
heck yeah, my kids should be dancing out in the dandelion fields at age 7.
We can assume that enough people found the child labor principle barbaric
that it was changed (as history tells us), and we can predict that, given
time, other countries will follow that lead. Or not.

Most patterns of behavior do tend to be fluid. I think Doug did a good job
outlining a few moral absolutes. I don't think there are many, however.
(E.g., do not kill...unless it's wartime, etc.) I know I try to be a Good
Person, but I have to acknowledge that I'm following basic societal
guidelines that might change completely in 100 years. Who knows, in 200
years the citizenry might be appalled that we kept animals as pets. Or that
we had children leave our houses at age 18. Or that we had junk food sold
in schools (I'd like to stick around for that one).

Jennifer

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HYm%c.528
NO! Some people have no morals. Period.

Sure, Bill, you have your occasional psychopaths. They've always been
around. Mass murderers and the like. You could probably look into their
backgrounds and feel downright sorry for how they were treated as children,
but okay, let's say that those bastards have no morals.

Well? Haven't we always had immoral, psychopathic people unconcerned about
their treatment of others? What's your argument, that people can be really
crappy? I don't get how that says anything about today's society,
considering the presence of the criminal mind for, oh, millennia. Heck,
biblically speaking, Eve failed to listen to God, the ultimate parent. I
guess she was created immoral (lack of honesty), which is sort of the
biblical point, isn't it? (Sorry I'm resorting to the Bible when I don't
even follow it, but there are good examples of human behavior!)
We have become weenies with regard to standing up for what good and
right, and we are reaping the rewards for it. SING IT AGAIN!. Understatement of the year. Total wimpies. It's either PC time, or run an hide like the cowards we've become as a cociety. God help us if we take a stand. Some dip**** might object and "be personally offended".

Bill, you're free to take a stand. That's the great thing about a
democracy. I guarantee you, you can actually put on a sandwich board
proclaiming, "You're all total wimpies, don't hide like cowards, you
dip****s!" and you won't be arrested. Try it and find out <g>. (Okay,
avoid private property you don't own.)

It's only PC time if you're afraid to say what you feel. Go and try to
change the laws, but don't get upset if/when others strike back at you
because they don't follow what you believe. Still, it's your obligation as
an honest citizen to stand up for what you believe...not just on a
newsgroup, but IRL.
Are we right now, or were we right then? It's a partially mixed bag. And nobody ever wins.

Yes, exactly. It's a mixed bag, and it has been since the dawn of time. So
why waste your life *****ing (I mean, unless it's really fun for you, in
which case, have at it)?

Jennifer

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpacw2uemy.fsf@ethel.the.log... "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip) If you agree with it, what do you propose be *done* about it? Let everybody continue to "do their own thing"? After all, nobody has the right to impose "their" values on others, right? What goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right? Do you think people are going to learn by themselves, with "no incentive"? Bottom line: put down some standards for society to follow, and enforce them, or just chuck the whole damn thing in the trash can. Bottom line: Bill ignores what I say, and puts words into my mouth for me.

Hello... Earth to Doug... are we on the same planet? If you walked the talk
like Mother Theresa and Fred Rogers did in the 50's, when everyone had
*personal responsibility* (I know, an advanced concept for you), then the
family unit wouldn't crumble and we wouldn't have so many money hungry
materialistic lawyers and other dredges of society with NO MORALS OR VALUES.

Bottom line Doug - you're for teaching kids mass murder and how to kill
puppies. You lack all morals because you don't have any convictions.

;)

in article 7Jn%c.31902$Ot3.10826@twister.nyc.rr.com, JWB at
bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com
wrote on 9/7/04 1:10 PM:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpacw2uemy.fsf@ethel.the.log... "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip) If you agree with it, what do you propose be *done* about it? Let everybody continue to "do their own thing"? After all, nobody has the right to impose "their" values on others, right? What goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right? Do you think people are going to learn by themselves, with "no incentive"? Bottom line: put down some standards for society to follow, and enforce them, or just chuck the whole damn thing in the trash can. Bottom line: Bill ignores what I say, and puts words into my mouth for me. Hello... Earth to Doug... are we on the same planet? If you walked the talk like Mother Theresa and Fred Rogers did in the 50's, when everyone had *personal responsibility* (I know, an advanced concept for you), then the family unit wouldn't crumble and we wouldn't have so many money hungry materialistic lawyers and other dredges of society with NO MORALS OR VALUES. Bottom line Doug - you're for teaching kids mass murder and how to kill puppies. You lack all morals because you don't have any convictions. ;)

And if you don't correct him within the next 23 minutes, he'll assume he's
right and call the FBI.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote: trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) writes: Neighborhoods are gone. They're more extant in the inner city right now than they are in the suburbs; you can thank land-use policy and the habits of Although I agree with you about the reasons (land use and transportation policies), I think you go a bit far when you say "neighborhoods are gone."

Yes, it was an overstatement... they certainly still exist. They're not even
all that hard to find if you're actively looking for one.

On the other hand, the portion of the middle class population that lives in
something recognizable as a functioning neighborhood is a pretty small one.
And the odds of moving into one, if you're not actively considering that
factor, is very small.
I live in one in a small city (about 140,000) that has had better than average (but still very poor) land use planning.

My folks still live in one back in New York, although gentrification nearly
killed it in the 1980s. I'm still waiting to see if it survives the current
real-estate boom.

-- Trajan

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message news:slrncjrhcu.4rb.tony@home.cigardiary.com... On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:29:45 -0400, Jennifer in Maryland <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ttb%c.9485$w%6.2118@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> Jennifer in Maryland wrote:>> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message>> news:e%1%c.9122$w%>>>>> For example, in MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles
IS>>> harm. And that is where we differ - I think.>>>> Bill, what are you talking about? Do you honestly think that someone> would argue, "In MY mind, raising kids without morals and principles is>> GRRRRRRRRRRReat!">>>> Come on. The problem is what you feel is moral & principled isn't>> acknowledged across the line as being moral & principled to all
people.>> When you make statements like the one above, you're going beyond
painting>> with a broad brush. You're spraypainting with abandon.>>>> Of course Doug doesn't differ that children should be raised with
"morals>> and principles." Why not argue this fairly?>>>> Jennifer>> There are a LOT of people in this world that DO raise their kids
without> morals and principles (not Doug or likely anybody here - but MANY, MANY> others). The drudges of society, so to speak. I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority
of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas
of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs. Then all people's moral beliefs are equally valid? Nope. But people might be moral in ways which we don't see or understand. I'm not into relativism, but then again, I'm not a black/white thinker, either, lol. I would say there are certain moral precepts that should be followed (the honesty, decency, treat each other as you'd wish to be
treated ones), and I believe that the "dregs of society" can instill those values
in ways which Bill might not acknowledge. Or, at least, those dregs might
TRY, but then the kids get out on the street and have their heads turned by all the rest that's out there. As an example, if you were someone opposed to gay marriage, you would
find a gay couple raising a child to be raising that child without morals and principles. Yet the gay parents believe that they are doing well by
their children because they don't agree that their marriage should be opposed. That's right. They want to intentionally deprive a child of a mother. That is evil in my book. If I believe stealing is ok, it doesn't make it right. Nope, it all evens out, because some children have no mother, but the
other children (of lesbian parents) get *two* mothers. :-D Okay, I'm being facetious, but there's no debating something like this, IMO. I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-) I don't agree either, but see a problem with the direction our society is taking. We Americans are particularly problematic. We value personal freedom over the collective good of society, and more and more people are "pushing the envelope". It will all work out in the end. It's all just bumps along the road. As more and more people feel the way you do, changes will be made, and
society could or might veer toward a new direction. At least we have the freedom
to change our laws. I happen to agree with Doug's general principles of right and wrong (honesty, decency). It's cliched, and I'm an atheist, but the whole
WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) concept tends to work for me when I'm trying to determine a moral course of action. I like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I think that sort of barometer is beneficial. That's nice. Your conscience seems to be pretty well informed. Others' however might not be. <s> I just believe we don't know what others' consciences are like. I can't look at a particular situation and damn the people involved as being immoral or relativistic. As for laws/standards set up in a society, laws are changeable and
reflect current mores. I agree with most laws. Those I don't approve of, I can seek to overturn. The "society" is constantly mutating, and what seems reprehensible at one point in time (interracial marriages, adultery, gay marriage) can be accepted and rewarded in future times. I think that's
a good thing. And likewise. If I see the need for a new law, I can fight to institute. This is the nature of our society (at least in the US) Amen to that! Freedom, democracy, and the American way (throw in some pie and let's all overeat). ;-) There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it
was acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive,
as is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years
to come. Are we right now, or were we right then? See, I don't think there's *right* in regard to something societal like that. If a society in its overall complexity rewards or encourages a certain behavior, that behavior will flourish. Likewise, if the people in that society rise up and seek a different direction, ultimately things
will change. If it's a democracy, there'll be changes made to the laws. If
it's not, there will be violence and bloodshed in hopes to attain that change. If I were of the earlier time, I'd say, heck yeah, my kids should be out working in the factory at age 7 and bringing home the bacon. Now, I'd
say, heck yeah, my kids should be dancing out in the dandelion fields at age 7. We can assume that enough people found the child labor principle barbaric that it was changed (as history tells us), and we can predict that, given time, other countries will follow that lead. Or not. Most patterns of behavior do tend to be fluid. I think Doug did a good
job outlining a few moral absolutes.

Where? When? When did Doug lay out any moral absolutes here for society
to follow?

JWB wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpacw2uemy.fsf@ethel.the.log... "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip) If you agree with it, what do you propose be *done* about it? Let everybody continue to "do their own thing"? After all, nobody has the right to impose "their" values on others,
right? What goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right? Do you think people are going to learn by themselves, with "no
incentive"? Bottom line: put down some standards for society to follow, and enforce them, or just chuck the whole damn thing in the trash can. Bottom line: Bill ignores what I say, and puts words into my mouth for me. Hello... Earth to Doug... are we on the same planet? If you walked the
talk like Mother Theresa and Fred Rogers did in the 50's, when everyone had *personal responsibility* (I know, an advanced concept for you), then the family unit wouldn't crumble and we wouldn't have so many money hungry materialistic lawyers and other dredges of society with NO MORALS OR
VALUES.

Hot damn! Somebody FINALLY sees the Light! And - it's about time.

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:HYm%c.528 NO! Some people have no morals. Period. Sure, Bill, you have your occasional psychopaths. They've always been around. Mass murderers and the like. You could probably look into their backgrounds and feel downright sorry for how they were treated as
children, but okay, let's say that those bastards have no morals.

Look, I know they were treated like **** as kids. But that doesn't mean I'm
gonna have a lot of compassion for them when they come out and do their
bull****. Maybe you can, Mother Teresa, but I have a *really* hard time
feeling sorry for a child molester.
Well? Haven't we always had immoral, psychopathic people unconcerned
about their treatment of others? What's your argument, that people can be
really crappy? I don't get how that says anything about today's society, considering the presence of the criminal mind for, oh, millennia. Heck, biblically speaking, Eve failed to listen to God, the ultimate parent. I guess she was created immoral (lack of honesty), which is sort of the biblical point, isn't it? (Sorry I'm resorting to the Bible when I don't even follow it, but there are good examples of human behavior!) We have become weenies with regard to standing up for what good and
right, and we are reaping the rewards for it. SING IT AGAIN!. Understatement of the year. Total wimpies. It's either PC time, or run an hide like the cowards we've become as a
cociety. God help us if we take a stand. Some dip**** might object and "be personally offended". Bill, you're free to take a stand. That's the great thing about a democracy. I guarantee you, you can actually put on a sandwich board proclaiming, "You're all total wimpies, don't hide like cowards, you dip****s!" and you won't be arrested. Try it and find out <g>. (Okay, avoid private property you don't own.) It's only PC time if you're afraid to say what you feel. Go and try to change the laws, but don't get upset if/when others strike back at you because they don't follow what you believe. Still, it's your obligation
as an honest citizen to stand up for what you believe...not just on a newsgroup, but IRL.

Oh trust me, I do. With - or without - consequences, I don't care. Some
people can't handle it though (the wimpies and/or PC brain damaged)
Are we right now, or were we right then? It's a partially mixed bag. And nobody ever wins. Yes, exactly. It's a mixed bag, and it has been since the dawn of time.
So why waste your life *****ing (I mean, unless it's really fun for you, in which case, have at it)? Jennifer

It's cathargic, can't ya tell?

Michael <erosewater@ziplip.com> writes:
in article 7Jn%c.31902$Ot3.10826@twister.nyc.rr.com, JWB at bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com wrote on 9/7/04 1:10 PM: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpacw2uemy.fsf@ethel.the.log... "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: (snip)> If you agree with it, what do you propose be *done* about it? Let> everybody continue to "do their own thing"?>> After all, nobody has the right to impose "their" values on others,> right?> What goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right?>> Do you think people are going to learn by themselves, with "no> incentive"?>> Bottom line: put down some standards for society to follow, and enforce> them, or just chuck the whole damn thing in the trash can. Bottom line: Bill ignores what I say, and puts words into my mouth for me. Hello... Earth to Doug... are we on the same planet? If you walked the talk like Mother Theresa and Fred Rogers did in the 50's, when everyone had *personal responsibility* (I know, an advanced concept for you), then the family unit wouldn't crumble and we wouldn't have so many money hungry materialistic lawyers and other dredges of society with NO MORALS OR VALUES. Bottom line Doug - you're for teaching kids mass murder and how to kill puppies. You lack all morals because you don't have any convictions. ;) And if you don't correct him within the next 23 minutes, he'll assume he's right and call the FBI.

Shoot. I was just out back teaching my son how to aeresolize anthrax
and couldn't make the 23 minute deadline!

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:9Zb%c.216 I disagree. I believe that you see those you call the dregs of society being raised in a way that upsets/offends you, and you characterize that upbringing as being "without morals and principles." For the majority
of those who are judged by you, I would say that they have their own ideas
of "morals and principles" and are following them according to their own beliefs. Does this include the so many being raised today to be irresponsible for their own actions (because of poor and/or absentee parenting)? Do you
say they are "following their own ideas of morals and principles?" Well, you're making the assumption that those who are irresponsible for their own actions are that way because of poor and/or absentee parenting.
I think that's a huge step in logic. I think parenting is one factor in why
a person turns out as he/she does, but it's not the only factor. Further, what do you think of as irresponsible? I might find someone's actions to be both moral and responsible, while you might say that same person is immoral and irresponsible. It all comes down to perception,
IMO.

Somebody that raises child molesters, rapists, and serial killers is clearly
missing out on a few things in the parenting department (and that is just
the tip of the iceberg on what they are missing out on).
Be more specific about "the so many being raised today (who are) irresponsible for their own actions." I do think you're wrong. You know I disagree with your entire "going to hell in a handbasket" spiel, but someone who calls himself a surly curmudgeon certainly wants to draw that sort of response. :-) I'm just telling you that I feel that way. But yes, I do tend to see
the negative side of society - never have been too much of a Mary Poppins
type. What I've witnessed over the past few decades has not been encouraging to me, with the single exception(s) of reporting abuse cases and race discrimination (and that's about all that has improved in society, I
think). Well, that's something! <g> And I imagine if you're not a WASP male, you're very relieved that society is moving toward a more colorblind and open-minded direction. DH still remembers how it felt when he was in Williamsburg, VA, during an instructional seminar, and as a WASP male, he was the only one in the crowd at that time who could step forward and be
the person who, during the colonial times, would have been the landowner/slaveowner/ruler of all he surveys. That's a lesson he and I
have never forgotten. I believe there is so much that is positive about society, but you might
not be in the position to welcome all the changes, nor are you necessarily in
a position to know all the changes that have come about over the past 50
years (i.e., they might not have affected you). I would say that improvements have been made in workplace safety, child labor laws, medicine, environmental protection, race and gender discrimination, mass communication, military protection, space exploration, technology. I
think in nearly every aspect, the world has improved.

Technology - I agree with ya. Society, in general, I don't (well, except
for those 2 important exceptions I mentioned). There is much less personal
accountability, much less personal responsibility, these days. And we have
such a stellar legal system to keep it that way, since everybody is NOW
"entitled" to pursue "victim status". We're ALL victims - or haven't you
heard?
What I dislike, things like rudeness and incivility in general--well, that sort of behavior has been around since the dawn of humankind, though there have been periods of time during which our nation and other nations have
had laws in place that seek to enforce propriety. Those laws never seem to
work all that successfully, though, over the long haul. I think freedom of choice, of necessity and desire, will typically out.

There is much less respect now. Respect for teachers, for parents, for
elders, for what have you.
Certainly for all of humankind, there's been war, starvation, torture, cruelty toward others, rudeness, murder, and all the other sins you can imagine. If you can prove to me that (a) those things never existed until the past (50?) years,

No, I won't say that.
and/or (b) those things have presented a larger problem in the past (50) years than in any 50-year periods prior to 1954
or

And I won't categorically say that either.
so, then you have convinced me that the world now truly is more hellacious than at any other time. Good luck. :-) Anyway, it seems to me that your bugaboo is human behavior and your perception that it has sunk to new lows.

That is possible. Or maybe, just maybe, both things are true.
I will readily agree that humans can be nasty, brutish, terrible beings, but there's just no sense in imagining that their lives have become so much more like that over the
past few decades. Don't you think the more likely explanation is that *you*
have grown during the past 50 years, you miss the early days when life had clarity for you and people appeared to follow the rules, and you have personal, firsthand knowledge of this particular time period's decay?

I don't know. Except I *do* know - and see examples of - increased lack of
personal responsibility in our society today. And the legal system and/or
government is supposed to (and often tries to) pick up the slack. It won't
work. It will never work. Put it back where it belongs - on the people -
and hold them to it. No bull**** lawsuits for all the alleged (nearly
infinite now?) "victims", victims often of their own damn carelessness and
stupidity. "WHAT? You expected ME to know that"? No! How could I?
That's not fair! That would require me to think! And try to take
ownership of my problem! It's MacDonald's fault! (or whatever). Or if
I slipped on a wet floor in a store, let's just sue the store. After all,
I couldn't possibly be expected to realize that a wet floor is dangerous!
That would be expecting too much!
FWIW, the people I know who are as old and older than you find this a rewarding, exciting time during which to be alive. I wish you could look
at all the positives and write off the negatives as the same sort of dreck that's been present since time began. Some people out there need a little more guidance, or their kids are
going to "come out the worse for it". Actually, already are. That's not
fair to them or society. Who decides who needs "a little more guidance"? What sort of guidance do you have in mind? Who determines what is fair? Do you think that if all children receive guidance, then all children will benefit society? What would be fair to society, in terms of what growing children/young adults should proffer or become?

Good parenting, and learning how to take SOME self responsibility. Boot
camp for some "parents", if necessary. Teaching them things they should
have been taught in the first place.
There was a time when children were married at very young ages and it
was acceptable. Now that sort of thing is considered barbaric and abusive,
as is child labor. Times change. I try to be "of" this time, with an eye toward how things have gone and how they might be likely to go in years
to come.

Prevalent child labor is a bit before my time, you know - except perhaps
over in China, where I imagine it still continues. But we can't do much
about China, now can we?
So how do you reconcile that optimism with the current 50%+ divorce rate, and the breakdown in the family unit, and the increasing loss of the neighborhoods and the "it takes a village" concept? See the above <g>. Bill, come on. I'm optimistic because I'm living in a golden age. That's where we are right now. If you went back 250 years
and

I'm not going back 250 years! Come on, now!
took a person forward to this time, with the clean water, arable land, communication and transportation abilities and such, he would have stars
in his eyes from the grandeur and wonder that we have and fail to appreciate (in some of our cases). You assume that 50% divorce rate is inherently a bad thing. I don't know that I would say that's the case, not if it means that people who wanted
to divorce 100 years ago couldn't, either because they were scared, felt unsupported, or didn't have the legal means to do so. Perhaps we're moving toward a society without marriage. Perhaps the idea
of marriage is becoming outmoded. Who knows?? We'll be long gone when the next society refines its ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Breakdown in the family unit? Increasing loss of neighborhoods? It's all changing, and it's always changed, and it always will change.

This sounds suspiciously like a whitewash.
Whatever society chooses to accept and support, that perhaps will become the new norm.

That IS a whitewash. We can talk about what some real gems of society
have "chosen to accept", and what the consequences of that were. You want
me to give you some (stellar) examples of how "responsible" a society can
be?
We will have newly acceptable forms of family and neighborhood, such as already happened in the past decades (single parent families, gay
parent families, interracial neighborhoods, multi-lingual neighborhoods). You can say, "Hell, no! This isn't what I think of as family and neighborhood!" Or, conversely, you can work to help those in the
community by supporting the choices they're making to live and get along. Your choice, but in any case, there's no convincing argument that optimism is unwarranted. Jennifer

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yhwtz5g2ky.fsf@ethel.the.log... Michael <erosewater@ziplip.com> writes: in article 7Jn%c.31902$Ot3.10826@twister.nyc.rr.com, JWB at bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com wrote on 9/7/04 1:10 PM: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpacw2uemy.fsf@ethel.the.log...> "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:>> (snip)>>> If you agree with it, what do you propose be *done* about it? Let>> everybody continue to "do their own thing"?>>>> After all, nobody has the right to impose "their" values on others,>> right?>> What goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business, right?>>>> Do you think people are going to learn by themselves, with "no>> incentive"?>>>> Bottom line: put down some standards for society to follow, and>> enforce>> them, or just chuck the whole damn thing in the trash can.>> Bottom line: Bill ignores what I say, and puts words into my mouth> for me. Hello... Earth to Doug... are we on the same planet? If you walked the talk like Mother Theresa and Fred Rogers did in the 50's, when everyone had *personal responsibility* (I know, an advanced concept for you), then the family unit wouldn't crumble and we wouldn't have so many money hungry materialistic lawyers and other dredges of society with NO MORALS OR VALUES. Bottom line Doug - you're for teaching kids mass murder and how to kill puppies. You lack all morals because you don't have any convictions. ;) And if you don't correct him within the next 23 minutes, he'll assume he's right and call the FBI. Shoot. I was just out back teaching my son how to aeresolize anthrax and couldn't make the 23 minute deadline!

Don't forget his weekly porn session.

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:06q%c.9972$w%
Oh trust me, I do. With - or without - consequences, I don't care.
Some people can't handle it though (the wimpies and/or PC brain damaged)

It's a great thing that you can say what you want.
why waste your life *****ing (I mean, unless it's really fun for you, in which case, have at it)? Jennifer It's cathargic, can't ya tell?

ROFL--great word between cathartic and lethargic; I like it. :-)

Jennifer

"JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite
dot com> wrote in message news:7fs%
Don't forget his weekly porn session.

Personally, I limit my children's porn access to no more than 30 minutes/day
or 60 minutes/weekend.

Jennifer

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mcs%c.755
Somebody that raises child molesters, rapists, and serial killers is
clearly missing out on a few things in the parenting department (and that is just the tip of the iceberg on what they are missing out on).

Are you kidding me? Are you totally serious? Do you think that perfectly
normal people can't raise children who end up as child molesters, rapists
and serial killers? *rolls eyes* Okay, you're going to be stuck on the
"blame the parents at all cost" routine, I can see that.
(i.e., they might not have affected you). I would say that improvements have been made in workplace safety, child labor laws, medicine, environmental protection, race and gender discrimination, mass communication, military protection, space exploration, technology. I think in nearly every aspect, the world has improved. Technology - I agree with ya. Society, in general, I don't (well, except for those 2 important exceptions I mentioned). There is much less
personal accountability, much less personal responsibility, these days. And we
have such a stellar legal system to keep it that way, since everybody is NOW "entitled" to pursue "victim status". We're ALL victims - or haven't you heard?

Societal norms come and go. If enough people find the lack of personal
accountability repulsive, this society will change. In any event, it's not
worse than society was hundreds and thousands of years ago. Personally, I
want to go back to the "beat your fellow caveperson over the head for the
larger piece of meat" time, but I'm SOL.
There is much less respect now. Respect for teachers, for parents, for elders, for what have you.

I'll grant you that there's less respect now than 50 years ago. But I won't
grant that is the case across time. Again, when a society is accepting of
particular behavior (disrespect, for example), it flourishes until changes
are made.
Certainly for all of humankind, there's been war, starvation, torture, cruelty toward others, rudeness, murder, and all the other sins you can imagine. If you can prove to me that (a) those things never existed
until the past (50?) years, No, I won't say that. and/or (b) those things have presented a larger problem in the past (50) years than in any 50-year periods prior to 1954 or And I won't categorically say that either.

Well, GOOD!!! :-D We have a wiener!
so, then you have convinced me that the world now truly is more
hellacious than at any other time. Good luck. :-) Anyway, it seems to me that your bugaboo is human behavior and your perception that it has sunk to new lows. That is possible. Or maybe, just maybe, both things are true. I will readily agree that humans can be nasty, brutish, terrible beings, but there's just no sense in imagining that their lives have become so much more like that over the past few decades. Don't you think the more likely explanation is that *you* have grown during the past 50 years, you miss the early days when life had clarity for you and people appeared to follow the rules, and you have personal, firsthand knowledge of this particular time period's decay? I don't know. Except I *do* know - and see examples of - increased lack
of personal responsibility in our society today. And the legal system
and/or government is supposed to (and often tries to) pick up the slack. It
won't work. It will never work. Put it back where it belongs - on the
people - and hold them to it. No bull**** lawsuits for all the alleged (nearly infinite now?) "victims", victims often of their own damn carelessness and stupidity. "WHAT? You expected ME to know that"? No! How could
I? That's not fair! That would require me to think! And try to take ownership of my problem! It's MacDonald's fault! (or whatever). Or
if I slipped on a wet floor in a store, let's just sue the store. After
all, I couldn't possibly be expected to realize that a wet floor is dangerous! That would be expecting too much!

I agree that in today's society, there is increased lack of personal
responsibility. I'm just not going to throw the baby out with the
bathwater. In the long run, that sort of behavior isn't enough to piss me
off or make me fume at the mouth. I'd rather concentrate my energies on
helping the world's indigent, that sort of thing. So bull**** lawsuits take
place. Well, the laws are slowly changing (caps on personal injury
lawsuits, etc.), and I imagine this will all look different to plaintiffs &
defendants in 50 years.

What's the big deal that other people right now seem more likely to want to
blame people other than themselves for personal failings? Why the heck does
that bother *you* so much? Why not just be happy that you're a responsible
person who tries to live a moral life? Why ruin the time you have with
moaning and groaning? It can't be a healthy way to live.
Who decides who needs "a little more guidance"? What sort of guidance
do you have in mind? Who determines what is fair? Do you think that if
all children receive guidance, then all children will benefit society? What would be fair to society, in terms of what growing children/young adults should proffer or become? Good parenting, and learning how to take SOME self responsibility.
Boot camp for some "parents", if necessary. Teaching them things they should have been taught in the first place.

Okay, great. There are parenting programs out there. Put your money where
your mouth is. Volunteer to help teach parents how to do a better job.
There was an article in the Washington Post yesterday where a columnist is
committing his "extra" time and money to a similar program (working to help
parents raise young children). I think it's fabulous that programs like
that exist. I have often considered volunteering in a literacy program, and
likely will do so when my kids are older. What's keeping you from putting
some of your energy into trying to make a change?
Prevalent child labor is a bit before my time, you know - except perhaps over in China, where I imagine it still continues. But we can't do much about China, now can we?

I think you and I should concentrate our efforts on the states, for now.
;-)
See the above <g>. Bill, come on. I'm optimistic because I'm living in
a golden age. That's where we are right now. If you went back 250 years and I'm not going back 250 years! Come on, now!

*hmmmm??* So what you're saying is that there is a specific period of
time...1950s...and that's the only time you want the world to be stuck in,
stagnant for one decade or so, and you are certain that is and will be the
only perfect time ever for this country and the entire world, over
millennia? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....kay.
Perhaps we're moving toward a society without marriage. Perhaps the
idea of marriage is becoming outmoded. Who knows?? We'll be long gone when
the next society refines its ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Breakdown in the family unit? Increasing loss of neighborhoods? It's
all changing, and it's always changed, and it always will change. This sounds suspiciously like a whitewash.

Call it what you will. It's the way it works. Things change, and you can
be angry at how they change, or you can work within the framework to
understand the change & make new changes. I think I know which side you
prefer (the carping one).
Whatever society chooses to accept and support, that perhaps will become the new norm. That IS a whitewash. We can talk about what some real gems of society have "chosen to accept", and what the consequences of that were. You
want me to give you some (stellar) examples of how "responsible" a society can be?

But we don't get to decide within particular periods of time how responsible
that society is, Bill. We weren't its citizens. We are today's citizens,
so now we can make as much of an impact as we want to or can possibly
accomplish. That's freedom of choice, giving societies the right to choose
to accept even terrible outcomes. Notice I didn't say that the "new norm"
is going to appear positive.

Jennifer

"Jennifer in Maryland" <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> writes:
"JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> wrote in message news:7fs% Don't forget his weekly porn session. Personally, I limit my children's porn access to no more than 30 minutes/day or 60 minutes/weekend.

We let them read whatever porn they want, but limit porn access on TV
and the internet.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2q77biFsmd88U1@uni-berlin.de... "Jennifer in Maryland" <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> writes: "JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at excite dot com> wrote in message news:7fs% Don't forget his weekly porn session. Personally, I limit my children's porn access to no more than 30 minutes/day or 60 minutes/weekend. We let them read whatever porn they want, but limit porn access on TV and the internet.

what about reading porn on the internet?

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:mcs%c.755 Somebody that raises child molesters, rapists, and serial killers is
clearly missing out on a few things in the parenting department (and that is just the tip of the iceberg on what they are missing out on). Are you kidding me? Are you totally serious? Do you think that perfectly normal people can't raise children who end up as child molesters, rapists and serial killers? *rolls eyes* Okay, you're going to be stuck on the "blame the parents at all cost" routine, I can see that.

Well, I guess I can't go so far as to say "can't". Let's just say, rarely
(with GOOD and effective parenting).

BTW- I didn't use the term "normal people" - nice switch there. I used the
term "good parenting". There IS a difference. In some cases, a big
difference.

So what are you going to tell me now? That a "magic gene" "made" them (or
most of them) into child molesters, end of story? Like it was biological,
from the get go? I don't think so! (not for the vast majority, anyway).
Abuse often breeds abuse, plain and simple. A few lucky ones break out of
the mold. Look at any serious abuser, and their background - how they
grew up. .

Now, I said GOOD parenting. And I mean exactly that - being in touch with
your kids, their friends, knowing where they are at all times, etc, etc, etc
(...said the King and I).
(i.e., they might not have affected you). I would say that improvements have been made in workplace safety, child labor laws, medicine, environmental protection, race and gender discrimination, mass communication, military protection, space exploration, technology. I think in nearly every aspect, the world has improved. Technology - I agree with ya. Society, in general, I don't (well,
except for those 2 important exceptions I mentioned). There is much less
personal accountability, much less personal responsibility, these days. And we
have such a stellar legal system to keep it that way, since everybody is NOW "entitled" to pursue "victim status". We're ALL victims - or haven't
you heard? Societal norms come and go. If enough people find the lack of personal accountability repulsive, this society will change. In any event, it's
not worse than society was hundreds and thousands of years ago. Personally, I want to go back to the "beat your fellow caveperson over the head for the larger piece of meat" time, but I'm SOL. There is much less respect now. Respect for teachers, for parents, for elders, for what have you. I'll grant you that there's less respect now than 50 years ago. But I
won't grant that is the case across time. Again, when a society is accepting of particular behavior (disrespect, for example), it flourishes until changes are made.

I'm glad you're optimistic enough to believe those changes can, and will, be
made some century. How long do we have to wait to get respect back to
what it was 50 years ago? A milllenium? I doubt if it will ever come
back.
Certainly for all of humankind, there's been war, starvation, torture, cruelty toward others, rudeness, murder, and all the other sins you can imagine. If you can prove to me that (a) those things never existed
until the past (50?) years, No, I won't say that. and/or (b) those things have presented a larger problem in the past (50) years than in any 50-year periods prior to 1954
or And I won't categorically say that either. Well, GOOD!!! :-D We have a wiener! so, then you have convinced me that the world now truly is more
hellacious than at any other time. Good luck. :-) Anyway, it seems to me that your bugaboo is human behavior and your perception that it has sunk to new lows. That is possible. Or maybe, just maybe, both things are true. I will readily agree that humans can be nasty, brutish, terrible beings, but there's just no sense in imagining that their lives have become so much more like that over the
past few decades. Don't you think the more likely explanation is that *you*
have grown during the past 50 years, you miss the early days when life had clarity for you and people appeared to follow the rules, and you have personal, firsthand knowledge of this particular time period's decay? I don't know. Except I *do* know - and see examples of - increased lack
of personal responsibility in our society today. And the legal system
and/or government is supposed to (and often tries to) pick up the slack. It
won't work. It will never work. Put it back where it belongs - on the
people - and hold them to it. No bull**** lawsuits for all the alleged (nearly infinite now?) "victims", victims often of their own damn carelessness
and stupidity. "WHAT? You expected ME to know that"? No! How could
I? That's not fair! That would require me to think! And try to take ownership of my problem! It's MacDonald's fault! (or whatever). Or
if I slipped on a wet floor in a store, let's just sue the store. After
all, I couldn't possibly be expected to realize that a wet floor is dangerous! That would be expecting too much! I agree that in today's society, there is increased lack of personal responsibility. I'm just not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the long run, that sort of behavior isn't enough to piss me off or make me fume at the mouth. I'd rather concentrate my energies on helping the world's indigent, that sort of thing. So bull**** lawsuits
take place. Well, the laws are slowly changing (caps on personal injury lawsuits, etc.), and I imagine this will all look different to plaintiffs
& defendants in 50 years.

50 years? Hey, that's real progress!
What's the big deal that other people right now seem more likely to want
to blame people other than themselves for personal failings? Why the heck
does that bother *you* so much? Why not just be happy that you're a
responsible person who tries to live a moral life? Why ruin the time you have with moaning and groaning? It can't be a healthy way to live.

I wouldn't exactly get a blue ribbon for "living healthily". But madness
comes in many forms.
Who decides who needs "a little more guidance"? What sort of guidance
do you have in mind? Who determines what is fair? Do you think that if
all children receive guidance, then all children will benefit society? What would be fair to society, in terms of what growing children/young adults should proffer or become? Good parenting, and learning how to take SOME self responsibility. Boot camp for some "parents", if necessary. Teaching them things they
should have been taught in the first place. Okay, great. There are parenting programs out there. Put your money
where your mouth is. Volunteer to help teach parents how to do a better job. There was an article in the Washington Post yesterday where a columnist is committing his "extra" time and money to a similar program (working to
help parents raise young children). I think it's fabulous that programs like that exist. I have often considered volunteering in a literacy program,
and likely will do so when my kids are older. What's keeping you from putting some of your energy into trying to make a change?

I have done so in the past, if you've been reading here for a length of
time. Right now I'm trying to stay inside, and stay away from people as
much as possible. Perhaps I'm still in recovery.
Prevalent child labor is a bit before my time, you know - except perhaps over in China, where I imagine it still continues. But we can't do
much about China, now can we? I think you and I should concentrate our efforts on the states, for now. ;-) See the above <g>. Bill, come on. I'm optimistic because I'm living in
a golden age. That's where we are right now. If you went back 250 years
and I'm not going back 250 years! Come on, now! *hmmmm??* So what you're saying is that there is a specific period of time...1950s...and that's the only time you want the world to be stuck in, stagnant for one decade or so, and you are certain that is and will be the only perfect time ever for this country and the entire world, over millennia? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....kay.

Not perfect. But I miss a lot of things about the 50's, not the least of
which is the music! :-)
Perhaps we're moving toward a society without marriage. Perhaps the
idea of marriage is becoming outmoded. Who knows?? We'll be long gone when the next society refines its ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Breakdown in the family unit? Increasing loss of neighborhoods? It's
all changing, and it's always changed, and it always will change. This sounds suspiciously like a whitewash. Call it what you will. It's the way it works. Things change, and you can be angry at how they change,

Yup, that's me... Prometheus?
or you can work within the framework to understand the change & make new changes.

That's sometimes me. But I'm getting tired of picking up everybody else's
trash (both literally and figuratively). There is no end in sight, and
many simply just don't give a ****, which really pisses me off!
I think I know which side you prefer (the carping one).Whatever society chooses to accept and support, that perhaps will become the new norm. That IS a whitewash. We can talk about what some real gems of society have "chosen to accept", and what the consequences of that were. You
want me to give you some (stellar) examples of how "responsible" a society can be? But we don't get to decide within particular periods of time how
responsible that society is, Bill.

Hey, I'm doing my best with my students. Trust me, I'm instilling a sense
of responsibility in them!!
We weren't its citizens. We are today's citizens, so now we can make as much of an impact as we want to or can possibly accomplish. That's freedom of choice, giving societies the right to
choose to accept even terrible outcomes. Notice I didn't say that the "new norm" is going to appear positive. Jennifer

"JWB" <jwb3333remove@excite.com> wrote in message
news:2q77hqFrv8geU1@uni-berlin.de... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2q77biFsmd88U1@uni-berlin.de... "Jennifer in Maryland" <JenPam2003@yahoo.com> writes: "JWB" <bigtommktyjb543@servo.com actually, my e-mail is jwb3333 at
excite dot com> wrote in message news:7fs% > Don't forget his weekly porn session. Personally, I limit my children's porn access to no more than 30 minutes/day or 60 minutes/weekend. We let them read whatever porn they want, but limit porn access on TV and the internet. what about reading porn on the internet?

I think porn on the Internet creates an interactive situation that makes me
a bit uncomfortable where my kids are concerned. Still, you bring up an
interesting point. I would have to say 15 minutes/day Internet porn, but
they have to make it an educational experience and draw pictures afterward
describing what they saw.

Jennifer

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ssu%c.853$xA1.118@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:mcs%c.755 Somebody that raises child molesters, rapists, and serial killers is clearly missing out on a few things in the parenting department (and that is
just the tip of the iceberg on what they are missing out on). Are you kidding me? Are you totally serious? Do you think that
perfectly normal people can't raise children who end up as child molesters,
rapists and serial killers? *rolls eyes* Okay, you're going to be stuck on the "blame the parents at all cost" routine, I can see that. Well, I guess I can't go so far as to say "can't". Let's just say,
rarely (with GOOD and effective parenting). BTW- I didn't use the term "normal people" - nice switch there. I used
the term "good parenting". There IS a difference. In some cases, a big difference.

Okay, people who are "good parents" (your term) can still, given their best
efforts, end up with awfully screwed up kids (some criminal, some not). I
always say that if I could just *know* that my kids will end up content,
moral, healthy adults, then I could relax. I like to think I'm as good a
parent as I can be, but I'm humble enough to recognize that I can do my job
and my children could still have a poor outcome.
I'll grant you that there's less respect now than 50 years ago. But I won't grant that is the case across time. Again, when a society is accepting
of particular behavior (disrespect, for example), it flourishes until
changes are made. I'm glad you're optimistic enough to believe those changes can, and will,
be made some century. How long do we have to wait to get respect back to what it was 50 years ago? A milllenium? I doubt if it will ever come back.

Who knows? The changes will come when enough people use their voices to
demand it, and then it will come over others' objections, I'm sure, so that
will tack on some extra time. :-) In 100 years, your posts might be
unearthed, and Future Bill will rant about you, "He had no idea how good he
had it!!" ;-)
I agree that in today's society, there is increased lack of personal responsibility. I'm just not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the long run, that sort of behavior isn't enough to piss
me off or make me fume at the mouth. I'd rather concentrate my energies on helping the world's indigent, that sort of thing. So bull**** lawsuits take place. Well, the laws are slowly changing (caps on personal injury lawsuits, etc.), and I imagine this will all look different to
plaintiffs & defendants in 50 years. 50 years? Hey, that's real progress!

Whaddya want, though? You need time to gain perspective. Things are
undoubtedly changing now, but so slowly that we're not measuring or
accepting it. Sorry you're not going to live to usher in the new age of
Respect in 2136, but, well, that just sucks for us!
Okay, great. There are parenting programs out there. Put your money where your mouth is. Volunteer to help teach parents how to do a better job. There was an article in the Washington Post yesterday where a columnist
is committing his "extra" time and money to a similar program (working to help parents raise young children). I think it's fabulous that programs like that exist. I have often considered volunteering in a literacy program, and likely will do so when my kids are older. What's keeping you from
putting some of your energy into trying to make a change? I have done so in the past, if you've been reading here for a length of time. Right now I'm trying to stay inside, and stay away from people as much as possible. Perhaps I'm still in recovery.

It seems to me that you being inside is wreaking havoc with your mental
health, though. :-/ That's just an observation based on how depressed and
angry you've been lately IMHO. The longer you avoid people, the worse they
seem and the scarier it is to step outside.
*hmmmm??* So what you're saying is that there is a specific period of time...1950s...and that's the only time you want the world to be stuck
in, stagnant for one decade or so, and you are certain that is and will be
the only perfect time ever for this country and the entire world, over millennia? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....kay. Not perfect. But I miss a lot of things about the 50's, not the least
of which is the music! :-)

And you're lucky to take advantage of technology, so you can still listen to
that music today! :-D
Call it what you will. It's the way it works. Things change, and you
can be angry at how they change, Yup, that's me... Prometheus?

Shackled to the side of a mountain and having your insides devoured by an
eagle for generations?

Giving fire and gifts to humankind?

Help me out here. :-)
or you can work within the framework to understand the change & make new changes. That's sometimes me. But I'm getting tired of picking up everybody
else's trash (both literally and figuratively). There is no end in sight, and many simply just don't give a ****, which really pisses me off!

I don't get that. You're in control of your own life, and getting pissed
off about everyone else just creates terrible health problems for yourself.
It wears you down mentally and physically. Why are you so invested in what
everyone else does with his/her freedom?

I guess, even though I'm an optimist, I have the ability to say, yeah, life
just freaking sucks, and I have to take it away from the part of me that
could gnaw on it forever (I'm obsessive, too).
But we don't get to decide within particular periods of time how responsible that society is, Bill. Hey, I'm doing my best with my students. Trust me, I'm instilling a
sense of responsibility in them!!

I'm glad to hear that! You're making a difference, then, which should IMO
go a long way toward stemming some of that anger boiling up inside of you.

Jennifer

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ssu%c.853$xA1.118@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:mcs%c.755> Somebody that raises child molesters, rapists, and serial killers is> clearly missing out on a few things in the parenting department (and
that> is just the tip of the iceberg on what they are missing out on). Are you kidding me? Are you totally serious? Do you think that
perfectly normal people can't raise children who end up as child molesters,
rapists and serial killers? *rolls eyes* Okay, you're going to be stuck on the "blame the parents at all cost" routine, I can see that. Well, I guess I can't go so far as to say "can't". Let's just say,
rarely (with GOOD and effective parenting). BTW- I didn't use the term "normal people" - nice switch there. I used
the term "good parenting". There IS a difference. In some cases, a big difference. Okay, people who are "good parents" (your term) can still, given their
best efforts, end up with awfully screwed up kids (some criminal, some not). I always say that if I could just *know* that my kids will end up content, moral, healthy adults, then I could relax. I like to think I'm as good a parent as I can be, but I'm humble enough to recognize that I can do my
job and my children could still have a poor outcome.

I think if we had had a bad outcome with our daughter, I'd blame myself, and
probably mercilessly. (And probably go the Prometheus route).

You might say that would be as productive and effective as Don Quixote, but,
hey, "we are what we are". And at this age, we ain't gonna change too many
stripes!
I'll grant you that there's less respect now than 50 years ago. But I
won't grant that is the case across time. Again, when a society is accepting
of particular behavior (disrespect, for example), it flourishes until
changes are made. I'm glad you're optimistic enough to believe those changes can, and will,
be made some century. How long do we have to wait to get respect back to what it was 50 years ago? A milllenium? I doubt if it will ever
come back. Who knows? The changes will come when enough people use their voices to demand it, and then it will come over others' objections, I'm sure, so
that will tack on some extra time. :-) In 100 years, your posts might be unearthed, and Future Bill will rant about you, "He had no idea how good
he had it!!" ;-)

Oh, good Lord, I hope not. I hope it doesn't get that bad. God help us.
I agree that in today's society, there is increased lack of personal responsibility. I'm just not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the long run, that sort of behavior isn't enough to piss
me off or make me fume at the mouth. I'd rather concentrate my energies on helping the world's indigent, that sort of thing. So bull**** lawsuits
take place. Well, the laws are slowly changing (caps on personal injury lawsuits, etc.), and I imagine this will all look different to
plaintiffs & defendants in 50 years. 50 years? Hey, that's real progress! Whaddya want, though? You need time to gain perspective. Things are undoubtedly changing now, but so slowly that we're not measuring or accepting it. Sorry you're not going to live to usher in the new age of Respect in 2136, but, well, that just sucks for us!

Yeah, it does, doesn't it? Maybe we were born too late? Remember the
days of the handshake, and when your word was your bond? And not having to
lock your doors (in so many places)? (I don't know if you do, as I don't
know how old ya are!)
Okay, great. There are parenting programs out there. Put your money where your mouth is. Volunteer to help teach parents how to do a better job. There was an article in the Washington Post yesterday where a columnist
is committing his "extra" time and money to a similar program (working to
help parents raise young children). I think it's fabulous that programs like that exist. I have often considered volunteering in a literacy program,
and likely will do so when my kids are older. What's keeping you from
putting some of your energy into trying to make a change? I have done so in the past, if you've been reading here for a length of time. Right now I'm trying to stay inside, and stay away from people as much as possible. Perhaps I'm still in recovery. It seems to me that you being inside is wreaking havoc with your mental health, though. :-/ That's just an observation based on how depressed
and angry you've been lately IMHO. The longer you avoid people, the worse
they seem and the scarier it is to step outside.

You DO realize that that is the LAST thing someone in clinical depression
will do, don't you? I don't know how to convey to you what it feels like.
There are no adequate words for this black hole. But at least I get out of
bed each morning! I *know* it will be bad if/when I don't even get out of
bed all day.
*hmmmm??* So what you're saying is that there is a specific period of time...1950s...and that's the only time you want the world to be stuck
in, stagnant for one decade or so, and you are certain that is and will be
the only perfect time ever for this country and the entire world, over millennia? Mmmmmmmmmmmmm....kay. Not perfect. But I miss a lot of things about the 50's, not the least
of which is the music! :-) And you're lucky to take advantage of technology, so you can still listen
to that music today! :-D

Well, guess what? I still have a record player and some old records, but
CD's are a lot better, I have to admit. Technology has improved. No
argument there.
Call it what you will. It's the way it works. Things change, and you
can be angry at how they change, Yup, that's me... Prometheus? Shackled to the side of a mountain and having your insides devoured by an eagle for generations? Giving fire and gifts to humankind? Help me out here. :-)

You're doing just fine. (My "fire and gifts to mankind" were the teaching
and volunteering activities I have done in the past).
or you can work within the framework to understand the change & make new changes. That's sometimes me. But I'm getting tired of picking up everybody
else's trash (both literally and figuratively). There is no end in sight,
and many simply just don't give a ****, which really pisses me off! I don't get that. You're in control of your own life, and getting pissed off about everyone else just creates terrible health problems for
yourself. It wears you down mentally and physically. Why are you so invested in
what everyone else does with his/her freedom?

Probably because it's a diversion from me dealing with me, the last damn
thing I want to do. (How's that for some Truth?) (Actually, I think
it's the last thing most of us want to do, come to think of it, so at least
I'm not alone there).
I guess, even though I'm an optimist, I have the ability to say, yeah,
life just freaking sucks, and I have to take it away from the part of me that could gnaw on it forever (I'm obsessive, too). But we don't get to decide within particular periods of time how
responsible that society is, Bill. Hey, I'm doing my best with my students. Trust me, I'm instilling a
sense of responsibility in them!! I'm glad to hear that! You're making a difference, then, which should IMO go a long way toward stemming some of that anger boiling up inside of you.

It's not enough. It's never enough. There can never be enough.

Now, OTOH, someone like Gandhi, or Mother Teresa, or even Fred Rogers, - now
THEY made a "significant" difference for this planet. As for the rest of
us......

Well, anyway, that's how I FEEL. It may not be the most rational idea.
(I'm probably not the best person to talk about that concept, though).
Jennifer

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_Xy%c.1082
I think if we had had a bad outcome with our daughter, I'd blame myself,
and probably mercilessly. (And probably go the Prometheus route).

Tim's mom, my MIL, does this over her son who died from legal drug & alcohol
mixing/overdose in 1987. She's a great old-fashioned Catholic lady who goes
to Mass every single day, sings in the choir, follows all the guidelines and
raised four children to adulthood. I wish she'd stop beating herself up
over her son's death, but she's merciless in torturing herself about all the
"woulda, coulda, shoulda"s.

Sometimes Tim gets to blaming himself for his brother's death, and we just
had that talk again last week. I keep telling him, you don't have control
over what people do. If he were determined to self-destruct, that's how it
was going to be--whether or not you saved him once, or twice, etc. People
can turn out like that in spite of good parenting. (Now I'm not saying that
Tim's parents made no mistakes, but they did the best they knew how, and
they followed "good" principles of honesty, faithfulness, togetherness and
the like.)

I hope that if your daughter ever chooses a path you don't want for her, you
realize that you did the best you could and the rest is up to her.

I find it odd that as a trumpeter of people taking responsibility for
themselves, you look at young adults who turned out rotten and blame their
parents. :-)
Yeah, it does, doesn't it? Maybe we were born too late? Remember the days of the handshake, and when your word was your bond? And not having
to lock your doors (in so many places)? (I don't know if you do, as I don't know how old ya are!)

I was born in 1969. :-) However, my parents have been in this small city
since 1962, and we still don't lock our doors most of the time...and
handshakes still matter. It's a great area here. You should try something
like it. :-)
You DO realize that that is the LAST thing someone in clinical depression will do, don't you? I don't know how to convey to you what it feels
like. There are no adequate words for this black hole.

Bill, you must not have read when I've written numerous times that I suffer
from depression. I know that hole exactly. I'm on meds for depression, and
they help quite a bit. You're right, there are no words, and it truly
sucks.
Well, guess what? I still have a record player and some old records, but CD's are a lot better, I have to admit. Technology has improved. No argument there.

We love our record player!
I don't get that. You're in control of your own life, and getting
pissed off about everyone else just creates terrible health problems for yourself. It wears you down mentally and physically. Why are you so invested in what everyone else does with his/her freedom? Probably because it's a diversion from me dealing with me, the last damn thing I want to do. (How's that for some Truth?) (Actually, I think it's the last thing most of us want to do, come to think of it, so at
least I'm not alone there).

Okay, that makes sense. Me, I like to channel my avoidance of my life into
happier pursuits, though, lol (reading, film, great cuisine, friends). I
can't imagine trying to escape my depression by obsessing over how crappy
the world has become. Seems sort of counterproductive, if you will.

Jennifer

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:_Xy%c.1082 I think if we had had a bad outcome with our daughter, I'd blame myself,
and probably mercilessly. (And probably go the Prometheus route). Tim's mom, my MIL, does this over her son who died from legal drug &
alcohol mixing/overdose in 1987. She's a great old-fashioned Catholic lady who
goes to Mass every single day, sings in the choir, follows all the guidelines
and raised four children to adulthood. I wish she'd stop beating herself up over her son's death, but she's merciless in torturing herself about all
the "woulda, coulda, shoulda"s.

She can't. I can understand that. ESPECIALLY since she lost her child!
You think there is a magic "switch" to turn it off, or somethin? Well,
not for some people, anyways.
Sometimes Tim gets to blaming himself for his brother's death, and we just

(Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me, too).
had that talk again last week. I keep telling him, you don't have control over what people do. If he were determined to self-destruct, that's how
it was going to be--whether or not you saved him once, or twice, etc. People

It doesn't matter, we feel the need to be responsible for them. Like we
are there to protect them. That's how you feel about loved ones. Which
makes it hard for me sometimes, because sometimes I just want to fade away,
and then there is the guilt trip crap about those who would be left behind
who I feel shouldn't feel responsible. Perhaps that's a bit hypocritical,
but I feel I have to try and protect others, but as for me, THAT is up to
me, and me alone, and nobody else should feel responsible.
can turn out like that in spite of good parenting. (Now I'm not saying
that Tim's parents made no mistakes, but they did the best they knew how, and they followed "good" principles of honesty, faithfulness, togetherness and the like.)

Well, the words sound fine, all nice and rational and all that, but the
feelings run contrary. What can I say...
I hope that if your daughter ever chooses a path you don't want for her,
you realize that you did the best you could and the rest is up to her. I find it odd that as a trumpeter of people taking responsibility for themselves, you look at young adults who turned out rotten and blame their parents. :-)

Yeah, I suppose it is. I mean, I know the reason, but that doesn't
totally excuse it, and get them off the hook, carte blanche. Not a free
pass. But it explains it.
Yeah, it does, doesn't it? Maybe we were born too late? Remember
the days of the handshake, and when your word was your bond? And not having to lock your doors (in so many places)? (I don't know if you do, as I
don't know how old ya are!) I was born in 1969. :-) However, my parents have been in this small city since 1962, and we still don't lock our doors most of the time...and handshakes still matter. It's a great area here. You should try
something like it. :-) You DO realize that that is the LAST thing someone in clinical depression will do, don't you? I don't know how to convey to you what it feels
like. There are no adequate words for this black hole. Bill, you must not have read when I've written numerous times that I
suffer from depression. I know that hole exactly. I'm on meds for depression,
and they help quite a bit. You're right, there are no words, and it truly sucks.

I'm sorry, I didn't remember that. Well then, you do know. And yet there
are some people that can't even get up and out of bed, day after day after
day. So I know it can be worse. I don't know how bad it got for you.
Well, guess what? I still have a record player and some old records, but CD's are a lot better, I have to admit. Technology has improved. No argument there. We love our record player! I don't get that. You're in control of your own life, and getting
pissed off about everyone else just creates terrible health problems for
yourself. It wears you down mentally and physically. Why are you so invested in
what everyone else does with his/her freedom? Probably because it's a diversion from me dealing with me, the last damn thing I want to do. (How's that for some Truth?) (Actually, I think it's the last thing most of us want to do, come to think of it, so at
least I'm not alone there). Okay, that makes sense. Me, I like to channel my avoidance of my life
into happier pursuits, though, lol (reading, film, great cuisine, friends). I can't imagine trying to escape my depression by obsessing over how crappy the world has become. Seems sort of counterproductive, if you will.

It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some residual anger
dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments. And I think you know
already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this. (I can't explain what that
really means - you have to be one, to "get it").

And I think guys tend to express things like deep hurts using anger as a
vehicle. Not that it's the most "rational" thing to do - it just IS. I'm
not proud of it, or happy about it. But feelings are feelings - neither
right or wrong. And we each express them a bit differently.
Jennifer

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote
I find it odd that as a trumpeter of people taking responsibility for themselves, you look at young adults who turned out rotten and blame
their parents. :-) Yeah, I suppose it is. I mean, I know the reason, but that doesn't totally excuse it, and get them off the hook, carte blanche. Not a free pass. But it explains it.

Um, aren't you the same Bill who recently remarked that he had no sympathy
whatsoever for whatever upbringing/abuse might have caused a criminal to
become deviant?
I'm sorry, I didn't remember that. Well then, you do know. And yet
there are some people that can't even get up and out of bed, day after day after day. So I know it can be worse. I don't know how bad it got for you.

Pretty damn bad. :-O Bad like I wanted to give my kids away just to burrow
in bed all day. Bad like the thought of the world was oppressive. Bad like
I couldn't tolerate hearing or seeing anything without feeling overwhelmed.
Okay, that makes sense. Me, I like to channel my avoidance of my life into happier pursuits, though, lol (reading, film, great cuisine, friends).
I can't imagine trying to escape my depression by obsessing over how
crappy the world has become. Seems sort of counterproductive, if you will. It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some residual anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments. And I think you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this. (I can't explain what that really means - you have to be one, to "get it").

No, I didn't know that about you, and that explains a lot of the depression
and pain. I wonder then why you're not more sympathetic toward other adults
who've been through hellish childhoods...or, I guess, you figure you
suppressed your pain & they should have suppressed their own without
becoming deviant. I don't know what it's like, so I just have to say I'm
sorry for whatever you suffered and hope you can continue to work through
it.
And I think guys tend to express things like deep hurts using anger as a vehicle. Not that it's the most "rational" thing to do - it just IS.
I'm not proud of it, or happy about it. But feelings are feelings - neither right or wrong. And we each express them a bit differently.

I've never known men who express hurt through anger...I'm very lucky in
that, I guess...but I think that's why your reactions seem so foreign to me!

Jennifer

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote I find it odd that as a trumpeter of people taking responsibility for themselves, you look at young adults who turned out rotten and blame
their parents. :-) Yeah, I suppose it is. I mean, I know the reason, but that doesn't totally excuse it, and get them off the hook, carte blanche. Not a free pass. But it explains it. Um, aren't you the same Bill who recently remarked that he had no sympathy whatsoever for whatever upbringing/abuse might have caused a criminal to become deviant?

I guess so, I despise child molesters and rapists and serial killers, and
yet I know they are that way because of their abusive childhood experiences.
Still, if you're around a child molester or rapist or serial killer, are you
going to feel compassion? THAT requires a lot!
I'm sorry, I didn't remember that. Well then, you do know. And yet
there are some people that can't even get up and out of bed, day after day
after day. So I know it can be worse. I don't know how bad it got for you. Pretty damn bad. :-O Bad like I wanted to give my kids away just to
burrow in bed all day. Bad like the thought of the world was oppressive. Bad
like I couldn't tolerate hearing or seeing anything without feeling
overwhelmed.

THAT does sound bad. So what happened to get you out (if you are "out")?
Are you now on any ADs? How long had you had it, or what do you think
initiated it (the depression)? (sorry if you already covered this)
Okay, that makes sense. Me, I like to channel my avoidance of my life
into happier pursuits, though, lol (reading, film, great cuisine, friends). I can't imagine trying to escape my depression by obsessing over how
crappy the world has become. Seems sort of counterproductive, if you will. It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some residual anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments. And I think you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this. (I can't explain what that really means - you have to be one, to "get it"). No, I didn't know that about you, and that explains a lot of the
depression and pain. I wonder then why you're not more sympathetic toward other
adults who've been through hellish childhoods...or, I guess, you figure you

I can be very sympathetic and understanding at an emotional level - really
connect with some people. People that have been hurt. But I still despise
child molesters and rapists and serial killers. I just don't feel
compassion toward these creeps. I'm not doing the damage they are, so
it's hard for me to feel compassion towards them for all the insidious
damage they have done to others. I understand WHY they are what they are,
though.
suppressed your pain & they should have suppressed their own without becoming deviant. I don't know what it's like, so I just have to say I'm sorry for whatever you suffered and hope you can continue to work through it.

We'll see. The good news it can't go on forever. By definition.
And I think guys tend to express things like deep hurts using anger as a vehicle. Not that it's the most "rational" thing to do - it just IS.
I'm not proud of it, or happy about it. But feelings are feelings - neither right or wrong. And we each express them a bit differently. I've never known men who express hurt through anger...I'm very lucky in that, I guess...but I think that's why your reactions seem so foreign to
me!

But anger is a secondary emotion for hurt, guilt, whatever. And for a lot
of people. Which doesn't mean I only express hurt thru anger, though.
That would probably be an oversimplification.
Jennifer

Bill in Co. wrote in
news:uMP%c.10935$w%6.6163@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:
It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some residual anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments. And I think you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this. (I can't explain what that really means - you have to be one, to "get it").


Okay Bill. I am *not* trying to pick on you, but you're doing it again.

Your labeling of yourself as ACOA, is no different in my mind as someone
(like me!) saying they have ADD, which you say is bull****.

You keep allowing yourself to have labels and allowing yourself to claim
victim, but if anyone else does so, you have plenty of negative things to
say. Why the double standard?

Cal~

Calinda wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:uMP%c.10935$w%6.6163@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net: It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some residual anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments. And I think you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this. (I can't explain what that really means - you have to be one, to "get it"). Okay Bill. I am *not* trying to pick on you, but you're doing it again. Your labeling of yourself as ACOA, is no different in my mind as someone (like me!) saying they have ADD, which you say is bull****. You keep allowing yourself to have labels and allowing yourself to claim victim, but if anyone else does so, you have plenty of negative things to say. Why the double standard? Cal~

You think they're the same thing?

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kaQ%c.10948$w%6.3470@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote> I find it odd that as a trumpeter of people taking responsibility for> themselves, you look at young adults who turned out rotten and blame their> parents. :-) Yeah, I suppose it is. I mean, I know the reason, but that doesn't totally excuse it, and get them off the hook, carte blanche. Not a
free pass. But it explains it. Um, aren't you the same Bill who recently remarked that he had no
sympathy whatsoever for whatever upbringing/abuse might have caused a criminal to become deviant? I guess so, I despise child molesters and rapists and serial killers, and yet I know they are that way because of their abusive childhood
experiences. Still, if you're around a child molester or rapist or serial killer, are
you going to feel compassion? THAT requires a lot!

Yes, it does. Part of me wants to rend them from limb to limb, and then I'm
just thankful that I don't have the power or right to do that. Then another
part wants to avoid hearing about the torture that person might have
experienced in his childhood, because it hurts me so much to imagine
it...and to know what came of it.
Pretty damn bad. :-O Bad like I wanted to give my kids away just to burrow in bed all day. Bad like the thought of the world was oppressive.
Bad like I couldn't tolerate hearing or seeing anything without feeling overwhelmed. THAT does sound bad. So what happened to get you out (if you are
"out")? Are you now on any ADs? How long had you had it, or what do you think initiated it (the depression)? (sorry if you already covered this)

Hard to say IRT initiation. I used to think it was related to childbirth,
but then again depression can have its onset in the early twenties (when I
had my twins). Also, there are situations that can cause depression to
emerge, where the depression would have occurred anyway, but perhaps at a
different juncture in your life.

After I had my twins, I was seriously depressed, but I just "dealt" with it.
I've had OCD since I was very young (age 6 or so), and I was used to trying
to suppress my mental state, if that makes sense. So I spent that first
year pretty depressed, but it did lift, so that was a relief.

With the birth of our next child (4 years after the twins), I came out of it
fine and was pleased not to have postpartum depression. Then it hit me with
a vengeance a few weeks in (typical for real PPD), and I got to the point
where I could hardly function. Part of the depression made me want to avoid
meds and doctors, if you understand that feeling. You can't believe that
the hole you're in is a result of some mental condition!

Anyway, I was encouraged to seek help, I got on Paxil, that worked for a
long time to alleviate not just my depression but my OCD. Because I'd had
two instances of depression, it was recommended that I stay on for a while.
After a number of years, I tried weaning myself off Paxil b/c I'd read
things about the problems with Paxil withdrawal & had concerns about the
drug.

Withdrawal went well, and I was pleased to be drug-free. Then, suddenly,
the cloud descended again after not even a month off the meds. For the
first time, true depression without childbirth factored in, and a third
episode. So it seemed then and now that I'm going to have to treat this as
a lifelong illness, even though that SUCKS. You'd think I'd be used to it
with OCD, but I don't remember ever not having OCD, so it seems frustrating
but normal for me.

I wanted to avoid getting back on Paxil, so I moved to Prozac. I take a
relatively low dose, and my depression is in check. Unfortunately, it's
clear to me that the Paxil helped my OCD far better than the Prozac does.
When I told my doctor that, she recommended a couple of backup meds to take
along with the Prozac, but I never filled them. I don't want to be loaded
with meds. As it is, the Prozac makes me sleepy and affects my libido, and
I can feel more depressed at times than I remember feeling with Paxil.
Still, without it...!
No, I didn't know that about you, and that explains a lot of the depression and pain. I wonder then why you're not more sympathetic toward
other adults who've been through hellish childhoods...or, I guess, you figure
you I can be very sympathetic and understanding at an emotional level - really connect with some people. People that have been hurt. But I still
despise child molesters and rapists and serial killers. I just don't feel compassion toward these creeps. I'm not doing the damage they are, so it's hard for me to feel compassion towards them for all the insidious damage they have done to others. I understand WHY they are what they
are, though.

Okay, fair enough. I can get behind that.
I've never known men who express hurt through anger...I'm very lucky in that, I guess...but I think that's why your reactions seem so foreign to me! But anger is a secondary emotion for hurt, guilt, whatever. And for a
lot of people. Which doesn't mean I only express hurt thru anger, though. That would probably be an oversimplification.

I can understand that when I read it, I guess. Lashing out instead of
dealing with the real emotion.

Jennifer

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:kaQ%c.10948$w%6.3470@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote>> I find it odd that as a trumpeter of people taking responsibility for>> themselves, you look at young adults who turned out rotten and blame
their>> parents. :-)>> Yeah, I suppose it is. I mean, I know the reason, but that doesn't> totally excuse it, and get them off the hook, carte blanche. Not a
free> pass. But it explains it. Um, aren't you the same Bill who recently remarked that he had no
sympathy whatsoever for whatever upbringing/abuse might have caused a criminal to become deviant? I guess so, I despise child molesters and rapists and serial killers, and yet I know they are that way because of their abusive childhood
experiences. Still, if you're around a child molester or rapist or serial killer, are
you going to feel compassion? THAT requires a lot! Yes, it does. Part of me wants to rend them from limb to limb, and then
I'm just thankful that I don't have the power or right to do that. Then
another part wants to avoid hearing about the torture that person might have experienced in his childhood, because it hurts me so much to imagine it...and to know what came of it.

See, I feel so bad about people that have been hurt or abused or raped, that
it's hard for me to get past it some times. But these are the victims I
have compassion for - not the sicko perpetrators that commited the act.
But still, I have some doubt about how tough I can really be in that regard.
I think if I spent some time with some of them, some compassion would oooze
out.

Actually, I have been watching some of those A&E documentaries, and I just
find it SO incredible, and, in a way, fascinating. We're talking about
real life abnormal psych here. If you've ever listened to these serial
killers talk on these A&E documentaries, it is just so .... "surreal".
Pretty damn bad. :-O Bad like I wanted to give my kids away just to burrow in bed all day. Bad like the thought of the world was oppressive.
Bad like I couldn't tolerate hearing or seeing anything without feeling overwhelmed. THAT does sound bad. So what happened to get you out (if you are
"out")? Are you now on any ADs? How long had you had it, or what do you think initiated it (the depression)? (sorry if you already covered this) Hard to say IRT initiation. I used to think it was related to childbirth, but then again depression can have its onset in the early twenties (when I had my twins). Also, there are situations that can cause depression to emerge, where the depression would have occurred anyway, but perhaps at a different juncture in your life.

Really nice not knowing the exact source, isn't it? That used to piss me
off. It's so hard to pin this thing down. But PPD seems to be a common
one, I've heard. Of course, being a guy, there is no way I can really
understand that one.

Depression raises its ugly head, and then goes underground, and resurfaces
later, at a date and time unspecified. Nice, huh? Especially
considering how little we know about it. (And THAT used to really piss me
off!)

It's a good thing you weren't here when I first got into all of this AD
stuff. That was a real trip, I can tell ya... My resistance to even
considering "going on drugs".
After I had my twins, I was seriously depressed, but I just "dealt" with
it. I've had OCD since I was very young (age 6 or so), and I was used to
trying to suppress my mental state, if that makes sense. So I spent that first year pretty depressed, but it did lift, so that was a relief. With the birth of our next child (4 years after the twins), I came out of
it fine and was pleased not to have postpartum depression. Then it hit me
with a vengeance a few weeks in (typical for real PPD), and I got to the point where I could hardly function. Part of the depression made me want to
avoid meds and doctors, if you understand that feeling.

I can understand that feeling quite well. As I said above, you should have
seen me ranting about having to take all this "artificial crap" a couple of
years ago. And then to top it off, I said screw it, and went off cold
turkey, and (how should I put this) that didn't work out "too well", as
several in here can testify. (They also gave me quite a lecture on how
stupid that was).
You can't believe that the hole you're in is a result of some mental
condition!

Oh yeah! For something just "in our head". Some "mental condition".
Voodoo.
Anyway, I was encouraged to seek help, I got on Paxil, that worked for a long time to alleviate not just my depression but my OCD. Because I'd had two instances of depression, it was recommended that I stay on for a
while. After a number of years, I tried weaning myself off Paxil b/c I'd read things about the problems with Paxil withdrawal & had concerns about the drug.

I read about that too. I'm not sure how much there is to it, except that
for any AD, you need to go off slowly. Not cold turkey, like that one
experiment I did (I wanted to see if it was working, and the only sure way
to see was an A-B test). A few people got a bit "upset" with me (including
my doc). In here someone said "you think you know more than the doc too,
now Bill"? (etc, etc, etc).
Withdrawal went well, and I was pleased to be drug-free. Then, suddenly, the cloud descended again after not even a month off the meds. For the first time, true depression without childbirth factored in, and a third episode. So it seemed then and now that I'm going to have to treat this
as a lifelong illness, even though that SUCKS.

Yeah, I know, tell me about it!
You'd think I'd be used to it with OCD, but I don't remember ever not having OCD, so it seems
frustrating but normal for me. I wanted to avoid getting back on Paxil, so I moved to Prozac. I take a relatively low dose, and my depression is in check. Unfortunately, it's clear to me that the Paxil helped my OCD far better than the Prozac does. When I told my doctor that, she recommended a couple of backup meds to
take along with the Prozac, but I never filled them. I don't want to be loaded with meds. As it is, the Prozac makes me sleepy and affects my libido,
and I can feel more depressed at times than I remember feeling with Paxil. Still, without it...!

Yeah - without it we get even more depressed, right? I bet Tim(?) notices
the change too, right?
No, I didn't know that about you, and that explains a lot of the depression and pain. I wonder then why you're not more sympathetic
toward other adults who've been through hellish childhoods...or, I guess, you figure you I can be very sympathetic and understanding at an emotional level -
really connect with some people. People that have been hurt. But I still
despise child molesters and rapists and serial killers. I just don't feel compassion toward these creeps. I'm not doing the damage they are, so it's hard for me to feel compassion towards them for all the insidious damage they have done to others. I understand WHY they are what they
are, though. Okay, fair enough. I can get behind that.

I feel SO BAD for the people they have hurt. It really drains me when I
get into that. But it's part of the human condition, too. The other
extreme of not being able to identify with them (or feel anything) isn't
very attractive either. Although there have been many days I wish I could
be like that! Especially after the divorce.
I've never known men who express hurt through anger...I'm very lucky in that, I guess...but I think that's why your reactions seem so foreign to
me! But anger is a secondary emotion for hurt, guilt, whatever. And for a
lot of people. Which doesn't mean I only express hurt thru anger, though. That would probably be an oversimplification. I can understand that when I read it, I guess. Lashing out instead of dealing with the real emotion.

The bottom line is that it's the only way I know how to deal with it. What
the hell can you do about hurts decades ago? Not a hell of a lot at this
point in time.
Jennifer

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1MT%c.11062$w%
But still, I have some doubt about how tough I can really be in that
regard. I think if I spent some time with some of them, some compassion would
oooze out.

There ya go!!! I'll make a Pollyanna out of you yet. ;-)~
Really nice not knowing the exact source, isn't it? That used to piss me off. It's so hard to pin this thing down. But PPD seems to be a
common one, I've heard. Of course, being a guy, there is no way I can really understand that one.

I think you can understand the depression, though; its onset changes from
person to person, and of course a lot of this is hereditary, anyway.
Depression raises its ugly head, and then goes underground, and resurfaces later, at a date and time unspecified. Nice, huh? Especially considering how little we know about it. (And THAT used to really piss
me off!) It's a good thing you weren't here when I first got into all of this AD stuff. That was a real trip, I can tell ya... My resistance to even considering "going on drugs".

I hear you. I was *SO* resistant to ADs, and what kills me is it was often
the sick part of me that wanted to avoid the meds that could help me
function better. :-/
I can understand that feeling quite well. As I said above, you should
have seen me ranting about having to take all this "artificial crap" a couple
of years ago. And then to top it off, I said screw it, and went off cold turkey, and (how should I put this) that didn't work out "too well", as several in here can testify. (They also gave me quite a lecture on how stupid that was).

I was very careful about tapering off the meds, and my doctor later said I'd
done it well...it just wasn't for me. I wish it had worked. I wanted to be
meds-free. At the same time, the direct correlation between (1) stopping
the meds, and (2) having the depression reoccur, made it clear to me that I
really *did* have this disease, and it wasn't just something that was going
to disappear because I didn't want to have it.
After a number of years, I tried weaning myself off Paxil b/c I'd read things about the problems with Paxil withdrawal & had concerns about the drug. I read about that too. I'm not sure how much there is to it, except
that for any AD, you need to go off slowly. Not cold turkey, like that one experiment I did (I wanted to see if it was working, and the only sure way to see was an A-B test). A few people got a bit "upset" with me
(including my doc). In here someone said "you think you know more than the doc too, now Bill"? (etc, etc, etc).

There are a lot of official case studies documenting the problems with Paxil
withdrawal. It's something the doctors are familiar with, FWIW. In some
ways, though, I wish I'd stuck to Paxil because it was working quite well.
My doctor said it was a good time for me to *try* going off the meds, since
I'd been symptom-free for a number of years. It's just too bad it didn't
work.

Worst thing is that the more reoccurrences you have, the more likely you'll
have future episodes of depression.
So it seemed then and now that I'm going to have to treat this as a lifelong illness, even though that SUCKS. Yeah, I know, tell me about it!

It makes me angry, and if I think too much on it, it makes me feel hopeless.
I have to put it in perspective and look at all the positive things I do
have--my mind, my overall physical health, my strength, my family--and
realize that most people have to deal with *something* that's not working in
their lives.
I can feel more depressed at times than I remember feeling with Paxil. Still, without it...! Yeah - without it we get even more depressed, right? I bet Tim(?)
notices the change too, right?

Oh, absolutely. And when I'm feeling depressed, I am *not* likely to
respond well to charges that I'm, well, depressed, lol. It's such a stupid
cycle! It got to the point with me where I finally allowed myself to accept
the help that others had been offering me. I was really damn stubborn,
though, and to Tim's credit, he never did anything but stand by me, offer
help, and be the strong one when I wasn't.

We both are so relieved that my depression is being treated, and I love
knowing that my children only really know me as a functioning adult. I'd
hate to still feel the way I did that year my youngest was first born. I
remember just sitting in bed holding her, sobbing and wanting to die. Not
good.
I feel SO BAD for the people they have hurt.

I do, too. I feel things very strongly to the point of heartbreak. Still,
I think it's better to feel "so bad" than to feel nothing about what's going
on in the world, as you point out.
I can understand that when I read it, I guess. Lashing out instead of dealing with the real emotion. The bottom line is that it's the only way I know how to deal with it.
What the hell can you do about hurts decades ago? Not a hell of a lot at
this point in time.

I guess that's where therapists make their money, hmmm? I don't know. I'd
have so much anger at the people who hurt me, and it would make me furious
at how unfair it was that my childhood was snatched away without my
permission. I don't know how to get past serious pain like that. Still,
there are survivors of situations like yours...and other horrible tragedies
in their lives...who seem to accept and move toward recovery. I'd have to
hold out hope that I could learn to be like them, I think.

Jennifer

Bill in Co. wrote in
news:c0S%c.11015$w%6.239@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net:
Calinda wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:uMP%c.10935$w%6.6163@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net: It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some residual anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments. And I think you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this. (I can't explain what that really means - you have to be one, to "get it"). Okay Bill. I am *not* trying to pick on you, but you're doing it again. Your labeling of yourself as ACOA, is no different in my mind as someone (like me!) saying they have ADD, which you say is bull****. You keep allowing yourself to have labels and allowing yourself to claim victim, but if anyone else does so, you have plenty of negative things to say. Why the double standard? Cal~ You think they're the same thing?


Of course ADD and ACOA are not "the same thing", but both are labels to
problems people have. I've noticed that you allow yourself to consider
yourself a victim, but if anyone else considers themselves a victim you
whine and complain they aren't taking responsibility for themselves. This
is a double standard.

Also, this thing you have of shirking the responsibility for your actions
by saying you can't help it because you're ACOA IS another of your double
standards.

Using the ADD as an example, because you can't relate to what it's like,
you think its bull****. That is no different than someone who can't relate
to being ACOA saying that's bull****. You don't have ADD, so you don't
know what it's like at all so you dismiss it as being PC label bull****. I
do have ADD and I know it's not BS.

Sometimes in mid-sentence my mind alters directions completely and I have
no idea how it happens. Someone will be talking to me and I can't focus on
what they're saying to me.

Jess calls it the Shiny Balloon Syndrome. Mid-sentence, you see or hear
something and its like "oh look at the shiny balloon.. oh.. what were you
saying?

This fits me to a T sometimes. Anything and everything can distract me
from my purpose at times, unless I am in hyper focus mode, in which case I
can carry on a whole conversation with someone and have NO recollection of
it, because I'm focused on what I'm doing so intently. (My kids used to
love to take advantage of this, though they have learned they will suffer
consequences if they do)

It's frustrating as hell. To have someone tell me this is Bull**** and/or
a cop out when I've lived it for 44 years is *irritating*.

It is probably as irritating to you when someone says that claiming your
suffering is due to being ACOA is bull****. This is what I am saying
above. (And for the record, I am also an ACOA).

I understand the pain that is from being ACOA. My (step-then adoptive) Dad
drank himself into falling down stupor for over 30 years. Imagine how much
he had to drink towards the end to still pass out every night!

Until my mother fell UP the stairs and nearly broke her leg, she drank
nearly as much (I was 17 when she stopped drinking). I was molested by
people who purported to love me. I was once nearly choked to death by my
dad because I dropped a glass ketchup bottle on my way outside to the bbq
and the bottle broke making a mess. He used to put us in the tub to get
our asses wet before he belted us so it would hurt more. I was forced to
become "mother" to my own mother for close to two years while still in high
school.

****.. my life as a child sucked.

I am not saying this for sympathy, what I am saying is that WAS my life.
It's not my life NOW. I refuse to allow that crap to take away the love
and pleasures that life has to offer me NOW. You are choosing to wallow in
self-pity and grief. I have forgiven my parents for the abuses of the
past. I know they are no longer those people who did those things. I know
there is regret on their part and I forgive them and I can honestly say I
love them both. Alcohol does terrible things to people, both the drinkers
and those that live with them.

So, yes, I understand what it's like to be ACOA. But you can choose to
allow this to color the rest of your life, or you can choose to make the
remainder of your life something worth living for. You can choose to find
joy and happiness. Or you can choose to wallow and blame everything from
your past for your current and future unhappiness.

You have the power to change what is 'right now'.. and the future, you
can't change the past, it's done. You can learn to be a better person from
what you've gone through in the past or not.

If you continue to allow yourself to be the victim of the past, then you
have no leg to stand one, when you complain about others. What I'd like to
see are a few things, one.. that you start choosing to live life with a new
frame of mind, one that is positive and finding the joy and happiness in
what you DO have (which is quite a lot, your health, intelligence, a well
brought up daughter among a few), and to make the changes that are needed
to find the happiness that IS out there for you, if you'd turn off all that
negativity.

Or, you can wallow and chose to be victim, in which case, you need to stop
complaining about others, as you're no different than those you're
complaining about.


Cal~

Calinda wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:c0S%c.11015$w%6.239@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net: Calinda wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:uMP%c.10935$w%6.6163@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:> It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some residual> anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments. And I think> you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this. (I can't> explain what that really means - you have to be one, to "get it"). Okay Bill. I am *not* trying to pick on you, but you're doing it again.

Yeah you are. But that's ok. I'm used to it. :-)
Your labeling of yourself as ACOA, is no different in my mind as someone (like me!) saying they have ADD, which you say is bull****. You keep allowing yourself to have labels and allowing yourself to claim victim, but if anyone else does so, you have plenty of negative things to say. Why the double standard? Cal~ You think they're the same thing? Of course ADD and ACOA are not "the same thing", but both are labels to problems people have. I've noticed that you allow yourself to consider yourself a victim, but if anyone else considers themselves a victim you whine and complain they aren't taking responsibility for themselves. This is a double standard. Also, this thing you have of shirking the responsibility for your actions by saying you can't help it because you're ACOA IS another of your double standards.

OK Cal. You win. It's all black and white, as you say. I can't say
anything to anybody about it.
Using the ADD as an example, because you can't relate to what it's like, you think its bull****. That is no different than someone who can't
relate to being ACOA saying that's bull****. You don't have ADD, so you don't know what it's like at all so you dismiss it as being PC label bull****.
I do have ADD and I know it's not BS. Sometimes in mid-sentence my mind alters directions completely and I have no idea how it happens. Someone will be talking to me and I can't focus on what they're saying to me. Jess calls it the Shiny Balloon Syndrome. Mid-sentence, you see or hear something and its like "oh look at the shiny balloon.. oh.. what were you saying? This fits me to a T sometimes. Anything and everything can distract me from my purpose at times, unless I am in hyper focus mode, in which case I can carry on a whole conversation with someone and have NO recollection of it, because I'm focused on what I'm doing so intently. (My kids used to love to take advantage of this, though they have learned they will suffer consequences if they do) It's frustrating as hell. To have someone tell me this is Bull**** and/or a cop out when I've lived it for 44 years is *irritating*. It is probably as irritating to you when someone says that claiming your suffering is due to being ACOA is bull****. This is what I am saying above. (And for the record, I am also an ACOA).

OK, I didn't know that. But now that you tell me, that explains a lot,
and I understand some more things about our posts, and what has been said,
and how it has been said, and how it affects you - and why I get back some
responses showing a bit of unusual defensiveness on your part. You have a
tendency to take a lot of things personally. (I'm not putting myself on a
pedal here - I'm just making a note, ok? so please don't get up in arms
about it)
I understand the pain that is from being ACOA. My (step-then adoptive)
Dad drank himself into falling down stupor for over 30 years. Imagine how
much he had to drink towards the end to still pass out every night! Until my mother fell UP the stairs and nearly broke her leg, she drank nearly as much (I was 17 when she stopped drinking). I was molested by people who purported to love me. I was once nearly choked to death by my dad because I dropped a glass ketchup bottle on my way outside to the bbq and the bottle broke making a mess. He used to put us in the tub to get our asses wet before he belted us so it would hurt more. I was forced to become "mother" to my own mother for close to two years while still in
high school. ****.. my life as a child sucked.

I'm sorry, and I hear you (now). And as I just said, that explains a
mystery to me (about some of your responses to me). I haven't been
understanding enough, now knowing this.
I am not saying this for sympathy, what I am saying is that WAS my life. It's not my life NOW. I refuse to allow that crap to take away the love and pleasures that life has to offer me NOW. You are choosing to wallow
in self-pity and grief. I have forgiven my parents for the abuses of the past. I know they are no longer those people who did those things. I
know there is regret on their part and I forgive them and I can honestly say I love them both. Alcohol does terrible things to people, both the drinkers and those that live with them. So, yes, I understand what it's like to be ACOA. But you can choose to allow this to color the rest of your life, or you can choose to make the remainder of your life something worth living for. You can choose to find joy and happiness. Or you can choose to wallow and blame everything from your past for your current and future unhappiness.

But Cal, I think it IS affecting both of us. Are you saying you are out
of the woods? I doubt it. And please keep in mind that you now have
found someone to help you thru some of this (your SO). Correct me if I'm
wrong, but before you did, you WERE pretty well down in the blues. Think
back. Go back and look at some of your old posts (you were the one that
told some of us to do that once, to see how you were, for so many years).
So maybe you should cut me some slack too.
You have the power to change what is 'right now'.. and the future, you can't change the past, it's done. You can learn to be a better person
from what you've gone through in the past or not. If you continue to allow yourself to be the victim of the past, then you have no leg to stand one, when you complain about others. What I'd like
to see are a few things, one.. that you start choosing to live life with a
new frame of mind, one that is positive and finding the joy and happiness in what you DO have (which is quite a lot, your health, intelligence, a well brought up daughter among a few), and to make the changes that are needed to find the happiness that IS out there for you, if you'd turn off all
that negativity. Or, you can wallow and chose to be victim, in which case, you need to stop complaining about others, as you're no different than those you're complaining about.

As I said above, that's easier to say at THIS point in time for you,
considering you have found the love of your life. What if you hadn't?
Do you know how you were back then? I remember. You were a bit in the
dumps. Do you remember your reply to them at that time?

"How quickly they forget" (actually that applies to MOST of us, so please
don't be put off by it, and take this SO negatively, either). Let's face
it, we ALL have faults.
Cal~

Jennifer in Maryland wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1MT%c.11062$w% But still, I have some doubt about how tough I can really be in that
regard. I think if I spent some time with some of them, some compassion would
oooze out. There ya go!!! I'll make a Pollyanna out of you yet. ;-)~

Dream on, babe. :-) Can a tiger change its stripes? (rhetorical)
Really nice not knowing the exact source, isn't it? That used to piss
me off. It's so hard to pin this thing down. But PPD seems to be a
common one, I've heard. Of course, being a guy, there is no way I can really understand that one. I think you can understand the depression, though; its onset changes from person to person, and of course a lot of this is hereditary, anyway. Depression raises its ugly head, and then goes underground, and
resurfaces later, at a date and time unspecified. Nice, huh? Especially considering how little we know about it. (And THAT used to really piss
me off!) It's a good thing you weren't here when I first got into all of this AD stuff. That was a real trip, I can tell ya... My resistance to even considering "going on drugs". I hear you. I was *SO* resistant to ADs, and what kills me is it was
often the sick part of me that wanted to avoid the meds that could help me function better. :-/

Preachin' to the choir..... I hear ya....!
I can understand that feeling quite well. As I said above, you should
have seen me ranting about having to take all this "artificial crap" a couple
of years ago. And then to top it off, I said screw it, and went off cold turkey, and (how should I put this) that didn't work out "too well", as several in here can testify. (They also gave me quite a lecture on how stupid that was). I was very careful about tapering off the meds, and my doctor later said
I'd done it well...it just wasn't for me. I wish it had worked. I wanted to
be meds-free. At the same time, the direct correlation between (1) stopping the meds, and (2) having the depression reoccur, made it clear to me that
I really *did* have this disease, and it wasn't just something that was
going to disappear because I didn't want to have it.

Yeah I know, but I don't wanna hear this!!!!!! Drug dependency! Bah,
humbug.
After a number of years, I tried weaning myself off Paxil b/c I'd read things about the problems with Paxil withdrawal & had concerns about the drug. I read about that too. I'm not sure how much there is to it, except
that for any AD, you need to go off slowly. Not cold turkey, like that one experiment I did (I wanted to see if it was working, and the only sure
way to see was an A-B test). A few people got a bit "upset" with me
(including my doc). In here someone said "you think you know more than the doc
too, now Bill"? (etc, etc, etc). There are a lot of official case studies documenting the problems with
Paxil withdrawal. It's something the doctors are familiar with, FWIW. In some ways, though, I wish I'd stuck to Paxil because it was working quite well. My doctor said it was a good time for me to *try* going off the meds,
since I'd been symptom-free for a number of years. It's just too bad it didn't work.

I was on Paxil in the beginning, but after awhile it wasn't working very
well so we went to another AD. I'm now on Effexor XR. Which seems to
help. When I came off of Paxil I didn't notice too much, because I
switched over to another one (damn it, I can't remember which one right now.
But I'm on the 3rd one now - Effexor XR)
Worst thing is that the more reoccurrences you have, the more likely
you'll have future episodes of depression. So it seemed then and now that I'm going to have to treat this as a lifelong illness, even though that SUCKS. Yeah, I know, tell me about it! It makes me angry, and if I think too much on it, it makes me feel
hopeless. I have to put it in perspective and look at all the positive things I do have--my mind, my overall physical health, my strength, my family--and realize that most people have to deal with *something* that's not working
in their lives.

That is true.
I can feel more depressed at times than I remember feeling with Paxil. Still, without it...! Yeah - without it we get even more depressed, right? I bet Tim(?)
notices the change too, right? Oh, absolutely. And when I'm feeling depressed, I am *not* likely to respond well to charges that I'm, well, depressed, lol.

LOL. Tell me about it! I know exactly where you're coming from there.
It's such a stupid cycle! It got to the point with me where I finally allowed myself to
accept the help that others had been offering me. I was really damn stubborn, though, and to Tim's credit, he never did anything but stand by me, offer help, and be the strong one when I wasn't. We both are so relieved that my depression is being treated, and I love knowing that my children only really know me as a functioning adult. I'd hate to still feel the way I did that year my youngest was first born. I remember just sitting in bed holding her, sobbing and wanting to die. Not good. I feel SO BAD for the people they have hurt. I do, too. I feel things very strongly to the point of heartbreak.
Still, I think it's better to feel "so bad" than to feel nothing about what's
going on in the world, as you point out.

Well, I don't always feel that way. But I'm telling ya Jennifer, after
losing a 27 year marriage, its kind of up in the air as to which is better.
I mean, if I look at this more objectively, it does seem that the marriage
wasn't doing much for either of us in the final years, but still..... And
I still kind of love her (and vice versa). But it's a different kind of
love - more like caring about someone now as a friend. Our divorce is (by
and large) amicable. And I don't really blame her for this - we were both
at fault.
I can understand that when I read it, I guess. Lashing out instead of dealing with the real emotion. The bottom line is that it's the only way I know how to deal with it.
What the hell can you do about hurts decades ago? Not a hell of a lot at
this point in time. I guess that's where therapists make their money, hmmm? I don't know.
I'd have so much anger at the people who hurt me, and it would make me furious at how unfair it was that my childhood was snatched away without my permission.

It is HARD to get angry at the ones you love! The ones that took care of
you. And my parents definitely had their good moments - with lots of love
and care. But some of those insidious ones ... ugh (it doesn't take too
many when you're a child to really "register", and permanently) Plus -
how can I get mad at someone who loved me and couldn't do any better? It's
not fair to them. (This is hard to explain. Let's just leave it at that.
I feel guilty talking about it)
I don't know how to get past serious pain like that. Still, there are survivors of situations like yours...and other horrible
tragedies in their lives...who seem to accept and move toward recovery. I'd have to hold out hope that I could learn to be like them, I think.

....rather than like the Ted Bundys (serial killers)! No amount of
"cognitive therapy" could do squat in his case, or some others.

It's all a big mystery. The bottom line is we are all unique individuals.
Who knows...
Jennifer

Bill in Co. wrote in
news:6P%%c.11364$w%6.1656@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:
Calinda wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:c0S%c.11015$w%6.239@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net: Calinda wrote:> Bill in Co. wrote in> news:uMP%c.10935$w%6.6163@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:>>> It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some>> residual anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments.>> And I think you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this.>> (I can't explain what that really means - you have to be one, to>> "get it").>>> Okay Bill. I am *not* trying to pick on you, but you're doing it> again. Yeah you are.

It may seem that way to you, I admit. What I am trying to do is get you to
see how what you say about yourself and about other's are in conflict, and
that perhaps if you can see things in yourself, then maybe you won't be so
damn judgmental towards others.
But that's ok. I'm used to it. :-)

Yeah, and I take things too personally, huh? <G>

> Your labeling of yourself as ACOA, is no different in my mind as> someone (like me!) saying they have ADD, which you say is bull****.>> You keep allowing yourself to have labels and allowing yourself to> claim victim, but if anyone else does so, you have plenty of> negative things to say. Why the double standard?>> Cal~ You think they're the same thing? Of course ADD and ACOA are not "the same thing", but both are labels to problems people have. I've noticed that you allow yourself to consider yourself a victim, but if anyone else considers themselves a victim you whine and complain they aren't taking responsibility for themselves. This is a double standard. Also, this thing you have of shirking the responsibility for your actions by saying you can't help it because you're ACOA IS another of your double standards. OK Cal. You win. It's all black and white, as you say. I can't say anything to anybody about it.

Well, IMO, your labeling of yourself and making excuses for yourself, all
the while complaining that others do so is pretty rotten behavoir on your
part. You really don't have a leg to stand on in your complaints about
others if you do the same thing. He who lives in glass houses, and all
that jazz.

Using the ADD as an example, because you can't relate to what it's like, you think its bull****. That is no different than someone who can't relate to being ACOA saying that's bull****. You don't have ADD, so you don't know what it's like at all so you dismiss it as being PC label bull****. I do have ADD and I know it's not BS. Sometimes in mid-sentence my mind alters directions completely and I have no idea how it happens. Someone will be talking to me and I can't focus on what they're saying to me. Jess calls it the Shiny Balloon Syndrome. Mid-sentence, you see or hear something and its like "oh look at the shiny balloon.. oh.. what were you saying? This fits me to a T sometimes. Anything and everything can distract me from my purpose at times, unless I am in hyper focus mode, in which case I can carry on a whole conversation with someone and have NO recollection of it, because I'm focused on what I'm doing so intently. (My kids used to love to take advantage of this, though they have learned they will suffer consequences if they do) It's frustrating as hell. To have someone tell me this is Bull**** and/or a cop out when I've lived it for 44 years is *irritating*. It is probably as irritating to you when someone says that claiming your suffering is due to being ACOA is bull****. This is what I am saying above. (And for the record, I am also an ACOA). OK, I didn't know that. But now that you tell me, that explains a lot, and I understand some more things about our posts, and what has been said, and how it has been said, and how it affects you -


Well, I don't know about that. I choose to move beyond that crap that was
my childhood.
and why I get back some responses showing a bit of unusual defensiveness on your part.

I don't see it.
You have a tendency to take a lot of things personally.

This I don't get. I've been 'accused' of taking things too personally
before, but if a post is a direct response to me, from something I've said
and addresses specifically the topic that I discussed, how am I supposed to
take that as anything other than being a reply TO ME, personally? Unless
there is something there to indicate otherwise, I consider a reply to
something I've said to be to me and I respond in that fashion.
(I'm not putting myself on a pedal here - I'm just making a note, ok? so please don't get up in arms about it)

Not up in arms, more confused. I don't know any other way to take a post
that is in response to me, or what I've said or done.
I understand the pain that is from being ACOA. My (step-then adoptive) Dad drank himself into falling down stupor for over 30 years. Imagine how much he had to drink towards the end to still pass out every night! Until my mother fell UP the stairs and nearly broke her leg, she drank nearly as much (I was 17 when she stopped drinking). I was molested by people who purported to love me. I was once nearly choked to death by my dad because I dropped a glass ketchup bottle on my way outside to the bbq and the bottle broke making a mess. He used to put us in the tub to get our asses wet before he belted us so it would hurt more. I was forced to become "mother" to my own mother for close to two years while still in high school. ****.. my life as a child sucked. I'm sorry, and I hear you (now). And as I just said, that explains a mystery to me (about some of your responses to me). I haven't been understanding enough, now knowing this.

Hmm.. I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand. I don't see
how this changes how you see my posts. Perhaps you might explain this a
little more?
I am not saying this for sympathy, what I am saying is that WAS my life. It's not my life NOW. I refuse to allow that crap to take away the love and pleasures that life has to offer me NOW. You are choosing to wallow in self-pity and grief. I have forgiven my parents for the abuses of the past. I know they are no longer those people who did those things. I know there is regret on their part and I forgive them and I can honestly say I love them both. Alcohol does terrible things to people, both the drinkers and those that live with them. So, yes, I understand what it's like to be ACOA. But you can choose to allow this to color the rest of your life, or you can choose to make the remainder of your life something worth living for. You can choose to find joy and happiness. Or you can choose to wallow and blame everything from your past for your current and future unhappiness. But Cal, I think it IS affecting both of us. Are you saying you are out of the woods? I doubt it. And please keep in mind that you now have found someone to help you thru some of this (your SO). Correct me if I'm wrong, but before you did, you WERE pretty well down in the blues. Think back. Go back and look at some of your old posts (you were the one that told some of us to do that once, to see how you were, for so many years). So maybe you should cut me some slack too.

Oh I absolutely remember! My SO and I have talked about this some very
recently, in fact. What I also remember is I hit rock bottom over a year
ago. I was posting about how miserable I was, how awful my life way and
that I never saw it getting better. I made a *conscious* decision to stop
posting after a really horrible disagreement with someone (don't recall,
don't care to). That was sometime in June or July of last year. At that
point, I also made a conscious decision to stop feeling so bloody miserable
for myself, that I had the power to change the direction of my life, by
choosing to stop wallowing in pity. I had to force myself to get out.. to
get out of my house, and to open myself up to possilbities.

I know it isn't easy to do, but I knew I wanted more from whatever life I
had left than sitting at home, hurting and lonely. I got out and did
things that I felt add pleasure to my life.

I had to choose to make my life better, because no one else could do that
FOR me. And I was extremely lucky that I happened to meet one of the most
amazing men I've ever known at that point in my life. It doesn't always
happen so quickly or so easily and I know I was VERY lucky.

It was all luck and happenstance, really. I went to something that some
other friends were going to go to as well, and they all bagged for various
reasons. So, I had to decide... do I go alone or do I stay home. In my
old "poor me" attitude, I'd have stayed home feeling sorry for myself. I
made the decicion not to stay home, and that is when I met SO. At first
meeting, he seemed nice enough but spending hours and hours talking to him
was like I'd found where I wanted to be. Not sure how to explain it, I
know I got very lucky that weekend that I met him (and NO, not that kind of
lucky ;) )

I just wanted to clarify this, as I get the feeling that *some* people that
have known me both before and after SO have felt that he is the reason for
my not feeling so sorrowful, when in truth, it was only because I chose to
live life and not wallow that I was open to the possiblities. I had to
make the conscious choice.

You have the power to change what is 'right now'.. and the future, you can't change the past, it's done. You can learn to be a better person from what you've gone through in the past or not. If you continue to allow yourself to be the victim of the past, then you have no leg to stand one, when you complain about others. What I'd like to see are a few things, one.. that you start choosing to live life with a new frame of mind, one that is positive and finding the joy and happiness in what you DO have (which is quite a lot, your health, intelligence, a well brought up daughter among a few), and to make the changes that are needed to find the happiness that IS out there for you, if you'd turn off all that negativity. Or, you can wallow and chose to be victim, in which case, you need to stop complaining about others, as you're no different than those you're complaining about.
As I said above, that's easier to say at THIS point in time for you, considering you have found the love of your life. What if you hadn't? Do you know how you were back then? I remember. You were a bit in the dumps. Do you remember your reply to them at that time?

Yes, I do. I also know it took unsubscribing to ASD for a while and not
hiding in my room to lose the attitude that I had that my life was crap and
would never get better. AD's also helped. I had to make that conscious
decision not to focus on what I didn't have, but what I did have. This is
why I've made the suggestions I have. It wasn't easy, but you can do it.
"How quickly they forget" (actually that applies to MOST of us, so please don't be put off by it, and take this SO negatively, either).

Umm. nope.. didn't take it as negative, I took it as you're not
understanding how I came about the changes in my attitude. Much of my life
still sucks, quite frankly. I have been trying to focus on the parts that
don't (my kids and my SO).. rather than the parts that do (my health, my
financial situation).
Let's face it, we ALL have faults.

One thing we agree on.

Cal~

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:x500d.2096
There ya go!!! I'll make a Pollyanna out of you yet. ;-)~ Dream on, babe. :-) Can a tiger change its stripes? (rhetorical)

With enough peroxide, absolutely.
Yeah I know, but I don't wanna hear this!!!!!! Drug dependency! Bah, humbug.

I'm extremely anti-meds for the most part, which made medicating myself that
much harder. I've never tried illegal drugs, and I didn't even drink
alcohol for a period of 12 years or so. Even with my kids, I try to avoid
meds except as a last resort (try the home remedies first, lots of rest,
lots to drink, that sort of thing).
I was on Paxil in the beginning, but after awhile it wasn't working very well so we went to another AD. I'm now on Effexor XR.

I've heard good things about Effexor. I'll have to keep that in mind in
case my condition changes and requires something different.
Well, I don't always feel that way. But I'm telling ya Jennifer, after losing a 27 year marriage, its kind of up in the air as to which is
better. I mean, if I look at this more objectively, it does seem that the marriage wasn't doing much for either of us in the final years, but still.....
And I still kind of love her (and vice versa). But it's a different kind of love - more like caring about someone now as a friend. Our divorce is (by and large) amicable. And I don't really blame her for this - we were
both at fault.

Just look at 88-year-old Robert McNamara. He was born in 1916 & he had a
loving, successful, 40-year marriage to Margaret Craig until she died of
cancer in 1981.

"Many friends believed McNamara would never marry again. He was wed for 40
years to Margaret Craig, his teenage sweetheart, with whom he had two
daughters and a son. He often said theirs was a "marriage made in heaven."
Margaret, a former teacher, used her position as a Cabinet spouse to launch
a reading program for young children -- Reading Is Fundamental, which became
the largest literacy program in the country."

Now, 23 years after his first wife died, he's engaged to be married to
70-year-old Diana Byfield, whom he met 4 years ago. Here's the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3686-2004Sep7.html

Now isn't that encouraging?? :-)

Jennifer

* Calinda * wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:6P%%c.11364$w%6.1656@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net: Calinda wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:c0S%c.11015$w%6.239@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net:> Calinda wrote:>> Bill in Co. wrote in>> news:uMP%c.10935$w%6.6163@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:>>>>> It may well be "counterproductive", but it's probably some>>> residual anger dating back to a few traumatic childhood moments.>>> And I think you know already I'm an ACOA, which is part of this.>>> (I can't explain what that really means - you have to be one, to>>> "get it").>>>>>> Okay Bill. I am *not* trying to pick on you, but you're doing it>> again. Yeah you are. It may seem that way to you, I admit. What I am trying to do is get you
to see how what you say about yourself and about other's are in conflict, and that perhaps if you can see things in yourself, then maybe you won't be so damn judgmental towards others.

Come on! We are ALL judgemental! Just that SOME don't admit it. (Most,
actually). With me, it's out in the open. With many others, it's lurking
under the covers, just waiting for the "right opportunity" to express
itself.
But that's ok. I'm used to it. :-) Yeah, and I take things too personally, huh? <G>

Maybe both of us. Actually, maybe MOST of us...
>> Your labeling of yourself as ACOA, is no different in my mind as>> someone (like me!) saying they have ADD, which you say is bull****.>>>> You keep allowing yourself to have labels and allowing yourself to>> claim victim, but if anyone else does so, you have plenty of>> negative things to say. Why the double standard?>>>> Cal~>> You think they're the same thing?> Of course ADD and ACOA are not "the same thing", but both are labels to problems people have. I've noticed that you allow yourself to consider yourself a victim, but if anyone else considers themselves a victim you whine and complain they aren't taking responsibility for themselves. This is a double standard.

Saying ACOA is shorter than writing out what it means, that's all. It
"simply" means growing up with an alcoholic parent, and the consequences
thereof. And, unlike ADD (and a few other ABCs), the consequences are
clearly known and unambiguous, and there is no debate as to whether it
exists or not, whether it is biological or not, whether it is environmental
or not, whether you have it or not (by scoring 6 out of 10 on a multiple
choice test) or not, - or whatever. Because one thing IS known with
certainty: Any abuse (emotional, physical, mental) scars. Period, no
ambiguity. Let's deal with facts. More on this below, before you get
to upset with me on this belief.
Also, this thing you have of shirking the responsibility for your actions by saying you can't help it because you're ACOA IS another of your double standards. OK Cal. You win. It's all black and white, as you say. I can't say anything to anybody about it. Well, IMO, your labeling of yourself and making excuses for yourself, all the while complaining that others do so is pretty rotten behavoir on your part. You really don't have a leg to stand on in your complaints about others if you do the same thing. He who lives in glass houses, and all that jazz.

So you can't give your daughter a lecture on a speeding ticket or breaking
the law, because you have never had one or done it yourself. Right?

I have a few broken windows, but I don't mind. Actually, don't most of
us?
Using the ADD as an example, because you can't relate to what it's like, you think its bull****. That is no different than someone who
can't relate to being ACOA saying that's bull****. You don't have ADD, so you don't know what it's like at all so you dismiss it as being PC label
bull****. I do have ADD and I know it's not BS. Sometimes in mid-sentence my mind alters directions completely and I have no idea how it happens. Someone will be talking to me and I can't focus on what they're saying to me.

Well, if that happens to me, or to any of us, do I (or any of us) also have
ADD?
What if my child seems to have difficulty concentrating in school. She
must have ADD, right? (I believe the education system seems to think so).
Jess calls it the Shiny Balloon Syndrome. Mid-sentence, you see or hear something and its like "oh look at the shiny balloon.. oh.. what were you saying? This fits me to a T sometimes. Anything and everything can distract me from my purpose at times, unless I am in hyper focus mode, in which case I can carry on a whole conversation with someone and have NO recollection of it, because I'm focused on what I'm doing so intently. (My kids used to love to take advantage of this, though they have learned they will suffer consequences if they do) It's frustrating as hell. To have someone tell me this is Bull**** and/or a cop out when I've lived it for 44 years is *irritating*.

OK, Cal, maybe you're right. I'm not an authority on it. Let's leave it
at that. The fact is, we know very little about physiology, when push comes
to shove. Which sometimes annoys the hell out of me. Remember when I
first was told I supposedly had depression, and how I reacted to that? So
realize who you're trying to convince here. Maybe it's best to let
sleeping dogs lie on this one. I've got enough problems of my own
accepting all this stuff.
It is probably as irritating to you when someone says that claiming your suffering is due to being ACOA is bull****. This is what I am saying above. (And for the record, I am also an ACOA). OK, I didn't know that. But now that you tell me, that explains a lot, and I understand some more things about our posts, and what has been said, and how it has been said, and how it affects you - Well, I don't know about that. I choose to move beyond that crap that was my childhood.

Did you? I don't think you have escaped the shackles as much as you
think.
and why I get back some responses showing a bit of unusual defensiveness on your part. I don't see it.

But we see in others what we miss seeing in ourselves. Classic. Nothing
new there.
You have a tendency to take a lot of things personally. This I don't get. I've been 'accused' of taking things too personally before, but if a post is a direct response to me, from something I've said and addresses specifically the topic that I discussed, how am I supposed
to take that as anything other than being a reply TO ME, personally? Unless there is something there to indicate otherwise, I consider a reply to something I've said to be to me and I respond in that fashion.

You know, sometimes we have the hardest time really seeing ourselves. This
is an axiom of psychology. No new territory here.
(I'm not putting myself on a pedal here - I'm just making a note, ok? so please don't get up in arms about it) Not up in arms, more confused. I don't know any other way to take a post that is in response to me, or what I've said or done. I understand the pain that is from being ACOA. My (step-then adoptive) Dad drank himself into falling down stupor for over 30 years. Imagine how much he had to drink towards the end to still pass out every night! Until my mother fell UP the stairs and nearly broke her leg, she drank nearly as much (I was 17 when she stopped drinking). I was molested by people who purported to love me. I was once nearly choked to death by my dad because I dropped a glass ketchup bottle on my way outside to the bbq and the bottle broke making a mess. He used to put us in the tub to get our asses wet before he belted us so it would hurt more. I was forced to become "mother" to my own mother for close to two years while still in high school. ****.. my life as a child sucked. I'm sorry, and I hear you (now). And as I just said, that explains a mystery to me (about some of your responses to me). I haven't been understanding enough, now knowing this. Hmm.. I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand. I don't see how this changes how you see my posts. Perhaps you might explain this a little more?

Perhaps with a little more understanding. It explains some things to me.
The way you (sometimes) react the way you do, the way you respond the way
you do. That kind of thing. I don't know how to express it any better.
I am not saying this for sympathy, what I am saying is that WAS my life. It's not my life NOW. I refuse to allow that crap to take away the love and pleasures that life has to offer me NOW. You are choosing to wallow in self-pity and grief. I have forgiven my parents for the abuses of the past. I know they are no longer those people who did those things. I know there is regret on their part and I forgive them and I can honestly say I love them both. Alcohol does terrible things to people, both the drinkers and those that live with them. So, yes, I understand what it's like to be ACOA. But you can choose to allow this to color the rest of your life, or you can choose to make the remainder of your life something worth living for. You can choose to find joy and happiness. Or you can choose to wallow and blame everything from your past for your current and future unhappiness. But Cal, I think it IS affecting both of us. Are you saying you are out of the woods? I doubt it. And please keep in mind that you now have found someone to help you thru some of this (your SO). Correct me if I'm wrong, but before you did, you WERE pretty well down in the blues. Think back. Go back and look at some of your old posts (you were the one that told some of us to do that once, to see how you were, for so many years). So maybe you should cut me some slack too. Oh I absolutely remember! My SO and I have talked about this some very recently, in fact. What I also remember is I hit rock bottom over a year ago. I was posting about how miserable I was, how awful my life way and that I never saw it getting better. I made a *conscious* decision to stop posting after a really horrible disagreement with someone (don't recall, don't care to). That was sometime in June or July of last year. At that point, I also made a conscious decision to stop feeling so bloody
miserable for myself, that I had the power to change the direction of my life, by choosing to stop wallowing in pity. I had to force myself to get out.. to get out of my house, and to open myself up to possilbities. I know it isn't easy to do, but I knew I wanted more from whatever life I had left than sitting at home, hurting and lonely. I got out and did things that I felt add pleasure to my life. I had to choose to make my life better, because no one else could do that FOR me. And I was extremely lucky that I happened to meet one of the most amazing men I've ever known at that point in my life. It doesn't always happen so quickly or so easily and I know I was VERY lucky. It was all luck and happenstance, really. I went to something that some other friends were going to go to as well, and they all bagged for various reasons. So, I had to decide... do I go alone or do I stay home. In my old "poor me" attitude, I'd have stayed home feeling sorry for myself.

I prefer staying home and away from people. That is a critical difference.
You don't. You're more of a social creature. I'm more of a loner -
believe it. And always have been. I prefer to eat lunch alone, etc. (No
small talk).
I made the decicion not to stay home, and that is when I met SO. At first meeting, he seemed nice enough but spending hours and hours talking to him was like I'd found where I wanted to be. Not sure how to explain it, I know I got very lucky that weekend that I met him (and NO, not that kind
of lucky ;) ) I just wanted to clarify this, as I get the feeling that *some* people
that have known me both before and after SO have felt that he is the reason for my not feeling so sorrowful, when in truth, it was only because I chose to live life and not wallow that I was open to the possiblities. I had to make the conscious choice. You have the power to change what is 'right now'.. and the future, you can't change the past, it's done. You can learn to be a better person from what you've gone through in the past or not. If you continue to allow yourself to be the victim of the past, then you have no leg to stand one, when you complain about others. What I'd like to see are a few things, one.. that you start choosing to live
life with a new frame of mind, one that is positive and finding the joy and
happiness in what you DO have (which is quite a lot, your health, intelligence, a well brought up daughter among a few), and to make the changes that are needed to find the happiness that IS out there for you, if you'd turn off all that negativity.

Look, I haven't figured out what those changes are. And I don't like some
of the decisions that will have to be made coming up, with so many unknowns.
So why the pressure? Where's the fire already? Everything takes time.
Or, you can wallow and chose to be victim, in which case, you need to stop complaining about others, as you're no different than those you're complaining about. As I said above, that's easier to say at THIS point in time for you, considering you have found the love of your life. What if you hadn't? Do you know how you were back then? I remember. You were a bit in the dumps. Do you remember your reply to them at that time? Yes, I do. I also know it took unsubscribing to ASD for a while and not hiding in my room to lose the attitude that I had that my life was crap
and would never get better. AD's also helped. I had to make that conscious decision not to focus on what I didn't have, but what I did have. This is why I've made the suggestions I have. It wasn't easy, but you can do it. "How quickly they forget" (actually that applies to MOST of us, so please don't be put off by it, and take this SO negatively, either). Umm. nope.. didn't take it as negative, I took it as you're not understanding how I came about the changes in my attitude. Much of my life still sucks, quite frankly. I have been trying to focus on the parts
that don't (my kids and my SO).. rather than the parts that do (my health, my financial situation). Let's face it, we ALL have faults. One thing we agree on. Cal~

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Saying ACOA is shorter than writing out what it means, that's all. It "simply" means growing up with an alcoholic parent, and the consequences thereof. And, unlike ADD (and a few other ABCs), the consequences are clearly known and unambiguous, and there is no debate as to whether it exists or not, whether it is biological or not, whether it is environmental or not, whether you have it or not (by scoring 6 out of 10 on a multiple choice test) or not, - or whatever.

This would be amusing if it wasn't really very sad.

Bill's problems are absolutely, positively, unambiguously clearly
known to be real.

Other people's problems are just personal weaknesses.


Bill's acronym is just because it is shorter than writing it out.

Other people's acronyms are for other reasons?

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Saying ACOA is shorter than writing out what it means, that's all. It "simply" means growing up with an alcoholic parent, and the consequences thereof. And, unlike ADD (and a few other ABCs), the consequences are clearly known and unambiguous, and there is no debate as to whether it exists or not, whether it is biological or not, whether it is
environmental or not, whether you have it or not (by scoring 6 out of 10 on a multiple choice test) or not, - or whatever. This would be amusing if it wasn't really very sad. Bill's problems are absolutely, positively, unambiguously clearly known to be real.

Well, I think most of it is in my head, actually. And not very well
defined. But nice try, though.
Other people's problems are just personal weaknesses.

No, just some of yours. - like actually taking a *stand* in the "morality
for society" department. A STAND on these moral issues, that are
affecting all of us - whether you see it or not, or whether you even care or
not (do you really care about the rest of society? I honestly don't know)
Bill's acronym is just because it is shorter than writing it out. Other people's acronyms are for other reasons?

I don't know what yours are, Doug. Why don't you tell us what yours are?
Perhaps some of the new ones they've come up with, in the last few decades?

Lord knows, we have an infinite list of acronyms today. Gee, I wonder why?
Must be all those new scientific discoveries!

I could almost say the same thing about depression, and what the hell is it.
Shall we start in on that one again?

Bill in Co. wrote in
news:CV40d.11625$w%6.3725@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:
* Calinda * wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:6P%%c.11364$w%6.1656@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:

< mucho snipo>
OK Cal. You win. It's all black and white, as you say. I can't say anything to anybody about it. Well, IMO, your labeling of yourself and making excuses for yourself, all the while complaining that others do so is pretty rotten behavior on your part. You really don't have a leg to stand on in your complaints about others if you do the same thing. He who lives in glass houses, and all that jazz. So you can't give your daughter a lecture on a speeding ticket or breaking the law, because you have never had one or done it yourself. Right?

You're comparing apples and oranges IMO. Teaching my children right
from wrong is VERY different than going to a public newsgroup and
telling someone they're falling for PC bull**** if they believe they
have a mental health issue you don't believe exists.
I have a few broken windows, but I don't mind. Actually, don't most of us?> Using the ADD as an example, because you can't relate to what it's> like, you think its bull****. That is no different than someone> who can't> relate to being ACOA saying that's bull****. You don't have ADD,> so you don't know what it's like at all so you dismiss it as being> PC label bull****.>> I do have ADD and I know it's not BS.>> Sometimes in mid-sentence my mind alters directions completely and> I have no idea how it happens. Someone will be talking to me and I> can't focus on what they're saying to me. Well, if that happens to me, or to any of us, do I (or any of us) also have ADD?

Not if it happens occasionally. If it happens multiple times an hour,
you might want to consider it.
What if my child seems to have difficulty concentrating in school. She must have ADD, right? (I believe the education system seems to think so).

Would depend on the severity. All of my childhood report cards
mentioned that I'd be a wonderful student if I didn't daydream all the
time as I did. Back in the sixties and seventies, it wasn't diagnosed very
often and almost never in girls. It was considered to be a boys' issue
only.

Conversations with me can be frustrating to the uninitiated :-P I can
get off on a tangent faster than you can say Boo. My SO used to lose
patience with me, when we would be discussing something, and whatever is
being said would trigger a thought of something totally unrelated, at which
point my mind has now completely lose the first subject we were discussing.

He's learned that he can redirect my focus back to the topic at hand
with just a few words, though many times I feel guilty that it happens.
I don't do that intentionally and sometimes I have to work very hard to
stay on topic. You wouldn't believe how much stuff I usually edit out
of my posts, because of this tangent or that. (Just snipped a whole bunch
of other stuff, lol.)
> Jess calls it the Shiny Balloon Syndrome. Mid-sentence, you see or> hear something and its like "oh look at the shiny balloon.. oh..> what were you saying?>> This fits me to a T sometimes. Anything and everything can> distract me from my purpose at times, unless I am in hyper focus> mode, in which case I can carry on a whole conversation with> someone and have NO recollection of it, because I'm focused on what> I'm doing so intently. (My kids used to love to take advantage of> this, though they have learned they will suffer consequences if> they do)>> It's frustrating as hell. To have someone tell me this is Bull****> and/or a cop out when I've lived it for 44 years is *irritating*. OK, Cal, maybe you're right. I'm not an authority on it. Let's leave it at that. The fact is, we know very little about physiology, when push comes to shove. Which sometimes annoys the hell out of me. Remember when I first was told I supposedly had depression, and how I reacted to that? So realize who you're trying to convince here. Maybe it's best to let sleeping dogs lie on this one. I've got enough problems of my own accepting all this stuff.

I understand you're having trouble accepting it. What I'm suggesting is
that you tone down your rhetoric a little and stop calling it PC
Bull****. For one thing, all it does is reduce your credibility. And
nother thing is, I think you are feeding your negativty when you do that
kind of thing, and perhaps if you stopped feeding it so much, you might
feel better. This isn't anything new, and people have been suggesting this
to you for a while. But I think it's accurate.

And since you have stuff you really *do* need to worry about, why not
*let this stuff go*? If you've got that much to worry about, perhaps
you can lighten your load by dropping some of the extraneous stuff that
really has no bearing on your life right now.
> It is probably as irritating to you when someone says that claiming> your suffering is due to being ACOA is bull****. This is what I am> saying above. (And for the record, I am also an ACOA). OK, I didn't know that. But now that you tell me, that explains a lot, and I understand some more things about our posts, and what has been said, and how it has been said, and how it affects you - Well, I don't know about that. I choose to move beyond that crap that was my childhood. Did you? I don't think you have escaped the shackles as much as you think.

I don't know. I accept that what happened the past shaped me to be who I
am, but I don't accept that it's shackled me.

<snip>
You have a tendency to take a lot of things personally. This I don't get. I've been 'accused' of taking things too personally before, but if a post is a direct response to me, from something I've said and addresses specifically the topic that I discussed, how am I supposed to take that as anything other than being a reply TO ME, personally? Unless there is something there to indicate otherwise, I consider a reply to something I've said to be to me and I respond in that fashion. You know, sometimes we have the hardest time really seeing ourselves. This is an axiom of psychology. No new territory here.

I get the feeling you're found a new way to say I'm in denial, however
you'll now claim I'm taking your comments "personally". LOL..

But, you didn't actually address my point. If I've made a post, and
someone replied directly to that post, and directly on the point that
I've made how else am I to take the comments other than directed towards
me? Unless otherwise specified, of course. If this isn't what you're
talking about then I guess I can say I don't know what you mean by 'taking
it personally'.

<big snip again>
It was all luck and happenstance, really. I went to something that some other friends were going to go to as well, and they all bagged for various reasons. So, I had to decide... do I go alone or do I stay home. In my old "poor me" attitude, I'd have stayed home feeling sorry for myself. I prefer staying home and away from people.

I did too.
That is a critical difference. You don't. You're more of a social creature.

In some ways, yes I am social. Though I prefer smaller crowds over
larger ones, certainly.
I'm more of a loner - believe it. And always have been. I prefer to eat lunch alone, etc. (No small talk).

There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. But I do think you might
try getting a bit out of your comfort zone a little. You might be
pleasantly surprised.


<snip>

Cal~

Big snip below... I want to address this issue that you don't understand, at
your specific request.

* Calinda * wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:CV40d.11625$w%6.3725@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net: Well, I don't know about that. I choose to move beyond that crap that was my childhood. Did you? I don't think you have escaped the shackles as much as you think. I don't know. I accept that what happened the past shaped me to be who I am, but I don't accept that it's shackled me.

Perhaps "shackled" is the wrong word then. "Still clearly affects you",
then. Like below, where you insist on taking things personally more often
than not, (and that hasn't only been pointed out by me, as you know).

More below..
<snip>> You have a tendency to take a lot of things personally. This I don't get. I've been 'accused' of taking things too personally before, but if a post is a direct response to me, from something I've said and addresses specifically the topic that I discussed, how am I supposed to take that as anything other than being a reply TO ME, personally? Unless there is something there to indicate otherwise, I consider a reply to something I've said to be to me and I respond in that fashion. You know, sometimes we have the hardest time really seeing ourselves. This is an axiom of psychology. No new territory here. I get the feeling you're found a new way to say I'm in denial, however you'll now claim I'm taking your comments "personally". LOL.. But, you didn't actually address my point. If I've made a post, and someone replied directly to that post, and directly on the point that I've made how else am I to take the comments other than directed towards me? Unless otherwise specified, of course. If this isn't what you're talking about then I guess I can say I don't know what you mean by 'taking it personally'.

Look, this what happened - as I recall. You made a comment about why Amy
(I think it was Amy) would choose to stay in a marriage with all those
problems. I came back and made a statement that it is very difficult to
leave a marriage, as you (and I thought everybody else) must know. It just
gets too comfortable staying in, as you must know. That was all. I
wrote this back to you since it was your post in the first place that made
that statement. Who else was I suppose to address my reply to?

Hey Doug - was this one of your so-called "courteous replies" you said you
were so well known for? (Do I have to dig up that post?) Come on now,
step up to the plate. (Or don't.)

Talking about sad.....

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Saying ACOA is shorter than writing out what it means, that's all. It "simply" means growing up with an alcoholic parent, and the consequences thereof. And, unlike ADD (and a few other ABCs), the consequences are clearly known and unambiguous, and there is no debate as to whether it exists or not, whether it is biological or not, whether it is
environmental or not, whether you have it or not (by scoring 6 out of 10 on a multiple choice test) or not, - or whatever. This would be amusing if it wasn't really very sad. Bill's problems are absolutely, positively, unambiguously clearly known to be real. Other people's problems are just personal weaknesses. Bill's acronym is just because it is shorter than writing it out. Other people's acronyms are for other reasons?

"Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes:
Hey Doug - was this one of your so-called "courteous replies" you said you were so well known for? (Do I have to dig up that post?) Come on now, step up to the plate. (Or don't.)

Yes, Bill. That was a courteous reply.

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand it, but it seems that you've
long since given up actually reading what I write.

Bill in Co. wrote in
news:RZ50d.11689$w%6.6992@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net:
Look, this what happened - as I recall. You made a comment about why Amy (I think it was Amy) would choose to stay in a marriage with all those problems. I came back and made a statement that it is very difficult to leave a marriage, as you (and I thought everybody else) must know. It just gets too comfortable staying in, as you must know. That was all. I wrote this back to you since it was your post in the first place that made that statement. Who else was I suppose to address my reply to?


But you specifically used the word YOU, in reply to ME.

So, saying I was wrong to take that personally is what I don't get. If
you didn't mean ME... when you said YOU... then that certainly wasn't
clear.

And this is what I've seen the few other times I've been told I take
things personally. Perhaps I take the word "You" to literally, but also
perhaps people aren't clear when they mean a more "global you".

Cal~

* Calinda * wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:RZ50d.11689$w%6.6992@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net: Look, this what happened - as I recall. You made a comment about why Amy (I think it was Amy) would choose to stay in a marriage with all those problems. I came back and made a statement that it is very difficult to leave a marriage, as you (and I thought everybody else) must know. It just gets too comfortable staying in, as you must know. That was all. I wrote this back to you since it was your post in the first place that made that statement. Who else was I suppose to address my reply to? But you specifically used the word YOU, in reply to ME. So, saying I was wrong to take that personally is what I don't get. If you didn't mean ME... when you said YOU... then that certainly wasn't clear. And this is what I've seen the few other times I've been told I take things personally. Perhaps I take the word "You" to literally, but also perhaps people aren't clear when they mean a more "global you". Cal~

Perhaps YOU aren't clear.

OK, you win, I give up with the explanations. :-)

Bill in Co. wrote in
news:IJ60d.2328$xA1.799@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net:
* Calinda * wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:RZ50d.11689$w%6.6992@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net: Look, this what happened - as I recall. You made a comment about why Amy (I think it was Amy) would choose to stay in a marriage with all those problems. I came back and made a statement that it is very difficult to leave a marriage, as you (and I thought everybody else) must know. It just gets too comfortable staying in, as you must know. That was all. I wrote this back to you since it was your post in the first place that made that statement. Who else was I suppose to address my reply to? But you specifically used the word YOU, in reply to ME. So, saying I was wrong to take that personally is what I don't get. If you didn't mean ME... when you said YOU... then that certainly wasn't clear. And this is what I've seen the few other times I've been told I take things personally. Perhaps I take the word "You" to literally, but also perhaps people aren't clear when they mean a more "global you". Cal~ Perhaps YOU aren't clear. OK, you win, I give up with the explanations. :-)

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH


I give up too. There is no way you can't see where I'm coming from as
far as *I* can see, unless you're actually TRYING to be obtuse. Unless
you're trying to be funny, which at this point.. blah... I've got a
headache.

Cal~

Bill in Co. wrote: * Calinda * wrote: Bill in Co. wrote in news:RZ50d.11689$w%6.6992@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net: Look, this what happened - as I recall. You made a comment about why Amy (I think it was Amy) would choose to stay in a marriage with all those problems. I came back and made a statement that it is very difficult to leave a marriage, as you (and I thought everybody else) must know. It just gets too comfortable staying in, as you must know. That was all. I wrote this back to you since it was your post in the first place that made that statement. Who else was I suppose to address my reply to? But you specifically used the word YOU, in reply to ME. So, saying I was wrong to take that personally is what I don't get. If you didn't mean ME... when you said YOU... then that certainly wasn't clear. And this is what I've seen the few other times I've been told I take things personally. Perhaps I take the word "You" to literally, but also perhaps people aren't clear when they mean a more "global you". Cal~ Perhaps YOU aren't clear.

No, that wasn't clear on my part. Duh. Let me try again:

What I meant was perhaps it is YOU who always takes things too literally -
meaning that any "you" in a post MUST mean YOU personally, and not "you"
globally or generically.
OK, you win, I give up with the explanations. :-)

Bill in Co. <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
Saying ACOA is shorter than writing out what it means, that's all. It "simply" means growing up with an alcoholic parent, and the consequences thereof. And, unlike ADD (and a few other ABCs), the consequences are clearly known and unambiguous, and there is no debate as to whether it exists or not, whether it is biological or not, whether it is environmental or not, whether you have it or not (by scoring 6 out of 10 on a multiple choice test) or not, - or whatever.

Actually, all those things are considered to be at least as true about
ADHD, by people who follow the research.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2qc9vvFu1g2pU1@uni-berlin.de... "Bill in Co." <surly9curmudgeon@earthlink.net> writes: Hey Doug - was this one of your so-called "courteous replies" you said you were so well known for? (Do I have to dig up that post?) Come on now, step up to the plate. (Or don't.) Yes, Bill. That was a courteous reply. I'm afraid you don't seem to understand it, but it seems that you've long since given up actually reading what I write.

Some reason the two of you are incapable of just ignoring each other?

Jess

"* Calinda *" <CalindaSinclairRemove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns955FC37D3573219599491@130.133.1.4... < mucho snipo>

Oh, thank you. :D

Jess