I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to.
Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have answers
to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't.

I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women
over the past half-dozen years.

One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to get
to the root of what's going on.

I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our
marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen.

So why did it happen?

What is wrong with me or with our marriage?

I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those
women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my
wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I think
is missing.

What can I learn from all that?

What can *I* do?

Why am I afraid to do almost anything?

Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to. Some --
and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can.

How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any
detail?

By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a
limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know
that I can do much about that.

But I do care that people here "get it right."

Why?

--
Ted

In article <42add514$1_1@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com
says...
But I do care that people here "get it right."

Don't you think they have? Many times over?
Why?

Validation... Even *you* know that.

In article <42add514$1_1@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com
says...
But I do care that people here "get it right."

Don't you think they have? Many times over?
Why?

Validation... Even *you* know that.

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:

I have almost nothing to add to jen's excellent response. But only
_almost_ nothing!

(snip)
Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to. Some -- and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can. How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any detail? By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know that I can do much about that.

OK. But I'm worried you are playing the same self-destructive game
here, with your wife, and with your therapist.

You are hoping to be accepted and understood without opening up and
communicating about what is going on. You are doing the same with
your wife, hoping her to provide what you "need" in a relationship
without telling her what you need or asking her to provide it.

Now it doesn't matter that you are doing this on ASM - we're not
important. It matters that you're doing this with your wife and
therapist.
But I do care that people here "get it right." Why?

I don't know. I'm guessing that you are like me in the following
respect: it is important to me to be understood. It _isn't_ important
to be agreed with, but it is important to be understood.

Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people
what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with
metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just
understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier
to be understoot.

Doug

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:

I have almost nothing to add to jen's excellent response. But only
_almost_ nothing!

(snip)
Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to. Some -- and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can. How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any detail? By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know that I can do much about that.

OK. But I'm worried you are playing the same self-destructive game
here, with your wife, and with your therapist.

You are hoping to be accepted and understood without opening up and
communicating about what is going on. You are doing the same with
your wife, hoping her to provide what you "need" in a relationship
without telling her what you need or asking her to provide it.

Now it doesn't matter that you are doing this on ASM - we're not
important. It matters that you're doing this with your wife and
therapist.
But I do care that people here "get it right." Why?

I don't know. I'm guessing that you are like me in the following
respect: it is important to me to be understood. It _isn't_ important
to be agreed with, but it is important to be understood.

Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people
what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with
metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just
understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier
to be understoot.

Doug

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42add514$1_1@x-privat.org... I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have
answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to
get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen. So why did it happen? What is wrong with me or with our marriage? I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I
think is missing. What can I learn from all that? What can *I* do? Why am I afraid to do almost anything? Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to.
Some -- and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can. How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any detail? By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know that I can do much about that. But I do care that people here "get it right." Why?

One thing I wanna add to Jen's excellent post...
It's unrealistic to expect that people will 'get it right' or agree with you
when you are giving a skewed story.
Makes me wonder if the story isn't skewed in the direction that you *think*
would make it acceptable, and have people agree with you, and you're
bothered that they aren't buying the story that you're trying to use to
justify your actions to yourself.

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42add514$1_1@x-privat.org... I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have
answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to
get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen. So why did it happen? What is wrong with me or with our marriage? I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I
think is missing. What can I learn from all that? What can *I* do? Why am I afraid to do almost anything? Some of those things many, if not most, people here can relate to.
Some -- and unfortunately perhaps the most important -- few, if any, can. How can I expect people to accept that if I'm not willing to go into any detail? By focussing here on all of that I believe I am unfortunately presenting a limited and distorted view of how things are and who I am. I don't know that I can do much about that. But I do care that people here "get it right." Why?

One thing I wanna add to Jen's excellent post...
It's unrealistic to expect that people will 'get it right' or agree with you
when you are giving a skewed story.
Makes me wonder if the story isn't skewed in the direction that you *think*
would make it acceptable, and have people agree with you, and you're
bothered that they aren't buying the story that you're trying to use to
justify your actions to yourself.

Fran wrote: In article <42add514$1_1@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com says...But I do care that people here "get it right." Don't you think they have? Many times over?

No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation
pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth
about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to
take.

Tracey

Fran wrote: In article <42add514$1_1@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com says...But I do care that people here "get it right." Don't you think they have? Many times over?

No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation
pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth
about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to
take.

Tracey

In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take.

Hey Tracey!
Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help
him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status
quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then
people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to
help himself. Rinse, repeat.

What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly
stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step
towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people
getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working
wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't-
have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

I don't know... anyway...

Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your*
recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?).
It's a favorite around here! :)

In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take.

Hey Tracey!
Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help
him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status
quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then
people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to
help himself. Rinse, repeat.

What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly
stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step
towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people
getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working
wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't-
have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

I don't know... anyway...

Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your*
recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?).
It's a favorite around here! :)

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

Being relatively new here, I'm closer to the end of the first time around.
I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat.

Heh, I just told him that couple of days ago, that we're staring to go in
corcles, and I won't repeat myself.
What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

Very good point!

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

Being relatively new here, I'm closer to the end of the first time around.
I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat.

Heh, I just told him that couple of days ago, that we're staring to go in
corcles, and I won't repeat myself.
What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

Very good point!

Fran wrote: In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...Don't you think they have? Many times over?No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situationpegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truthabout *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen totake. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

Well, I've mainly stopped. Occasionally I get sucked back in but
I'm making a conscious effort not to. I did get involved in a back
and forth not long ago but when I felt it was heading down the same
old road that I had been down many times before, I got off of it. :)

<snip> Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :)

Glad they like it. :) I've gotten a bit lighter in the cooking area
lately and haven't made it for us in a long time. Grocery shopping
tomorrow so maybe I'll pick some up and make it soon.

Tracey

Fran wrote: In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...Don't you think they have? Many times over?No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situationpegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truthabout *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen totake. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?"

Well, I've mainly stopped. Occasionally I get sucked back in but
I'm making a conscious effort not to. I did get involved in a back
and forth not long ago but when I felt it was heading down the same
old road that I had been down many times before, I got off of it. :)

<snip> Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :)

Glad they like it. :) I've gotten a bit lighter in the cooking area
lately and haven't made it for us in a long time. Grocery shopping
tomorrow so maybe I'll pick some up and make it soon.

Tracey

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42add514$1_1@x-privat.org...I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and

by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen.

What about *internal* measures????

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42add514$1_1@x-privat.org...I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and

by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen.

What about *internal* measures????

Fran wrote: In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

The problem is that we're all in different places on our tedcycle and not
enough of us have stepped out at any one time to break it for him.

Tai

Fran wrote: In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing.

The problem is that we're all in different places on our tedcycle and not
enough of us have stepped out at any one time to break it for him.

Tai

Seeker wrote: I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen. So why did it happen? What is wrong with me or with our marriage? I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I think is missing. What can I learn from all that?

I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your
friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not
become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people.
So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships
with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you
receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your
relationship with her and not instead.
What can *I* do? Why am I afraid to do almost anything?

That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you can
find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome -
which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is unlikely to
leave you if you are honest with her.


Tai

Seeker wrote: I have at least a dozen more posts that I feel I ought to respond to. Here's sort of what I get out of all of them. Some of these I have answers to, some not. Some we agree on; some we don't. I have become overly emotionally attached to at least four different women over the past half-dozen years. One of those was even after I was in individual counselling intended to get to the root of what's going on. I know that's all wrong. I'm married and by all external measures our marriage is just fine It's not supposed to happen. So why did it happen? What is wrong with me or with our marriage? I can identify a small number of ways in which my relationships with those women were different, in truth or in fantasy, from what I have with my wife -- how they either satisfied or gave promise of satisfying what I think is missing. What can I learn from all that?

I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your
friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not
become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people.
So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships
with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you
receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your
relationship with her and not instead.
What can *I* do? Why am I afraid to do almost anything?

That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you can
find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome -
which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is unlikely to
leave you if you are honest with her.


Tai

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :)

Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

Sheila

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :)

Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

Sheila

WhansaMi wrote: "Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...> Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :) Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully
behaviour changes into Ted. And I don't believe our willingness to engage
him, either singly or collectively, will ever have much effect on what he
decides to do - he's on a path moving at his own(snail-like) pace and very
much in control of both the throttle and the steering.

Tai

WhansaMi wrote: "Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...> Don't you think they have? Many times over? No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :) Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully
behaviour changes into Ted. And I don't believe our willingness to engage
him, either singly or collectively, will ever have much effect on what he
decides to do - he's on a path moving at his own(snail-like) pace and very
much in control of both the throttle and the steering.

Tai

Tai wrote: WhansaMi wrote: "Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...>> Don't you think they have? Many times over?>> No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation> pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth> about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to> take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :) Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

(You got off easy. I've been called worse things)!
I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. And I don't believe our willingness to engage him, either singly or collectively, will ever have much effect on what he decides to do - he's on a path moving at his own(snail-like) pace and very much in control of both the throttle and the steering. Tai

Well, I don't think anything we do here is really going to make any
difference. (If that's the expectation, that may be a bit naive).

Tai wrote: WhansaMi wrote: "Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d17c2879eaa99e8989689@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42ADE128.4050402@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...>> Don't you think they have? Many times over?>> No, he doesn't think so. IMO, Ted has himself and his situation> pegged as 'unique' and that if we all just knew the *whole* truth> about *everything*, we would agree with the path he has chosen to> take. Hey Tracey! Then maybe a better question would be, to those who keep trying to help him, "How many times are you going to offer the same advice?" I think this newsgroup cycle is very much a part of Ted's whole status quo. I'm guessing that Ted posts a "summary" every so often, then people respond to the summary... again, and Ted still does nothing to help himself. Rinse, repeat. What would happen if the folks who are trying to help him suddenly stopped repeating themselves? Would it maybe work as a small step towards shaking up Ted's toxic cycle? 'Cause I see a lot of people getting frustrated with Ted, but the current loop seems to be working wonders for him! That whole "If-I-continue-to-talk-about-it-I-won't- have-to-do-anything-about-it" thing. I don't know... anyway... Hey, ya know, I still make "Tracey's Cubed Steaks" following *your* recipe (the ones that go in the crock pot with the two kinds of soup?). It's a favorite around here! :) Fran, I suggested this a while back. I was called a "meany" for it. :-)

(You got off easy. I've been called worse things)!
I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. And I don't believe our willingness to engage him, either singly or collectively, will ever have much effect on what he decides to do - he's on a path moving at his own(snail-like) pace and very much in control of both the throttle and the steering. Tai

Well, I don't think anything we do here is really going to make any
difference. (If that's the expectation, that may be a bit naive).

In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...
I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully behaviour changes into Ted.

Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to
mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do
things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying
that!

What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to
the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I
don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the
process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at
this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his
responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated.

So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part...

I don't *know* what to do! Lol!

But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his
well intentioned helpers, can move forward. I'm sure Ted is an
intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the
"tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to
help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be
assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it
right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...
I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully behaviour changes into Ted.

Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to
mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do
things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying
that!

What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to
the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I
don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the
process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at
this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his
responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated.

So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part...

I don't *know* what to do! Lol!

But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his
well intentioned helpers, can move forward. I'm sure Ted is an
intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the
"tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to
help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be
assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it
right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that! What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated. So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part... I don't *know* what to do! Lol! But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward.

But maybe people don't want to move forward? (not trying to be catty here,
just stating a possibility)
I'm sure Ted is an intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the "tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that! What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated. So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part... I don't *know* what to do! Lol! But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward.

But maybe people don't want to move forward? (not trying to be catty here,
just stating a possibility)
I'm sure Ted is an intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the "tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bullybehaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck.

I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop
responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't
stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't
believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not
to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things
*my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond.
Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

Well, we're not mental health professionals in a patient/client
relationship so that really doesn't apply.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition.

That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Because it's
the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult,
after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues.
So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop
responding, I think.

Tracey

Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bullybehaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck.

I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop
responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't
stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't
believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not
to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things
*my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond.
Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

Well, we're not mental health professionals in a patient/client
relationship so that really doesn't apply.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition.

That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Because it's
the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult,
after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues.
So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop
responding, I think.

Tracey

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things *my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond.

Something which has occurred to me, which isn't feasible but would be
nice, is to have a sort of "codex tedius" (I'm sure someone can
correct my pig-latin, but it would be nice if the corrections was
"codex tedious!").

An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then
if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than
answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.:

Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold fish."

ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety."

Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing
this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!

Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes:
Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things *my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond.

Something which has occurred to me, which isn't feasible but would be
nice, is to have a sort of "codex tedius" (I'm sure someone can
correct my pig-latin, but it would be nice if the corrections was
"codex tedious!").

An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then
if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than
answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.:

Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold fish."

ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety."

Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing
this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!

In article <_3Ere.4297$jX6.2851@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward. But maybe people don't want to move forward? (not trying to be catty here, just stating a possibility)

Oh, absolutely! If folks don't want to move forward, then that's that,
right? :) No problem whatsoever. I certainly believe in people doing
what *they* believe is right for them.

In article <_3Ere.4297$jX6.2851@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward. But maybe people don't want to move forward? (not trying to be catty here, just stating a possibility)

Oh, absolutely! If folks don't want to move forward, then that's that,
right? :) No problem whatsoever. I certainly believe in people doing
what *they* believe is right for them.

In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding.

Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to
bully behavior changes in Ted.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition.
That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO.

Yeah, you're right.

My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an
"outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make
their own choices. (That's always the good news!)
Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think.

Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my
posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting
ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says...
I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding.

Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to
bully behavior changes in Ted.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition.
That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO.

Yeah, you're right.

My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an
"outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make
their own choices. (That's always the good news!)
Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think.

Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my
posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting
ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

In article <PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com says...
An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.: Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold fish." ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety." Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!

You're so cute! - Lol!

In article <PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com says...
An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.: Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold fish." ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety." Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!

You're so cute! - Lol!

Fran wrote: In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to bully behavior changes in Ted. What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Yeah, you're right. My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an "outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make their own choices. (That's always the good news!) Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think. Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent
compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the Light.
But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You
think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!!

Fran wrote: In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to bully behavior changes in Ted. What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Yeah, you're right. My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an "outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make their own choices. (That's always the good news!) Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think. Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent
compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the Light.
But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You
think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!!

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes: Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...> I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think> or bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things *my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond. Something which has occurred to me, which isn't feasible but would be nice, is to have a sort of "codex tedius" (I'm sure someone can correct my pig-latin, but it would be nice if the corrections was "codex tedious!"). An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.: Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold
fish." ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety." Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!
We could set up an "Answer Ted" Web-Bot, have it be triggered by a
combination of certain words in Ted's posts, based on that library.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com... Tracey <rbrancher2@aol.com> writes: Fran wrote: In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says...> I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think> or bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. I mean, what do you do about the people who don't stop? Stop responding to them, too? At the same time, I don't believe there's anything wrong with individuals deciding not to respond anymore. I have. :) Not in a 'Until you do things *my* way' way but because it's better for *me* to not respond. Something which has occurred to me, which isn't feasible but would be nice, is to have a sort of "codex tedius" (I'm sure someone can correct my pig-latin, but it would be nice if the corrections was "codex tedious!"). An index of, say, the 50 most useful posts on the Ted subject. Then if we were all disciplined, every time Ted posts, rather than answering with the same words, we can post references to the codex. E.g.: Ted: "How can I expect my wife to listen to my needs when she is a cold
fish." ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety." Of course there have been so many postings about Ted that preparing this codex would be a lifetime job for a monastery full of monks!
We could set up an "Answer Ted" Web-Bot, have it be triggered by a
combination of certain words in Ted's posts, based on that library.

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18c51f242eb14a98968b@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

I, personally, think that if giving Ted an outlet to express himself in a
way that he is quite comfortable doing is enabling him to stay miserable,
then, yes, that becomes part of the problem. I think this group, for Ted,
is the equivalent of a bar for an alcoholic --- he gets enough of what he
needs here that he doesn't need to change anything anywhere else. Yes, I
think that cutting that off for him would be a good thing. I'm not saying
that we shouldn't talk to him, but that going over the same material over
and over again, and allowing him this outlet, is, I believe, ultimately
counterproductive. Not that it stops me, or anyone else, for doing it, but,
essentially, I fully believe we enable him.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated.

Right, and that's what I suggested would be the better approach .

So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part... I don't *know* what to do! Lol! But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward. I'm sure Ted is an intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the "tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Yes, he has a lot of control this way.

Sheila

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18c51f242eb14a98968b@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

I, personally, think that if giving Ted an outlet to express himself in a
way that he is quite comfortable doing is enabling him to stay miserable,
then, yes, that becomes part of the problem. I think this group, for Ted,
is the equivalent of a bar for an alcoholic --- he gets enough of what he
needs here that he doesn't need to change anything anywhere else. Yes, I
think that cutting that off for him would be a good thing. I'm not saying
that we shouldn't talk to him, but that going over the same material over
and over again, and allowing him this outlet, is, I believe, ultimately
counterproductive. Not that it stops me, or anyone else, for doing it, but,
essentially, I fully believe we enable him.
What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. Going by what I've read here in the past few days, I don't think the repetition (and getting pissed off with Ted in the process) is working. I truly believe the only purpose it's serving at this point is to keep Ted stuck (evidenced by the fact that his responses seem almost scripted), and the folks who help him, frustrated.

Right, and that's what I suggested would be the better approach .

So, what to do? Prepare - Here comes the good part... I don't *know* what to do! Lol! But I do know that something needs to change so everyone, Ted and his well intentioned helpers, can move forward. I'm sure Ted is an intellectualy capable person, and many of you have given him the "tools" to begin working through his issues. If folks really want to help him, then help him to *use* the tools, and by all means be assertive! 'Cause Ted's little cycle of making sure "you all get it right" over and over is his way of bullying *you*.

Yes, he has a lot of control this way.

Sheila

In article <gzFre.4104$hK3.1159@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the Light. But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!!

But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most
part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."

In article <gzFre.4104$hK3.1159@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the Light. But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!!

But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most
part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."

Fran wrote: In article <gzFre.4104$hK3.1159@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the
Light. But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!! But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."

Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the
"progress", or lack thereof.

Fran wrote: In article <gzFre.4104$hK3.1159@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... If you really want to know what is so pathological, it's the apparent compulsion of people in here to respond, hoping that he will see the
Light. But this may say more about them (or us) than it does about him. You think? And not necessarily a healthy thing!!! But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."

Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the
"progress", or lack thereof.

In article <O_Hre.4429$NX4.535@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."
Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the "progress", or lack thereof.

Enhance your calm. I said people have a desire to help. Whether the
help is actually effective is a different story. Some folks will see
the brick wall, others will continue to bang their heads against it.

In article <O_Hre.4429$NX4.535@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>,
surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says...
But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need."
Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the "progress", or lack thereof.

Enhance your calm. I said people have a desire to help. Whether the
help is actually effective is a different story. Some folks will see
the brick wall, others will continue to bang their heads against it.

Fran wrote: In article <O_Hre.4429$NX4.535@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need." Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the "progress", or lack thereof. Enhance your calm.

My calm???? LOL. (I seemed to have misplaced it). If you find it,
pse send it back. I'll pay shipping.
I said people have a desire to help. Whether the help is actually effective is a different story. Some folks will see the brick wall, others will continue to bang their heads against it.

Fran wrote: In article <O_Hre.4429$NX4.535@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, surly_curmudgeon06@earthlink.net says... But not necessarily a bad thing, either. I think that for the most part, decent people have an innate desire to help others "in need." Yeah, but they AREN'T helping! If you don't believe me, check out the "progress", or lack thereof. Enhance your calm.

My calm???? LOL. (I seemed to have misplaced it). If you find it,
pse send it back. I'll pay shipping.
I said people have a desire to help. Whether the help is actually effective is a different story. Some folks will see the brick wall, others will continue to bang their heads against it.

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18e69ee3af12f198968d@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to bully behavior changes in Ted. What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Yeah, you're right. My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an "outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make their own choices. (That's always the good news!) Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think. Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

I don't know that it is unwillingness to move forward that irritates people.
Its that even though he has obviously decided not to make any changes, he
still continues to repeatedly post that he wants to make changes. IOW,
people want him to either sh** or get off the pot.

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18e69ee3af12f198968d@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <42AF1308.9010409@aol.com>, rbrancher2@aol.com says... I dunno. I disagree with a call for the whole group to stop responding. Oh, so do I! I agree with Tai when she said that it's no one's place to bully behavior changes in Ted. What I meant, rather, was a complete change of tactic, mainly a halt to the repetition. That's pretty much impossible at this point, Fran, IMO. Yeah, you're right. My post was meant as a food-for-thought kind of thing... an "outsider's" perspective, if you will. In the end people get to make their own choices. (That's always the good news!) Because it's the same things presented over and over and over again. It's difficult, after, what, 3-4 years to think of a new approach to the same issues. So, the choices really are to continue the repetitions or to stop responding, I think. Well, something's bound to give in 10-20 years, no doubt. :) Anyway, my posts were mainly in response to the folks who seemed to be getting ticked off at Ted's inability (unwillingness?) to move forward.

I don't know that it is unwillingness to move forward that irritates people.
Its that even though he has obviously decided not to make any changes, he
still continues to repeatedly post that he wants to make changes. IOW,
people want him to either sh** or get off the pot.

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18c51f242eb14a98968b@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health
professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do* say
stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been
seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any
movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another
therapist, one who might be able to help you."

In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do
such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period of
time.

Sheila

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d18c51f242eb14a98968b@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <3h77v8Ffjpe3U1@individual.net>, tainuiti@gmail.com says... I still think it's a mean idea - it's not our place to group-think or
bully behaviour changes into Ted. Well, I think to stop responding altogether would be mean, too... not to mention, childish --> "I won't talk to you until you change and do things *my* way." Yuck. Imagine any mental health professional saying that!

Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health
professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do* say
stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been
seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any
movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another
therapist, one who might be able to help you."

In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do
such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period of
time.

Sheila

In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says...
they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another therapist, one who might be able to help you."

Exactly, a change of tactic - such as in your example, sending the
person to see another therapist. Or, if the therapist doesn't want to
give up on the person just yet, s/he could also say: "Ok, you've been
seeing me for so many weeks/months/years now and we're not moving
forward, which leads me to believe that approach ABC isn't working. I
would like to try XYZ instead, what do you think?"

I realize we're not running a practice here, but I think the same
principle still applies.

Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think
of a new approach to the same issues.

In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says...
they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another therapist, one who might be able to help you."

Exactly, a change of tactic - such as in your example, sending the
person to see another therapist. Or, if the therapist doesn't want to
give up on the person just yet, s/he could also say: "Ok, you've been
seeing me for so many weeks/months/years now and we're not moving
forward, which leads me to believe that approach ABC isn't working. I
would like to try XYZ instead, what do you think?"

I realize we're not running a practice here, but I think the same
principle still applies.

Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think
of a new approach to the same issues.

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d194265786b2a09989692@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says... they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to
another therapist, one who might be able to help you." Exactly, a change of tactic - such as in your example, sending the person to see another therapist. Or, if the therapist doesn't want to give up on the person just yet, s/he could also say: "Ok, you've been seeing me for so many weeks/months/years now and we're not moving forward, which leads me to believe that approach ABC isn't working. I would like to try XYZ instead, what do you think?"

By that point in time, most therapists have used up their bag of tricks.
And, to be perfectly honest, most of them are not thinking "I can't help
you".... more likely, they are thinking, "You aren't really ready to
change" -- at least with those people whose issues are "life adjustment"
issues, rather than significant mental/emotional illnesses.
I realize we're not running a practice here, but I think the same principle still applies. Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think of a new approach to the same issues.

More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an
active mechanism to AVOID any changes.

Sheila

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d194265786b2a09989692@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says... they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to
another therapist, one who might be able to help you." Exactly, a change of tactic - such as in your example, sending the person to see another therapist. Or, if the therapist doesn't want to give up on the person just yet, s/he could also say: "Ok, you've been seeing me for so many weeks/months/years now and we're not moving forward, which leads me to believe that approach ABC isn't working. I would like to try XYZ instead, what do you think?"

By that point in time, most therapists have used up their bag of tricks.
And, to be perfectly honest, most of them are not thinking "I can't help
you".... more likely, they are thinking, "You aren't really ready to
change" -- at least with those people whose issues are "life adjustment"
issues, rather than significant mental/emotional illnesses.
I realize we're not running a practice here, but I think the same principle still applies. Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think of a new approach to the same issues.

More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an
active mechanism to AVOID any changes.

Sheila

In article <HPKre.5658$1q5.4829@trnddc02>, whansami@aol.com says...
More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an active mechanism to AVOID any changes.

I couldn't agree with you more.

In article <HPKre.5658$1q5.4829@trnddc02>, whansami@aol.com says...
More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an active mechanism to AVOID any changes.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Fran wrote: In article <HPKre.5658$1q5.4829@trnddc02>, whansami@aol.com says... More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an active mechanism to AVOID any changes. I couldn't agree with you more.

But the bottom line is, nothing is going to make any difference.

(Hmmm, it's getting a bit deep in here....)

Fran wrote: In article <HPKre.5658$1q5.4829@trnddc02>, whansami@aol.com says... More to the point (for me, at least!) I think Ted uses this place as an active mechanism to AVOID any changes. I couldn't agree with you more.

But the bottom line is, nothing is going to make any difference.

(Hmmm, it's getting a bit deep in here....)

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com... ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety."

Thanks for the laugh, Doug!

(More than once it has been suggested I write a FAQ. I'm not sure how to do
that without turning it into a lousy great American novel.)

--
Ted

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PrqdnVRUqtI6hTLfRVn-2w@comcast.com... ASM: "IV.3.a-c, and VII.9 in its entirety."

Thanks for the laugh, Doug!

(More than once it has been suggested I write a FAQ. I'm not sure how to do
that without turning it into a lousy great American novel.)

--
Ted

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:y0nre.665$EH1.451@trndny03... What about *internal* measures????

By internal measures it stinks! (but you knew that)

--
Ted

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:y0nre.665$EH1.451@trndny03... What about *internal* measures????

By internal measures it stinks! (but you knew that)

--
Ted

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d194265786b2a09989692@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says... Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think of a new approach to the same issues.

How do you decide when a new approach is needed? If something just takes
time, it does no good to look for a new approach.

--
Ted

"Fran" <nah@idontthinkso.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d194265786b2a09989692@newsgroups.comcast .net... In article <S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03>, whansami@aol.com says... Or not. As Tracey mentioned, after 3 or 4 years it's difficult to think of a new approach to the same issues.

How do you decide when a new approach is needed? If something just takes
time, it does no good to look for a new approach.

--
Ted

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03... Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another therapist, one who might be able to help you." In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period
of time.

Do you think our therapist is being less than professional (or not living up
to his obligations) by not having suggested something like that?

--
Ted

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03... Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do* say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to another therapist, one who might be able to help you." In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period
of time.

Do you think our therapist is being less than professional (or not living up
to his obligations) by not having suggested something like that?

--
Ted

"DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message
news:M9qdnVFSd_S_fDDfRVn-qg@giganews.com... One thing I wanna add to Jen's excellent post... It's unrealistic to expect that people will 'get it right' or agree with
you when you are giving a skewed story. Makes me wonder if the story isn't skewed in the direction that you
*think* would make it acceptable, and have people agree with you, and you're bothered that they aren't buying the story that you're trying to use to justify your actions to yourself.

I don't think I'm deliberately presenting a "skewed" story. Pretty much
every aspect of our life has come out here, although at any time one aspect
or another may take the forefront.
For instance, Tai thinks my wife sounds to be very affectionate. I'm not
sure what she's basing that on, but if it's from what I was writing during
that time I posted all the "I love my wife because ..." posts that *was*
skewed -- because I was deliberately looking for all the good things I could
find.

Obviously I can present only what I see; only someone who knows us both
intimately would be able to tell what blinders I unknowingly have on.

--
Ted

"DaKitty" <Imgonna@dotcomsomething.net> wrote in message
news:M9qdnVFSd_S_fDDfRVn-qg@giganews.com... One thing I wanna add to Jen's excellent post... It's unrealistic to expect that people will 'get it right' or agree with
you when you are giving a skewed story. Makes me wonder if the story isn't skewed in the direction that you
*think* would make it acceptable, and have people agree with you, and you're bothered that they aren't buying the story that you're trying to use to justify your actions to yourself.

I don't think I'm deliberately presenting a "skewed" story. Pretty much
every aspect of our life has come out here, although at any time one aspect
or another may take the forefront.
For instance, Tai thinks my wife sounds to be very affectionate. I'm not
sure what she's basing that on, but if it's from what I was writing during
that time I posted all the "I love my wife because ..." posts that *was*
skewed -- because I was deliberately looking for all the good things I could
find.

Obviously I can present only what I see; only someone who knows us both
intimately would be able to tell what blinders I unknowingly have on.

--
Ted

In article <42b08303$1_2@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com
says...
How do you decide when a new approach is needed?

When the current one doesn't show signs of working within a reasonable
amount of time.
If something just takes time, it does no good to look for a new approach.

Change *will* take time, no doubt. But usually there are clear signs
that indicate whether a particular approach is working or not.

In article <42b08303$1_2@x-privat.org>, Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com
says...
How do you decide when a new approach is needed?

When the current one doesn't show signs of working within a reasonable
amount of time.
If something just takes time, it does no good to look for a new approach.

Change *will* take time, no doubt. But usually there are clear signs
that indicate whether a particular approach is working or not.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jJ6dnVBDIIlEfTDfRVn-ug@comcast.com... Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier to be understoot.

I appreciate that and I don't quite know what to do about it. The only area
of my life that I believe I "dance around" is that having to do with my
spiritual experiences and those of my wife and other people I run into. I
don't think I realized when I started posting here how often that would keep
recurring as a key part of what's going on. (Oh, I knew it was important --
but didn't realize that it couldn't easily be separated from everything else
and just not talked about.)

Let me think (and pray!) about it. At one time I consciously put all that
beyond the boundary of what I would talk about. I believe I thought I had
a good reason for doing so, but I admit that right now I can't remember what
it was. I want to reconsider moving the boundary but that will take
awhile -- at the very least I need to make sure I'm not considering doing it
for purely ego-driven reasons.

--
Ted

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jJ6dnVBDIIlEfTDfRVn-ug@comcast.com... Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier to be understoot.

I appreciate that and I don't quite know what to do about it. The only area
of my life that I believe I "dance around" is that having to do with my
spiritual experiences and those of my wife and other people I run into. I
don't think I realized when I started posting here how often that would keep
recurring as a key part of what's going on. (Oh, I knew it was important --
but didn't realize that it couldn't easily be separated from everything else
and just not talked about.)

Let me think (and pray!) about it. At one time I consciously put all that
beyond the boundary of what I would talk about. I believe I thought I had
a good reason for doing so, but I admit that right now I can't remember what
it was. I want to reconsider moving the boundary but that will take
awhile -- at the very least I need to make sure I'm not considering doing it
for purely ego-driven reasons.

--
Ted

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b08364_3@x-privat.org... "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03... Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do*
say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to
another therapist, one who might be able to help you." In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period of time. Do you think our therapist is being less than professional (or not living
up to his obligations) by not having suggested something like that? -- Ted

I'm not there. While I can make educated guesses based on what you say
here, I also am aware that I don't see the full picture, as I would if I
could see you, see your wife, see your interactions, etc.

Based on what I see here -- and only here -- and if what you portray here is
an accurate reflection of what is actually occuring... yes, I'd say the
therapist should consider referring you elsewhere.

Sheila

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b08364_3@x-privat.org... "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message news:S_Jre.2703$kj5.429@trnddc03... Something else occurred to me on the drive home. No, mental health professionals don't say the things you say abover, however, they *do*
say stuff like, "I don't believe we are making progress here. You've been seeing me <fill in blank with time> and we don't seem to be making any movement. I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to
another therapist, one who might be able to help you." In fact, IMO, mental health professionals are morally *obligated* to do such, if there has been minimal or no progress over a significant period of time. Do you think our therapist is being less than professional (or not living
up to his obligations) by not having suggested something like that? -- Ted

I'm not there. While I can make educated guesses based on what you say
here, I also am aware that I don't see the full picture, as I would if I
could see you, see your wife, see your interactions, etc.

Based on what I see here -- and only here -- and if what you portray here is
an accurate reflection of what is actually occuring... yes, I'd say the
therapist should consider referring you elsewhere.

Sheila

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and
not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have
relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead.

That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my
wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a
great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how
to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my
relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them elsewhere --
are actually there when they aren't now. Why am I afraid to do almost anything? That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you
can find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome - which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is unlikely
to leave you if you are honest with her.

I don't know why I have so much trouble making the point that that is *not*
what I view as the "worst outcome." While, yes, the thought of divorce is
upsetting for a variety of reasons, what I also fear -- probably even
more -- is doing or saying something that makes things much worse -- and
being stuck in some kind of living hell because of it. I keep having this
image of that one Star Trek episode where the two mirror-image characters
were stuck forever in some kind of a cage locked in battle with each other.

--
Ted

"Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and
not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have
relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead.

That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my
wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a
great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how
to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my
relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them elsewhere --
are actually there when they aren't now. Why am I afraid to do almost anything? That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you
can find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome - which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is unlikely
to leave you if you are honest with her.

I don't know why I have so much trouble making the point that that is *not*
what I view as the "worst outcome." While, yes, the thought of divorce is
upsetting for a variety of reasons, what I also fear -- probably even
more -- is doing or saying something that makes things much worse -- and
being stuck in some kind of living hell because of it. I keep having this
image of that one Star Trek episode where the two mirror-image characters
were stuck forever in some kind of a cage locked in battle with each other.

--
Ted

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b0a20c$1_2@x-privat.org... "Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying
your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for
people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead. That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them
elsewhere -- are actually there when they aren't now. Why am I afraid to do almost anything? That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you can find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome - which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is
unlikely to leave you if you are honest with her. I don't know why I have so much trouble making the point that that is
*not* what I view as the "worst outcome." While, yes, the thought of divorce
is upsetting for a variety of reasons, what I also fear -- probably even more -- is doing or saying something that makes things much worse -- and being stuck in some kind of living hell because of it. I keep having this image of that one Star Trek episode where the two mirror-image characters were stuck forever in some kind of a cage locked in battle with each
other.

You *are* in that kind of a living hell right now.
Divorce *is* the worst case scenario, because of the relationship gets so
bad that the divorce would be better, then you go with the divorce.

The reason lot of people think you believe that the divorce is what you fear
the most, is because you look like you would rather stay stuck in hell, then
go with the divorce. You say Divorce isn't the worst, but yet even the
mention of it, you get very defensive, and it's an avenue you don;t even
want to consider, and say you can't even think in that direction, or
something to that effect.
You claim one thing, and your behavior and actions (or lack thereof)
indicates something different.

See, perceptions are created not just by what you say, but what you do as
well.
I mean, if you just gulped down a big vanilla ice cream cone with gusto and
then went around claiming that you hate Vanilla Ice Cream, not very many
people who saw you eat that Vanilla ice cream would believe you, would they?
I'm sure you already know that concept, but I spelled it out anyways.

That's why you're so unconvincing here. You say you think and feel one way,
and then when you describe what you end up doing, and we see no progress in
the direction that you say you want to go in, it's not indicative of someone
who thinks and feels the way you describe. Lot of people can pick up on
that. there are few that can't, but not all that many. Usually younger and
more naive people will only pay attention to what you say, rather then what
you do as well.

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42b0a20c$1_2@x-privat.org... "Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying
your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for
people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead. That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them
elsewhere -- are actually there when they aren't now. Why am I afraid to do almost anything? That one I can't help you with - I have puzzled and puzzled over how you can find your state of agonised indecision preferable to the worst outcome - which I don't think is the most likely one, anyway. Your wife is
unlikely to leave you if you are honest with her. I don't know why I have so much trouble making the point that that is
*not* what I view as the "worst outcome." While, yes, the thought of divorce
is upsetting for a variety of reasons, what I also fear -- probably even more -- is doing or saying something that makes things much worse -- and being stuck in some kind of living hell because of it. I keep having this image of that one Star Trek episode where the two mirror-image characters were stuck forever in some kind of a cage locked in battle with each
other.

You *are* in that kind of a living hell right now.
Divorce *is* the worst case scenario, because of the relationship gets so
bad that the divorce would be better, then you go with the divorce.

The reason lot of people think you believe that the divorce is what you fear
the most, is because you look like you would rather stay stuck in hell, then
go with the divorce. You say Divorce isn't the worst, but yet even the
mention of it, you get very defensive, and it's an avenue you don;t even
want to consider, and say you can't even think in that direction, or
something to that effect.
You claim one thing, and your behavior and actions (or lack thereof)
indicates something different.

See, perceptions are created not just by what you say, but what you do as
well.
I mean, if you just gulped down a big vanilla ice cream cone with gusto and
then went around claiming that you hate Vanilla Ice Cream, not very many
people who saw you eat that Vanilla ice cream would believe you, would they?
I'm sure you already know that concept, but I spelled it out anyways.

That's why you're so unconvincing here. You say you think and feel one way,
and then when you describe what you end up doing, and we see no progress in
the direction that you say you want to go in, it's not indicative of someone
who thinks and feels the way you describe. Lot of people can pick up on
that. there are few that can't, but not all that many. Usually younger and
more naive people will only pay attention to what you say, rather then what
you do as well.

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jJ6dnVBDIIlEfTDfRVn-ug@comcast.com... Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier to be understoot. I appreciate that and I don't quite know what to do about it. The only area of my life that I believe I "dance around" is that having to do with my spiritual experiences and those of my wife and other people I run into. I don't think I realized when I started posting here how often that would keep recurring as a key part of what's going on. (Oh, I knew it was important -- but didn't realize that it couldn't easily be separated from everything else and just not talked about.)

Well, OK, I was being too subtle. You don't _even_ dance around
telling your wife who you really are and what you want.

And on ASM, you often mysteriously hold back information. I'm not
arguing with that latter trait - that is your privilege. But I fear
it is typical of your approach with your wife and with your joint
counselling.

Let me think (and pray!) about it. At one time I consciously put all that beyond the boundary of what I would talk about. I believe I thought I had a good reason for doing so, but I admit that right now I can't remember what it was. I want to reconsider moving the boundary but that will take awhile -- at the very least I need to make sure I'm not considering doing it for purely ego-driven reasons.

I'm not asking you to move that boundary. I don't believe the
information about your spiritual experience is relevant to the
marital/personal problems you talk about here.

I'm also not asking you to share personal stuff here you don't want to.

My point is that you want your wife to understand you as you really
are, to accept you, and to treat you the way you would like to be
treated. But you are unwilling to let her know enough about you to do
any of that.

"Seeker" <Tedds212removethis@yahoo.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jJ6dnVBDIIlEfTDfRVn-ug@comcast.com... Of course, when I want to be understood I actually try to tell people what I want them to understand rather than dancing around it with metaphor or engaging in magical thinking and hoping that they'll just understand it by intuition. This makes it (in my experience) easier to be understoot. I appreciate that and I don't quite know what to do about it. The only area of my life that I believe I "dance around" is that having to do with my spiritual experiences and those of my wife and other people I run into. I don't think I realized when I started posting here how often that would keep recurring as a key part of what's going on. (Oh, I knew it was important -- but didn't realize that it couldn't easily be separated from everything else and just not talked about.)

Well, OK, I was being too subtle. You don't _even_ dance around
telling your wife who you really are and what you want.

And on ASM, you often mysteriously hold back information. I'm not
arguing with that latter trait - that is your privilege. But I fear
it is typical of your approach with your wife and with your joint
counselling.

Let me think (and pray!) about it. At one time I consciously put all that beyond the boundary of what I would talk about. I believe I thought I had a good reason for doing so, but I admit that right now I can't remember what it was. I want to reconsider moving the boundary but that will take awhile -- at the very least I need to make sure I'm not considering doing it for purely ego-driven reasons.

I'm not asking you to move that boundary. I don't believe the
information about your spiritual experience is relevant to the
marital/personal problems you talk about here.

I'm also not asking you to share personal stuff here you don't want to.

My point is that you want your wife to understand you as you really
are, to accept you, and to treat you the way you would like to be
treated. But you are unwilling to let her know enough about you to do
any of that.

Seeker wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3h6hk1Ffh564U1@individual.net... I think that if your relationship with your wife was more satisfying your friendships with these other women would probably have remained that and not become infatuations. Or not the kind that present much trouble for people. So what I'm saying is that it isn't unhealthy for you to have relationships with both men and women that provide different benefits to the ones you receive from that with your wife but they have to be in addition to your relationship with her and not instead. That is exactly why I started individual counselling, and why I asked my wife to join me later. (I think recently I mentioned that Schnarch has a great example of it too.) Unfortunately that general goal doesn't say how to go about ensuring that any of those benefits which must be in my relationship with my wife -- so there's no reason to have them elsewhere -- are actually there when they aren't now.

Well, you're not going to get them if you won't ask for them, will you? By
now that must be clear to you. You probably won't end up with