Lonely Loneliness

women and their stupid games!

Question:

ric wrote: > ok, Lauren brings out a good point – if we want help we should try to > select words that don’t press other’s insecurity buttons… if you want > to stir up controversy, that’s one thing… but if you’re looking for > advice on a subject, blanket negative statements about the people who > have the best advice might be rather counterproductive…

  Thank you, Ric.   I appreciate your support.   Only just to clarify,   for me it was not insecurity   but a reaction to bias.   Great post!   You really oughta   do this professionally.   Good stuff here!   Lauren :*

Response:

On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:37:06 -0500, Lauren <laz…@erols.com> wrote: >I hear a real double standard here >between your defense of the original poster >and your attempt to silence me for

Which attempt to silence you? I wrote : I’d prefer you to speak for yourself, and : Maybe Lauren wants to comment herself? Lauren?  – if you understand such utterings as an "attempt to silence you", then I’m afraid there’s not really much I can do. >defending women in general against his >openly biased and provocative header.

I’m afraid this is a matter of principles here. YMMV, but I tend to treat people like I like to be treated, and *I* generally don’t like it if people pretend to speak on my behalf, unless I asked them to. Hmmm. What’s wrong with this picture? If you find the flaw in this reasoning, you’ll get a bonus point )) >And another double standard between your

BTW, here’s another, probably irreconcilable difference between both of us — unless I get you worng: Do I get this right that you accuse me of being a hypocrite? >support of his free venting of anger >and criticism of me for expressing mine.

It might be helpful to reread my original post. I wrote : IMO it’s perfectly okay to say "this is annoying *me*, : and if you don’t want to have a fight, please mind your words". Is this criticism of you for expressing your anger? Or is it on the contrary that you did *not*, but pretended to speak for a silent majority instead? Ulrich — my From: line is invalid. To reply via email, my ROT-13ed address is fbo…@vagrearg.qr

Response:

Hi postmas…@127.0.0.1 (Ulrich Pollmann)  and all lurkers on alt.support.loneliness ! On Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:41:07 GMT, You wrote: >On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 14:29:09 GMT, alien ><wmautner.CUT_T…@mindless.com> wrote: >>I wouldn’t put down her feelings >I generally don’t comment on anybody’s *feelings*, and I don’t know >what makes you think I do. I said "I’d prefer you to speak for >yourself," which exclusively relates to *behavior* and nothing else.

Please don’t pick half sentences out of context … Maybe I didn’t express myself in an appropriate way, but I am sure You can get the meaning (Lauren ?) from the whole context. >>as some "responsible senior" trying to >>speak for all the ones who are probably too shy to articulate their >>discontent here. >Tough luck if this is just what you read there.

 ??? It’s not ‘just’ but important enough to mention. >>Unlike sometimes on other groups, her expression is not >>meant as an attempt to "take over control" or to censor the messages, >>hopefully … >I’m not at all afraid that Lauren has anything like this in mind. OTOH >I’d consider it extemely impolite to "analyze" this behavior, even if >the result wouldn’t be offending at all. Maybe Lauren wants to comment >herself? Lauren?

My fault – I meant *Laura* here, and their both viewpoints of the issue in "I’m desperate for answers" Laura and ch…@kc.net . Sorry I didn’t clarify this thoroughly. Good Luck, Walter ————— All life is chemistry, and thoughts are the catalysts ICQ #4918962 —————————— Due to excessive amounts of UCE, I had to edit my email address. Apologize the inconvenience. Please remove the obvious to reply, thanks.

Response:

Hi Lauren <laz…@erols.com>  and all lurkers on alt.support.loneliness ! On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:55:37 -0500, You wrote: >Lauren wrote: >Ohhh, now I get it, Walter. >I just read Ric’s post on this thread >and see you meant *Laura* there >and not *Lauren* sorry! >So I guess you were *defending* me >in your last post to Ulrich? >If so, thank you again. >Lauren :*

Thanks again – I actually referred to her and chris’ viewpoint in "I’m desperate for answers", sorry I haven’t clarified that. And I felt too biased to respond to them anyway … sorry. ——- ———– Greetings, you have reached the Extra Sensory Perception Research Institute.  We know who you are and what you want, so at the sound of the tone, please hang up.

Response:

Let’s see now. You date an exotic dancer and expect monogamy. And you beat the hell out of her. Women aren’t the only ones playing stupid games here.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ulrich Pollmann wrote: > Lauren <laz…@erols.com> wrote in article > <34DBEEA5.7…@erols.com>: > >Must we perpetuate this gender bias? > Yes. IMO it’s essential that we *first* acknowledge that we’re angry > or hurt, *before* we can find ways to overcome these emotions. > You can’t make these feelings go away by demanding that they be not > expressed. Therefore, the alternative would be denial, and attacking > the supposedly loved ones in more subtle ways. Which are harder to > pinpoint, and harder to fight, too. > [...] > >For the sake of the other women here > >could we choose more carefully? > >Lauren > I’d prefer you to speak for yourself, not "for the sake of the other > women here". IMO it’s perfectly okay to say "this is annoying *me*, > and if you don’t want to have a fight, please mind your words". > But, who appointed you to be other peoples’ advocate here? > Don’t get me wrong, Lauren. I know I sound very very blunt here, but I > don’t know how to put it otherwise. From what I know about you, I > really like you, and normally appreciate what you post here. > Ulrich > — > The From: line is invalid. In case you want to send email, my > R13ed address is fbo…@vagrearg.qr. Sorry for the inconvenience

Hmmm.  I used to like you too, Ulrich. But after reading your last two posts here, I am afraid my sense of you has changed. I hear a real double standard here between your defense of the original poster and your attempt to silence me for defending women in general against his openly biased and provocative header. And another double standard between your support of his free venting of anger and criticism of me for expressing mine. Double standards are a popular *male* game to force women into submission where more rational arguments cannot be found. I suspect further comments would be wasted so will not say any more to your post. Lauren

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Lauren wrote: > I am not sure whether to thank you for > defending me here, Walter, or feel > you criticizing me too. > I did not understand the references > to me here as a "judgment institution" > or someone with "hidden angers" > and "serious problems." > If I give that impression I am sorry > because I do not feel that way. > I just feel obliged to defend people > unable to speak for themselves > when they are attacked. > I see that as a fair use of this forum > and under the heading of free > personal expression. > If I misunderstood your intent here > I apologize too and thank you > for coming to *my* side. > Lauren

Ohhh, now I get it, Walter. I just read Ric’s post on this thread and see you meant *Laura* there and not *Lauren* sorry! So I guess you were *defending* me in your last post to Ulrich? If so, thank you again. Lauren :*

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -alien wrote: > Hi Ulrich Pollmann  and all lurkers on alt.support.loneliness ! On Sun, > 08 Feb 1998 09:39:19 GMT, You wrote: > [mailed and posted to the correct address] > >Lauren <laz…@erols.com> wrote in article > ><34DBEEA5.7…@erols.com>: > >>Must we perpetuate this gender bias? > >Yes. IMO it’s essential that we *first* acknowledge that we’re angry > >or hurt, *before* we can find ways to overcome these emotions. > >You can’t make these feelings go away by demanding that they be not > >expressed. Therefore, the alternative would be denial, and attacking > >the supposedly loved ones in more subtle ways. Which are harder to > >pinpoint, and harder to fight, too. > Well, from the other followups I see Laura got involved into a nasty > domestic conflict, now she is referred to as a sort of judgement > institution … and I do believe she has shown the 7th sense with the > post You are referring to. > In general, I hope I have already made clear there are *really* hidden > angers and resentment buried inside many of us here, not merely man, and > it’s unwise to disguise that. From the story of "Chris and Laura" posted > in 34dbbd9…@news6.kcdata.com (I’m desperate for answers) it seems to > me they both have very serious problems … > >[...] > >>For the sake of the other women here > >>could we choose more carefully? > >>Lauren > >I’d prefer you to speak for yourself, not "for the sake of the other > >women here". IMO it’s perfectly okay to say "this is annoying *me*, > >and if you don’t want to have a fight, please mind your words". > >But, who appointed you to be other peoples’ advocate here? > >Don’t get me wrong, Lauren. I know I sound very very blunt here, but I > >don’t know how to put it otherwise. From what I know about you, I > >really like you, and normally appreciate what you post here. > >Ulrich > I wouldn’t put down her feelings as some "responsible senior" trying to > speak for all the ones who are probably too shy to articulate their > discontent here. Unlike sometimes on other groups, her expression is not > meant as an attempt to "take over control" or to censor the messages, > hopefully … > Well, two policemen arguing about an accident happened at the middle of > the street which is border between their districts … leaving the > victims in their blood and pain, might that be a solution ? > Good Luck anyways,   Walter > ————— > All life is chemistry, > and thoughts are the catalysts > ICQ #4918962 > —————————— > Due to excessive amounts of UCE, I > had to edit my email address. > Apologize the inconvenience. > Please remove the obvious to reply, thanks.

I am not sure whether to thank you for defending me here, Walter, or feel you criticizing me too. I did not understand the references to me here as a "judgment institution" or someone with "hidden angers" and "serious problems." If I give that impression I am sorry because I do not feel that way. I just feel obliged to defend people unable to speak for themselves when they are attacked. I see that as a fair use of this forum and under the heading of free personal expression. If I misunderstood your intent here I apologize too and thank you for coming to *my* side. Lauren

Response:

ok, Lauren brings out a good point – if we want help we should try to select words that don’t press other’s insecurity buttons… if you want to stir up controversy, that’s one thing… but if you’re looking for advice on a subject, blanket negative statements about the people who have the best advice might be rather counterproductive… that said, and the subject heading changed, I respond to the content of your post now… thank you for answering the questions… I received your email as well and was actually waiting for it to be posted here as it seemed to suggest it would be, but I wanted to address Lauren and give you a first impression response before heading for bed tonight… you ask for opinions, here’s mine… it seems to me, chris, that it’s a matter of trust… do you want to trust laura or not… she admits her betrayal and says she is sorry – it’s now up to you to either let *it* go or let *her* go… you both seem to have issues to resolve and I strongly suggest counselling individually… I sense laura needed a friend who could understand her and mike would be a good friend – whether it goes further than friendship is largely up to how you treat laura I think… not trusting her and telling her who her friends can be will drive her away… to me the tone of your words was angry, intimidating, and possessive… she is not property and I suggest that you look at the way you see her and women in general… the tone of her words (not yet posted here) seemed remorseful and rather trapped… she’s afraid of you… instead of making demands on her and putting her under a microscope, try listening to her… it sounds to me like you intimidate her and control her… I’m being blunt and hard on you here chris, but I’m hoping you didn’t come here for pleasant platitudes or "don’t worry man" responses because I don’t call that support… you two have a history of abuse and it’s for you to get your anger under control… she should not have to strip to support you if she finds it humiliating… and she should not be afraid of you… on the other hand, laura, your hedging on the truth or out and out lies might have been because you are afraid of chris, but it’s gotten you where you are… you should have spoken up for yourself about not liking dancing a long time ago and stood your ground… you need to stand up for yourself and be honest with yourself and chris… that is what he’s asking for… if you tell him the truth and he chooses to react violently, call the cops… in fact, if you’re afraid to tell him the truth because you fear for your safety, you two should be apart until he gets some real counseling and gets his anger under control… you have this responsibility to yourself and him… I hope this helps… and if there are things I don’t understand then let me know… and if you post to the group you may get other opinions and advice… I suggest you follow through on your intentions to post more here… I offer honesty and sincerity in my response ccepting your posted information to be honest and sincere as well… I wish you peace… ric – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -chris wrote in message <34dae9a…@news6.kcdata.com>… >We lived together for four years. We are not married but we tell people we >are. She wears a large diamond wedding ring. Yes this was to be a monogamous >relationship. She is an exotic dancer. She met mike at the bar. Mya is my >cat. We have been separated because of a domestic battery charge pending >against me from Dec 17. We were trying to work it out counseling etc. But >the relationship with mike was way before the battery. >ric wrote in message <6be9e7$…@examiner.concentric.net>… >>chris… >>a whole lot to understand and some eseential questions need to be >>answered in my mind before I can give you a real reaction… >>you two do not live together?… did you ever?… is Laura your >>girlfriend or wife?… how long have you been together?… have you both >>commited to a monogamous relationship (I mean discussed it and both >>whole heartedly said yes?)… have you both said you won’t date >>others?… how long has Laura known Mike and where did they meet?… and >>who is Mya?…

Response:

On Sun, 08 Feb 1998 14:29:09 GMT, alien – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<wmautner.CUT_T…@mindless.com> wrote: >Hi Ulrich Pollmann  and all lurkers on alt.support.loneliness ! On Sun, >08 Feb 1998 09:39:19 GMT, You wrote: >[mailed and posted to the correct address] >[...] >>I’d prefer you to speak for yourself, not "for the sake of the other >>women here". IMO it’s perfectly okay to say "this is annoying *me*, >>and if you don’t want to have a fight, please mind your words". >>But, who appointed you to be other peoples’ advocate here? >>Don’t get me wrong, Lauren. I know I sound very very blunt here, but I >>don’t know how to put it otherwise. From what I know about you, I >>really like you, and normally appreciate what you post here. >>Ulrich >I wouldn’t put down her feelings

I generally don’t comment on anybody’s *feelings*, and I don’t know what makes you think I do. I said "I’d prefer you to speak for yourself," which exclusively relates to *behavior* and nothing else. >as some "responsible senior" trying to >speak for all the ones who are probably too shy to articulate their >discontent here.

Tough luck if this is just what you read there. >Unlike sometimes on other groups, her expression is not >meant as an attempt to "take over control" or to censor the messages, >hopefully …

I’m not at all afraid that Lauren has anything like this in mind. OTOH I’d consider it extemely impolite to "analyze" this behavior, even if the result wouldn’t be offending at all. Maybe Lauren wants to comment herself? Lauren? >Well, two policemen arguing about an accident happened at the middle of >the street which is border between their districts … leaving the >victims in their blood and pain, might that be a solution ?

Would you care to explain what you refer to with this metaphor? For instance, who are the "victims", and who are the "cops"? I don’t get it. Ulrich — my From: line is invalid. To reply via email, my ROT-13ed address is fbo…@vagrearg.qr

Response:

Must we perpetuate this gender bias? We all know men play games too. Your bid for help is undermined for me by your sexist tone and header. The proverbial "war between the sexes" is fuelled by our use of words. For the sake of the other women here could we choose more carefully? Lauren – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -chris wrote: > Any response to this positive or negative would be greatly welcome!!! > This is what happened to me last week. The following is what I prepared to > give to her which I did. On top of that after finally starting to come > around and begin to be able to talk enough to finally come over to her house > I suprise her with a gift and card from Victorias Secret. Everything is > going great. She all week had told me she had told him to never call again > and that she had not heard from him at all. Here’s the kicker! We have been > in bed for no more than five minutes and had just started to kiss and hold > each other when the phone rings. And guess what the caller ID said? It was > Mike the other guy that you will read about later. She doesn’t want to > answer it. So I do. I’m thinking she has something to hide by not answering > it and telling him in front of me without him knowing I’m there. I pick it > up and say hello? His reply was Chris? I saod yeah! He said hows it going? I > said here I’ll let you talk to Laura. This will finally give me an > oppurtunity to listen in on what he says to her. But she won’t let me do it. > I couldn’t beleive it! She finally has a chance to help me to beleive her by > letting me hear what he says to her without him knowing I’m listening in and > she blows it. I am blown away. It leaves me with one thought. Shes hiding > something! So again she tells me the same bullshit she has been telling me > every time I have wanted to listen in via three-way. I’m not going to let > you manipulate me. What do I do????? > I DON

Filed under: Fight Loneliness

Related Posts

• It is out look that counts...
• Mark Your Calendar
• Y a t-y des quebecois dans le monde?:)
• ASHM and rancor
• I'm fooling myself.
• Ahhhh
• Being single is nice
• If you are new here, read this!
• Continuing wisdom from other paths
• god,hidden ruler