Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 At 04:37 PM 11/11/99 -0500, you wrote: >Xena10000 > >Dan - sounds like spin doctoring an event - by calling it 'pointing out >deficiencies'. Are you seriously suggesting that people of good Intent who >see a possible crime in the making - say NOTHING? Lest they possibly might be >misinterpreted as 'pointing out deficiencies'? Diana - I haven't suggested anything like that. I do think there's a difference between 1) stating an objection to specific behavior and language, acting to construct a limit to an attacking behavior, and 2) attacking someone's personality. As I see it, personal attacks can occur under the guise of pointing out someone's deficiencies. This is distinct in tone from wanting to assist a person in difficulty, or wanting to set limits on behavior that is hurtful. There is nothing wrong with setting limits, often it is helpful. >Reminds me of the lady in NYC whose murder was witnessed by over 30 people. >none of whom dialed 911 - cuase they 'did not want to get involved'. Although >now - there is poltically correct justification for that attitude. "I did not >want to be perceived as pointing out deficiencies in others." Dialing 911 has nothing to do with pointing out deficiencies in another. 911 can be dialed, police can come and assist - if this is necessary and would be helpful - without getting into the slash and burn tactics of attacks against personhood. >I would rather be wrong - than uninvolved. End of my part of the discussion. >You can carry on dissecting my personality and speculating on my psyche, etc- >at your leisure. My remarks about all of this are *not* a dissection of your personality. I most definitely don't perceive myself to be in a position to know about your personality. As far as your intentions in the situation, I see your intentions as being to help and assist. No problem with these intentions. My remarks about "pointing out deficiencies" were about a theme of the *whole thread on all sides* - I explicitly stated it that way - and I'm talking about this thread from the beginning, well before you became involved in it. There were some remarks you made of this sort, which you obviously felt were called for, and there have been so many remarks of a personal nature made during this thread that yours were only a small piece of that particular pie. It's a thread with *much history* on that list, with many personalities involved. There have been many ongoing discussions back and forth about people pointing to deficiencies in others, remarks of a personal nature made back and forth. If you dissociate yourself from that list, I can understand it, and I don't have a problem with it. Just wanted you to know you would be welcomed there, as you seemed to be unaware of this. Personalities seem to generate emotional conflict, often obscuring awareness, and this is what I was pointing to. I don't exclude "mine" from this observation either. I'm looking at the way personalities operate when they are "behind" actions and perceptions. As far as concluding the discussion about this situation, that is quite agreeable with me. --- Peace to you, me and All --- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > >At 04:37 PM 11/11/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Xena10000 > > > >Dan - sounds like spin doctoring an event - by calling it 'pointing out > >deficiencies'. Are you seriously suggesting that people of good Intent >who > >see a possible crime in the making - say NOTHING? Lest they possibly >might >be > >misinterpreted as 'pointing out deficiencies'? > >Diana - I haven't suggested anything like that. I do think there's a >difference between 1) stating an objection to specific behavior and >language, acting to construct a limit to an attacking behavior, and 2) >attacking someone's personality. As I see it, personal attacks can occur >under the guise of pointing out someone's deficiencies. This is distinct >in tone from wanting to assist a person in difficulty, or wanting to set >limits on behavior that is hurtful. There is nothing wrong with setting >limits, often it is helpful. I don't know exactly what you Dan and Diana are talking about here as I am not following this deficiency thread carefully. From what I have read from the two of you I strongly feel that you are both very beautiful people and are not deficient in any manner what so ever. Every relationship has a beginning and an ending. Probably you were a most beautiful couple. You can still remain friends. We don't want to lose either one of you by taking any one's sides. Can't we just get along? In humility and with love for both of you A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 1999 Report Share Posted November 12, 1999 In a message dated 11/11/99 11:22:16 PM Central Standard Time, ashokaraja writes: << Probably you were a most beautiful couple. You can still remain friends. >> Very funny! You 'were' joking? I do not know Dan B. I have seen his emails over a period of a few weeks on this list. At the risk of being accused of a personal attack - I would say Da'n point of view is permanently changed by the fact that he is a therapist. And so has a particular mind-set regarding problem-solving. Helpful sometimes - but still habitual behavior. No - Dan was making those comments to me based on knowing nothing about me (except what he has read in emails). When you're a hammer - the whole world is a nail. diana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.