Rocky

27 minutes ago, chockfull said:

What is an “I” statement and how do you distinguish it from sounding you are talking directly about the person you are posting about?

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2011/08/I-messages-handout.pdf

Thank you for asking.

When you are in conflict, you may have difficulty clearly articulating your situation without escalating the conflict. Using an “I” message (also known as an “assertiveness statement”) can help you state your concerns, feelings, and needs in a manner that is easier for the listener to hear and understand. An “I-statement” focuses on your own feelings and experiences. It does not focus on your perspective of what the other person has done or failed to do. It is the difference, for example, between saying, "I feel that I am not being permitted to participate in office projects to the extent that others are” and "You always let Marge work on office projects, but you never ask me if I’m interested.” If you can express your experience in a way that does not attack, criticize, or blame others, you are less likely to provoke defensiveness and hostility which tends to escalate conflicts, or have the other person shut-down or tune you out which tends to stifle communication. Ultimately, I-messages help create more opportunities for the resolution of conflict by creating more opportunities for constructive dialogue about the true sources of conflict.

That is but an excerpt of the handout linked above. Thank you for asking.

56 minutes ago, Rocky said:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gaslighting I don't believe chockfull's claim about inadvertently making mistakes constitutes gaslighting is at all correct.

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

Please NOTE: this is an "I" statement. It is NOT an accusation about any aspect of chockfull's intentions, mental states/conditions, or actions is ANY way.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gaslighting I don't believe chockfull's claim about inadvertently making mistakes constitutes gaslighting is at all correct.

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Oldies, will you please clarify? What, exactly, was powerful?

I certainly don't speak for Oldiesman, but my take was he meant his Mother in Catholicism was encouraging him to go back to Catholicism.

4 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

I hope I'm raising him to be curious, inquisitive, thoughtful, kind, compassionate, generous, respectful, diligent, honest, accountable. I hope.

 train up a child in the way he should go... there are some wise proverbs in the bible. 

Is that all?

Each of your points seems to be about what they wouldn't have to do. What WOULD they believe about life and creation?

How do you envision answering the child's big questions?

You posed an intriguing thought experiment.

2 hours ago, chockfull said:

One example of this is VPW firing John Schoenheit for publishing a simple word study on the word “adultery”.

I apologize in advance for offending you on this one. Are you sure of timing of the referenced personnel action above and that it was Victor Wierwille who did it?

2 hours ago, chockfull said:

Gaslighting is continuing to insist that the things I brought up didn’t happen, or just refusing to address them at all despite very clear instruction on the areas where I am calling out your behavior.

Look. Fine. I'll kiss your BEE-hind. But I'm not insisting ANYthing about what you do or may not have remembered.

THE thing I've been TRYING to do, however, imperfectly, is to redirect this "discussion."

I don't give a RATS patootie what you remember or don't remember. You and I are NOT in any kind of relationship in which it would matter, except maybe between your ears.

I hope you find peace. Based on your words, it sure doesn't seem like you have been succeeding in that regard the last few days.

Take it or leave it however you'd like, but you might find solace in the message of this book: Stillness is the Key.

I don't know you in person. I only know your words on GSC. I apologize for disagreeing with you (and therefore, having somehow offended you).

----

In NO way do I consider myself to be a victim of anything you have said or done.

18 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

----

Asking rhetorical questions does not qualify as gaslighting, as I understand it. I will explain this. Rhetorical questions are NOT me feeding you false information (or lies). They are for you to answer your own damn questions.

And again, I don't take or obey orders from you.

Did your parents ever explain that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?

ALWAYS remember that.

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

I just did spell it out.  The repeated question is gaslighting.  Please explain what I asked in my previous post without all the BS.

I am not upset I am just not letting your BS criticism go unmentioned this time.  

Maybe you are projecting how upset you are onto me.

I’ll repeat it 

1. Explain constant criticism singling me out

2. Explain calling me Mike or just like him

3. Explain Dostoyevsky post and how it relates to forgiveness and why it was brought up

Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

----

Asking rhetorical questions does not qualify as gaslighting, as I understand it. I will explain this. Rhetorical questions are NOT me feeding you false information (or lies). They are for you to answer your own damn questions.

And again, I don't take or obey orders from you.

Did your parents ever explain that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

I don’t have any message or mission to help people escape TWI.  People have to do that for themselves.

Are you not aware of the mission of GSC?

46 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Then why do you consistently single out and criticize my posts?  You certainly do that and I’m not allowing you to gaslight me on this.

You explain.

You still haven’t explained how I’m like Mike logically.

And yes lying.  Explain the Dostoyevsky post in the midst of this back and forth.  Or answer directly.  Do you feel that quote is something I represent?  It certainly appears that way in context.  Oooh but no that’s coincidental.  How does it relate to forgiveness then?

Dude... chill. I don't try to control or give orders to you. I don't take orders from you.

I don't have the foggiest idea why you get so upset.

But if you want me to explain anything, please spell out how, why and what have I written/said that you believe I was untruthful or counterfactual. 

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

somehow feel threatened when I post a lot here

There is NO reason I would feel threatened by you. 

Me lying? Really?

Please just stop it. 

This is NOT addressed to anyone specifically. But I believe it's related to forgiveness.

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

Or maybe you can stop criticizing people for stupid things like possibly responding to a rhetorical question.  That is you failing to convey your message in a logical and kind manner.

You really thrive on criticizing my posts.

Saying that I sound like Mike is beyond that and simply delusional.  My response is you can kiss my entire @$$.

My words included 3 rhetorical questions similar to the ones you criticized me for answering.  But you can’t take someone giving you the same back.

You are remarkably thin skinned for someone that is that obnoxiously critical.

Forgive me or not I really could care less. Trying to control someone’s behavior with forgiveness or not is called manipulation. You started the tangential crap with picking at me so you got it back.  I’ll stop when you do.

That is remarkably hostile projection, btw.

How is your message going to help people trying to escape TWI?  

Oh, and who's criticizing whom? 

I'm confident, however, that you understood my message but just don't like it.  

32 minutes ago, chockfull said:

No I expect you to be sharp enough to know I understand what rhetorical questions are and have been responding to you with them since you criticized me for responding to your rhetorical questions.

You didn’t pick up on it and have been doing exactly what you criticized me for over the last 3 interactions.  Answering rhetorical questions.

Your expectations about me constitute fantasy scenarios between your own ears. You sound like Mike when you accuse people of failing to read your mind.

I read your words. 

When a reader fails to understand your intended message, why do you think it's because of anything other than you not conveying what you intended to convey.

Really, you DO sound like Mike.

But if you drop the tangential malarkey, I'll forgive you.   

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

Will I understand them better by you answering mine?

Now you expect me to figure out what will help you understand rhetorical questions? Come on. 

11 minutes ago, chockfull said:

So I should stop answering your rhetorical questions then?

Do you understand the concept of rhetorical questions?

On the topic of unenforceable rules, I was directed to a definition Fred Luskin included in his book, Forgive for Good.

The definition is in chapter 5 of this book. I don't own the book, but you might be able to access it either electronically or in a paper or hardbound book at your local public library.

The class (webinar) I referred to provided a including copies of the pages of chapter 5. I plan to read it later this evening.

Anyway, back to the subject of forgiveness, the other day I sat through a writing class on memoir. The topic of forgiveness was a major theme in the class.

Associated therewith are the concepts of emotional boundaries and unenforceable rules.

I asked a question to see if I could get further insight comparing and contrasting those two ideas.

On boundaries, I was given this wonderful clip by Brené Brown.

And many of us who read and/or share at GSC know one of the immense and egregious problems of TWI has been, from the beginning, lack of understanding of personal/emotional boundaries or just plain refusing to honor them based on whatever justification... like the social construct that we were somehow the "property of the king." Or otherwise weren't worthy of being given the dignity of having our own agency/choices.

2 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Hey, no doubt. I stated what I did not at you but to verify the authenticity of my statement with names of groups and also with the names of those who made the statements for clarity for our multitude of lurkers. I hold them no ill will and believe they meant well, but what's that saying...sincerity is no...guarantee...o...of....truth...or something like that...

I believe this exchange of yours and mine on this subject starkly (or not?) illustrates and illuminates the inherent limitation of communication without access to each other's non-verbal cues. i.e tone of voice, inflection, facial expressions etc.

I only point this out for your readers and mine (likely only on this topic/thread) to hold in mind that we're inherently not contradicting each other or criticizing each other or otherwise INTENDING to cause any "negative" emotion.

If I could devise a way for us to more fully communicate on GSC or any other online print only forum in ways that would be less likely to cause misunderstandings and be more likely to foster compassion and forgiveness... well, maybe I'd be able to get rich. Then again, that wouldn't be my goal/objective anyway.   

2 hours ago, chockfull said:

Do you really want me to start listing out all the possibilities???

On the anonymous interwebz?

Why would you think I'm telling or asking you to do what I WANT you to do? 

I posed a rhetorical question.

It's up to you to decide what YOU want to do with what said question causes you to consider.

In case anyone would like further insight on forgiveness, I suspect the late Desmond Tutu knew something about it. The Book of Forgiving: The Fourfold Path for Healing Ourselves and Our World

21 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

I can say authoritatively from my own personal experiences with all three groups I mentioned that they all preached this false forgiveness doctrine they need to prop up wierwille and keep the gravy train chugging along. Perhaps require is a bit too strong of a word in this case. But all three groups hit me with the same drivel.

Its likely their de facto sales pitch to try and snag defecting way corp.

For the record, I wasn't implying anything about your take on the groups. I believed and believe you. I was only putting my point/understanding in the context of my experience. 

Clearly those spin off groups, IMO, are parasites. 

2 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Dave Craley

I recognized his voice right away. ROA 72 was 51 years ago. Amazing to consider.

Salient to me in the first minute of Craley's soliloquy was his statement that news people would be there to try to understand the phenomenon which was TWI at that time.

Of course, that was only the beginning of a much longer journey to understand said phenomenon. I'm thankful we have a MUCH better grasp of the issue/subject today than anyone in society was able to figure out (without becoming engrossed/engulfed) in the high demand subculture at the time.

Not that we have a full understanding of it even still...