Question:
That’s a very good idea, Larry L! I’m trying to learn "coping mechanisms on the net": Thanks for a great contribution! Lotte
Response:
OK, Nancy. I’ve heard you, and I’ll get back to you on this one, once a couple of social commitments are fulfilled: OK? That’ll be somewhere around Monday. But what with all these time differences, God knows if it isn’t some kind of Monday where you are , right now…;-) Lotte
Response:
Hi there Nancy. If this is a new thread, it’s a clone of the old ones on much the same subject. I have no problem if and when you find friends to talk with here. I suppose that’s what you call back-channelling. But I assure you that the gossip stays here. As I’ve said before, I appreciate Larry’s posts and thoughts, and he was being given a hard time here. I guessed that he was about to leave again, and wanted to keep in touch. I, too, get tired of landing in a position where I need to defend myself . I’ll take some time off the NG now: Nothing personal, just a breather. Have a good time. Lotte
Response:
"LEL" <lelvn…@charter.net> wrote in message
news:u7u372p26k8c13@corp.supernews.com… > Hi td, > Hope you are feeling better. You are right, my mistake, it had nothing to do > with me.
I knew you hadn’t been feeling too well either and didn’t want you to ‘get your undies in a bundle’ again thinking they were referring to you. I don’t seem to have the energy for much more than reading occasionally. Hang in there, td I wasn’t sure because I looked back over the posts for some – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> distance and saw no posts that referred to Larry Hoover. Since I am here now > and see more than enough anger being thrown about (and I know a little > something about anger) I suggest (that means ignore me if you disagree) that > for a time at least both sides block each other and ignore threads that > might refer to the blocked individual. This gives both sides a "cooling off" > period and a chance to let old slights go. If you choose not to then you > will constantly be seeing posts that trigger you and make you angry. Unless > you want to be angry at each other. Sam might have a comment there. > Larry L. > "tiny dancer" <tinydancer…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:21Df8.1260$0S4.731696@typhoon.southeast.rr.com… > > "LEL" <lelvn…@charter.net> wrote in message > > news:u7ts5u44gg5915@corp.supernews.com… > > > Not to butt into anything that has nothing to do with me (I hope) but > > please > > > clarify which "Larry" you are referring to. > > It wasn’t you they are referring to, it’s the other Larry, Hoover I think. > > td > > If it is Larry L. (me) then let > > > me assure everyone that I have had no contact, BC or otherwise with > anyone > > > on this NG. I did send a email to td to see how she is doing. And if you > > > read my response to Nancy I saw it as it was I think intended, some > advice > > > to me which I could either take or leave. If this post and thread has > > > nothing to do with me then my apologies but please if you refer to me > use > > my > > > Larry L. handle. > > > Larry L. > > > "Nancy" <ki…@cris.com> wrote in message > > > news:a5mlf9$q00@dispatch.concentric.net… > > > > Let’s start a new thread. > > > > I’m not sure exactly why it is important to you that I answer ‘what > made > > > me > > > > irritated’ about Larry’s post(s). We never do actually ‘know’ > anything > > > but > > > > our own perceptions and my current perception of him was triggered by: > > > > 1. > > > > > I’m really glad to see the change that has come over the group. One > of > > > my > > > > > coping strategies is to take control over my environment (by > selecting > > > the > > > > > one I am in), and I was not going to stay in one like was present > here > > a > > > > few > > > > > weeks back. I’m grateful for the efforts made by everyone. Thank you > > > all. > > > > The hubris is overwhelming. And, I made no efforts one way or the > > other, > > > so > > > > I responded by: > > > > 2. > > > > > Well, it’s all perception, isn’t it? > > > > > I don’t really see a change in anything but you, Lotte and Cary. :/ > > > > To which I received the following response: > > > > 3. > > > > > This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring > > > > > to…..naming….blaming….it’s all quite distasteful to me. All it > > > does > > > > it > > > > > put people on the defensive. And who benefits from that? > > > > I fail to see that I blamed anyone or put her/him on the defensive. > > But, > > > he > > > > certainly blamed me for having a different perception than he, and > > labeled > > > > my perception as distasteful. That is his right, but then he > continued > > to > > > > bait me for disagreeing with him. > > > > That ultimately led to Sam posting the definition of a troll in > another > > > > thread. Apparently the shoe fit Larry as he certainly is complaining > > > > enough, apparently to you via off-ng mail. > > > > Maybe you don’t mind back-channel chatter, but I believe that all the > > back > > > > channel stuff is similar to the high school rumor mill. I do not do > > back > > > > channel very often, and, when I do, it is quickly brought to an end. > > > [OTOH > > > > I have been known to bombard folks with jokes :/ ] > > > > If you asked the question as a result of back-channel email, shame on > > you. > > > > You allowed yourself to be used. You might deserve an answer from my > > POV, > > > > but Larry, internet expert and PTSD victim that he is, could have > looked > > > it > > > > up himself, if he really cared. Instead, his apparent concept was to > > > engage > > > > in word games, which I prefer to not do. > > > > Hubris, Lotte, hubris! > > > > Smile and there will be something to smile about! > > > > Nancy
Response:
Hi td, Hope you are feeling better. You are right, my mistake, it had nothing to do with me. I wasn’t sure because I looked back over the posts for some distance and saw no posts that referred to Larry Hoover. Since I am here now and see more than enough anger being thrown about (and I know a little something about anger) I suggest (that means ignore me if you disagree) that for a time at least both sides block each other and ignore threads that might refer to the blocked individual. This gives both sides a "cooling off" period and a chance to let old slights go. If you choose not to then you will constantly be seeing posts that trigger you and make you angry. Unless you want to be angry at each other. Sam might have a comment there. Larry L. "tiny dancer" <tinydancer…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21Df8.1260$0S4.731696@typhoon.southeast.rr.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "LEL" <lelvn…@charter.net> wrote in message > news:u7ts5u44gg5915@corp.supernews.com… > > Not to butt into anything that has nothing to do with me (I hope) but > please > > clarify which "Larry" you are referring to. > It wasn’t you they are referring to, it’s the other Larry, Hoover I think. > td > If it is Larry L. (me) then let > > me assure everyone that I have had no contact, BC or otherwise with anyone > > on this NG. I did send a email to td to see how she is doing. And if you > > read my response to Nancy I saw it as it was I think intended, some advice > > to me which I could either take or leave. If this post and thread has > > nothing to do with me then my apologies but please if you refer to me use > my > > Larry L. handle. > > Larry L. > > "Nancy" <ki…@cris.com> wrote in message > > news:a5mlf9$q00@dispatch.concentric.net… > > > Let’s start a new thread. > > > I’m not sure exactly why it is important to you that I answer ‘what made > > me > > > irritated’ about Larry’s post(s). We never do actually ‘know’ anything > > but > > > our own perceptions and my current perception of him was triggered by: > > > 1. > > > > I’m really glad to see the change that has come over the group. One of > > my > > > > coping strategies is to take control over my environment (by selecting > > the > > > > one I am in), and I was not going to stay in one like was present here > a > > > few > > > > weeks back. I’m grateful for the efforts made by everyone. Thank you > > all. > > > The hubris is overwhelming. And, I made no efforts one way or the > other, > > so > > > I responded by: > > > 2. > > > > Well, it’s all perception, isn’t it? > > > > I don’t really see a change in anything but you, Lotte and Cary. :/ > > > To which I received the following response: > > > 3. > > > > This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring > > > > to…..naming….blaming….it’s all quite distasteful to me. All it > > does > > > it > > > > put people on the defensive. And who benefits from that? > > > I fail to see that I blamed anyone or put her/him on the defensive. > But, > > he > > > certainly blamed me for having a different perception than he, and > labeled > > > my perception as distasteful. That is his right, but then he continued > to > > > bait me for disagreeing with him. > > > That ultimately led to Sam posting the definition of a troll in another > > > thread. Apparently the shoe fit Larry as he certainly is complaining > > > enough, apparently to you via off-ng mail. > > > Maybe you don’t mind back-channel chatter, but I believe that all the > back > > > channel stuff is similar to the high school rumor mill. I do not do > back > > > channel very often, and, when I do, it is quickly brought to an end. > > [OTOH > > > I have been known to bombard folks with jokes :/ ] > > > If you asked the question as a result of back-channel email, shame on > you. > > > You allowed yourself to be used. You might deserve an answer from my > POV, > > > but Larry, internet expert and PTSD victim that he is, could have looked > > it > > > up himself, if he really cared. Instead, his apparent concept was to > > engage > > > in word games, which I prefer to not do. > > > Hubris, Lotte, hubris! > > > Smile and there will be something to smile about! > > > Nancy
Response:
"Nancy" <ki…@cris.com> wrote in message
news:a5mlf9$q00@dispatch.concentric.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Let’s start a new thread. > I’m not sure exactly why it is important to you that I answer ‘what made me > irritated’ about Larry’s post(s). We never do actually ‘know’ anything but > our own perceptions and my current perception of him was triggered by: > 1. > > I’m really glad to see the change that has come over the group. One of my > > coping strategies is to take control over my environment (by selecting the > > one I am in), and I was not going to stay in one like was present here a > few > > weeks back. I’m grateful for the efforts made by everyone. Thank you all. > The hubris is overwhelming. And, I made no efforts one way or the other, so > I responded by:
Hubris? How on Earth do you arrive at that conclusion? I was thanking everyone for putting aside ad hominem squabbles. Lotte wrote a very touching appeal, and it seemed to have made a difference, because people cared enough to put the concept of support back into the group’s interactions. But as you make clear, you have no intention of changing that aspect of your behaviour. Other members overtly expressed a desire to make changes. I’m glad to see that decision made, in place of the one you have apparently made. Forgive me for including you in my expression of gratitude. > 2. > > Well, it’s all perception, isn’t it? > > I don’t really see a change in anything but you, Lotte and Cary. :/ > To which I received the following response: > 3. > > This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring > > to…..naming….blaming….it’s all quite distasteful to me. All it does > it > > put people on the defensive. And who benefits from that? > I fail to see that I blamed anyone or put her/him on the defensive.
You literally identify three people (i.e. naming) and imply, that if there has been any changes, they have come about due to changes that we have made (blaming), as if all others were innocent bystanders. And you cannot see that this would be likely to invoke defensive reactions? Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. But, he > certainly blamed me for having a different perception than he, and labeled > my perception as distasteful. That is his right, but then he continued to > bait me for disagreeing with him.
No, I will not let you twist my words. I clearly described two behaviours as distasteful. Your perceptions are really none of my doing, and I honestly believe that you should keep them to yourself if you’re not going to openly discuss them. I’m not a mind reader. I have not baited you. I asked you to more fully explain yourself, that I might better understand how I came to be associated with the perception you have of me. I respect your feelings. If you have anger, and you associate it with me, I would like to learn why that association exists. Until I do learn about that link, I cannot decide whether there’s anything I can or will do to mitigate that perception. I do not accept responsibility for your anger. That was your decision, to come to anger. You interpreted something, and you decided that anger was an appropriate response. I may or may not agree with you, but you have given me nothing to help me decide. So, I shrug. > That ultimately led to Sam posting the definition of a troll in another > thread. Apparently the shoe fit Larry as he certainly is complaining > enough, apparently to you via off-ng mail.
Just can’t resist labeling others, can you? My private interactions with others are none of your business, but I will reveal to you that complaining about my interaction with you was not a topic of conversation. Really, what makes you think you’re so important to me that I would use my time doing so? Your name did not come up, nor did it so much as cross my mind, even fleetingly. You might re-read the definition of troll. You are unclear on the meaning. > Maybe you don’t mind back-channel chatter, but I believe that all the back > channel stuff is similar to the high school rumor mill. I do not do back > channel very often, and, when I do, it is quickly brought to an end. [OTOH > I have been known to bombard folks with jokes :/ ]
So, if we all behaved just as you do, all would be well? I think that you have presented a good example of hubris for us to consider. > If you asked the question as a result of back-channel email, shame on you.
And if you presume to judge another based on the projection of your distorted values, shame on you. > You allowed yourself to be used.
Chortle. > You might deserve an answer from my POV, > but Larry, internet expert and PTSD victim that he is, could have looked it > up himself, if he really cared.
Looked what up? You won’t express yourself. This has been a start, but there must surely be much more to your irritation than these few examples. Really, I’m no internet expert. Nor am I a PTSD victim. I am learning to manage the symptoms of PTSD, and I can look things up all by myself. You might try it some time…..research, then post. > Instead, his apparent concept was to engage > in word games, which I prefer to not do.
Word games. So easy to toss out a meaningless phrase. Try describing your thoughts to me. Recounting a behaviour, or quoting old conversation, neither of these reveal the nature of your perceptions. There is nothing new added, that personal interpretation that you find so difficult to express. Instead, you play passive-aggressive. The passive part leaves me uninformed. The aggressive part leaves you trapped in your anger (and wondering why you bother only doing half the job). It’s not a very inviting sort of relationship to have with someone.
Response:
"LEL" <lelvn…@charter.net> wrote in message
news:u7ts5u44gg5915@corp.supernews.com… > Not to butt into anything that has nothing to do with me (I hope) but please > clarify which "Larry" you are referring to.
It wasn’t you they are referring to, it’s the other Larry, Hoover I think. td If it is Larry L. (me) then let – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> me assure everyone that I have had no contact, BC or otherwise with anyone > on this NG. I did send a email to td to see how she is doing. And if you > read my response to Nancy I saw it as it was I think intended, some advice > to me which I could either take or leave. If this post and thread has > nothing to do with me then my apologies but please if you refer to me use my > Larry L. handle. > Larry L. > "Nancy" <ki…@cris.com> wrote in message > news:a5mlf9$q00@dispatch.concentric.net… > > Let’s start a new thread. > > I’m not sure exactly why it is important to you that I answer ‘what made > me > > irritated’ about Larry’s post(s). We never do actually ‘know’ anything > but > > our own perceptions and my current perception of him was triggered by: > > 1. > > > I’m really glad to see the change that has come over the group. One of > my > > > coping strategies is to take control over my environment (by selecting > the > > > one I am in), and I was not going to stay in one like was present here a > > few > > > weeks back. I’m grateful for the efforts made by everyone. Thank you > all. > > The hubris is overwhelming. And, I made no efforts one way or the other, > so > > I responded by: > > 2. > > > Well, it’s all perception, isn’t it? > > > I don’t really see a change in anything but you, Lotte and Cary. :/ > > To which I received the following response: > > 3. > > > This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring > > > to…..naming….blaming….it’s all quite distasteful to me. All it > does > > it > > > put people on the defensive. And who benefits from that? > > I fail to see that I blamed anyone or put her/him on the defensive. But, > he > > certainly blamed me for having a different perception than he, and labeled > > my perception as distasteful. That is his right, but then he continued to > > bait me for disagreeing with him. > > That ultimately led to Sam posting the definition of a troll in another > > thread. Apparently the shoe fit Larry as he certainly is complaining > > enough, apparently to you via off-ng mail. > > Maybe you don’t mind back-channel chatter, but I believe that all the back > > channel stuff is similar to the high school rumor mill. I do not do back > > channel very often, and, when I do, it is quickly brought to an end. > [OTOH > > I have been known to bombard folks with jokes :/ ] > > If you asked the question as a result of back-channel email, shame on you. > > You allowed yourself to be used. You might deserve an answer from my POV, > > but Larry, internet expert and PTSD victim that he is, could have looked > it > > up himself, if he really cared. Instead, his apparent concept was to > engage > > in word games, which I prefer to not do. > > Hubris, Lotte, hubris! > > Smile and there will be something to smile about! > > Nancy
Response:
Not to butt into anything that has nothing to do with me (I hope) but please clarify which "Larry" you are referring to. If it is Larry L. (me) then let me assure everyone that I have had no contact, BC or otherwise with anyone on this NG. I did send a email to td to see how she is doing. And if you read my response to Nancy I saw it as it was I think intended, some advice to me which I could either take or leave. If this post and thread has nothing to do with me then my apologies but please if you refer to me use my Larry L. handle. Larry L. "Nancy" <ki…@cris.com> wrote in message
news:a5mlf9$q00@dispatch.concentric.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Let’s start a new thread. > I’m not sure exactly why it is important to you that I answer ‘what made me > irritated’ about Larry’s post(s). We never do actually ‘know’ anything but > our own perceptions and my current perception of him was triggered by: > 1. > > I’m really glad to see the change that has come over the group. One of my > > coping strategies is to take control over my environment (by selecting the > > one I am in), and I was not going to stay in one like was present here a > few > > weeks back. I’m grateful for the efforts made by everyone. Thank you all. > The hubris is overwhelming. And, I made no efforts one way or the other, so > I responded by: > 2. > > Well, it’s all perception, isn’t it? > > I don’t really see a change in anything but you, Lotte and Cary. :/ > To which I received the following response: > 3. > > This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring > > to…..naming….blaming….it’s all quite distasteful to me. All it does > it > > put people on the defensive. And who benefits from that? > I fail to see that I blamed anyone or put her/him on the defensive. But, he > certainly blamed me for having a different perception than he, and labeled > my perception as distasteful. That is his right, but then he continued to > bait me for disagreeing with him. > That ultimately led to Sam posting the definition of a troll in another > thread. Apparently the shoe fit Larry as he certainly is complaining > enough, apparently to you via off-ng mail. > Maybe you don’t mind back-channel chatter, but I believe that all the back > channel stuff is similar to the high school rumor mill. I do not do back > channel very often, and, when I do, it is quickly brought to an end. [OTOH > I have been known to bombard folks with jokes :/ ] > If you asked the question as a result of back-channel email, shame on you. > You allowed yourself to be used. You might deserve an answer from my POV, > but Larry, internet expert and PTSD victim that he is, could have looked it > up himself, if he really cared. Instead, his apparent concept was to engage > in word games, which I prefer to not do. > Hubris, Lotte, hubris! > Smile and there will be something to smile about! > Nancy
Response:
Let’s start a new thread. I’m not sure exactly why it is important to you that I answer ‘what made me irritated’ about Larry’s post(s). We never do actually ‘know’ anything but our own perceptions and my current perception of him was triggered by: 1. > I’m really glad to see the change that has come over the group. One of my > coping strategies is to take control over my environment (by selecting the > one I am in), and I was not going to stay in one like was present here a few > weeks back. I’m grateful for the efforts made by everyone. Thank you all.
The hubris is overwhelming. And, I made no efforts one way or the other, so I responded by: 2. > Well, it’s all perception, isn’t it? > I don’t really see a change in anything but you, Lotte and Cary. :/
To which I received the following response: 3. > This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring > to…..naming….blaming….it’s all quite distasteful to me. All it does it > put people on the defensive. And who benefits from that?
I fail to see that I blamed anyone or put her/him on the defensive. But, he certainly blamed me for having a different perception than he, and labeled my perception as distasteful. That is his right, but then he continued to bait me for disagreeing with him. That ultimately led to Sam posting the definition of a troll in another thread. Apparently the shoe fit Larry as he certainly is complaining enough, apparently to you via off-ng mail. Maybe you don’t mind back-channel chatter, but I believe that all the back channel stuff is similar to the high school rumor mill. I do not do back channel very often, and, when I do, it is quickly brought to an end. [OTOH I have been known to bombard folks with jokes :/ ] If you asked the question as a result of back-channel email, shame on you. You allowed yourself to be used. You might deserve an answer from my POV, but Larry, internet expert and PTSD victim that he is, could have looked it up himself, if he really cared. Instead, his apparent concept was to engage in word games, which I prefer to not do. Hubris, Lotte, hubris! Smile and there will be something to smile about! Nancy
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.