Pondering | PTSD | Trauma

Pondering

Question:

Hi….. I’ve not been feeling very well of late (so what else is new?) and would like to greet the new ppl who have started to post. "Things" got soo bad, that I had an "emergency" appointment with my pdoc on Friday. He did put me on Seroquel for dissociation & thinking, and Clonidine for flashbacks or re-experiencing. This is how he explained it to me. I do feel a little clearer today and would like to tell you something he said to me that I found disturbing. I think that I mentioned this before, that this pdoc is a specialist in DID, and has been trained by one of the most prominent psychiatrists in the world has written, lectures, etc. I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to come back and talk to him. I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_ disturbing things that she was going to do to the body. My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked. My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message across. He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that my T is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to communicate with them. A lot of it is fear on my part, and lack of trust on theirs. We (my T and I) have been trying to work on this. In the past few months, I have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if my T refused to speak to them. This bothers and confuses me. I spoke with another T friend, who disagrees with the pdoc. In fact when I went to see the pdoc on Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how your pdocs and T’s feel about this? I’d really appreciate it. Nahanton

Response:

Hi Nahanton, I’m just new here, and I have only just faced up to this whole experience, but I feel compasion and respect for you (I hope you take that positively). I think I understand the rational behind not talking directly to the insiders, although I imagine that some of the experiences can be frightening. For me, I find it difficult to describe the "others" inside my head partly because they are a bit foggy and partly because I won’t give them names. I think that naming them will give them a greater amount of strength, and one or two of them are extremely strong as it is. I hope you begin to feel a bit better soon. Peter et al

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi….. I’ve not been feeling very well of late (so what else is new?) and would like to greet the new ppl who have started to post. "Things" got soo bad, that I had an "emergency" appointment with my pdoc on Friday. He did put me on Seroquel for dissociation & thinking, and Clonidine for flashbacks or re-experiencing. This is how he explained it to me. I do feel a little clearer today and would like to tell you something he said to me that I found disturbing. I think that I mentioned this before, that this pdoc is a specialist in DID, and has been trained by one of the most prominent psychiatrists in the world books he has written, lectures, etc. I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to come back and talk to him. I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_ disturbing things that she was going to do to the body. My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked. My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message across. He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that my T is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to communicate with them. A lot of it is fear on my part, and lack of trust on theirs. We (my T and I) have been trying to work on this. In the past few months, I have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if my T refused to speak to them. This bothers and confuses me. I spoke with another T friend, who disagrees with the pdoc. In fact when I went to see the pdoc on Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how your pdocs and T’s feel about this? I’d really appreciate it. Nahanton

Response:

what he’s doing is based on the assumption that he can accurately identify a host (i’m assuming that the definition of host is someone who is out the most and doing most of the daily living stuff). some of us don’t have a host (as it’s traditionally defined). some of us change hosts periodically. some of us have folks who share the "host" role. in a way, i can understand what he’s trying to do. i think it might work for some folks. i think it has the potential to backfire in a big way for others — including increasing the possibility for the need for hospitalization at times. i don’t think that would be a good thing. i also think it would have felt incredibly invalidating in lots of ways if i had been treated that way. and then there’s also the fact that i had about 15 years of therapy (much of it with excellent therapists) dealing me as a single person (granted this was prior to the identification of the mp). despite the fact that much of it was excellent therapy, it *didn’t*work*. real, lasting, stable changes didn’t happen for me until someone recognized and worked with everyone in the system. — astri – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Hi….. I’ve not been feeling very well of late (so what else is new?) and would like to greet the new ppl who have started to post. "Things" got soo bad, that I had an "emergency" appointment with my pdoc on Friday. He did put me on Seroquel for dissociation & thinking, and Clonidine for flashbacks or re-experiencing. This is how he explained it to me. I do feel a little clearer today and would like to tell you something he said to me that I found disturbing. I think that I mentioned this before, that this pdoc is a specialist in DID, and has been trained by one of the most prominent psychiatrists in the world has written, lectures, etc. I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to come back and talk to him. I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_ disturbing things that she was going to do to the body. My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked. My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message across. He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that my T is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to communicate with them. A lot of it is fear on my part, and lack of trust on theirs. We (my T and I) have been trying to work on this. In the past few months, I have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if my T refused to speak to them. This bothers and confuses me. I spoke with another T friend, who disagrees with the pdoc. In fact when I went to see the pdoc on Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how your pdocs and T’s feel about this? I’d really appreciate it. Nahanton

Response:

Hi Peter, et al….pls. scroll down Hi Nahanton, I’m just new here, and I have only just faced up to this whole experience, but I feel compasion and respect for you (I hope you take that positively). I think I understand the rational behind not talking directly to the insiders, although I imagine that some of the experiences can be frightening. For me, I find it difficult to describe the "others" inside my head partly because they are a bit foggy and partly because I won’t give them names. I think that naming them will give them a greater amount of strength, and one or two of them are extremely strong as it is. I hope you begin to feel a bit better soon. Peter et al I remember how difficult it was when I finally faced up to the dx. I felt the same as you, in that I didn’t want to give them names. I thought that it would give them more "power" of me, or something. Eventually I had to give them names, or at times they would tell me what their names were. It was an extremely frightening time for me. At times it still is frightening for me, but not as bad as when I first had to face up to it. I think that you numb out some after a while. After a while some of it becomes commonplace, which, if someone had told me that, I would never have believed them. I do take your compassion positively, and thank you for it. Nahanton

Response:

–astri, It seems that there can be different ways of handling this. I want to hear as many theories as I can. This is very hard work, and I’d like to feel that we were handling the therapy in the way that is most likely to help. Thanks. Nahanton what he’s doing is based on the assumption that he can accurately identify a host (i’m assuming that the definition of host is someone who is out the most and doing most of the daily living stuff). some of us don’t have a host (as it’s traditionally defined). some of us change hosts periodically. some of us have folks who share the "host" role. in a way, i can understand what he’s trying to do. i think it might work for some folks. i think it has the potential to backfire in a big way for others — including increasing the possibility for the need for hospitalization at times. i don’t think that would be a good thing. i also think it would have felt incredibly invalidating in lots of ways if i had been treated that way. and then there’s also the fact that i had about 15 years of therapy (much of it with excellent therapists) dealing me as a single person (granted this was prior to the identification of the mp). despite the fact that much of it was excellent therapy, it *didn’t*work*. real, lasting, stable changes didn’t happen for me until someone recognized and worked with everyone in the system. — astri

Response:

Hi Nahanton ‘kay so we don’t have a pdoc and quite frankly, reading about yours has us worried/enraged/and lots of other things. so that’s the pov we’ll write from – if that thought bothers you, maybe you shouldn’t read our post. dunno. we are very upset due to your pdoc’s attitude as described in your post. So maybe our post might upset you and we don’t want to creat any additional stress or something like that for you. So please be careful, okay? we’ll do some snipping and editing to get to the parts we wanna reply to, hope that’s okay. [...] I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to come back and talk to him.

Oh well … so there’s one of _those_ experts again. *sigh* One of those guys who think cuz they came up with a model that’s how the world out there is indeed. Like … for _some_ multiples the "host"-"insiders"-model works. Some multiples do indeed seem to have someone like a "host". But not all multiple systems are like this. We don’t have a host and many of our multiple friends don’t seem to have one either. So … from our pov, this pdoc’s approach is so limited it borders both arrogance and ignorance. Ignorance for ignoring that the world might differ from their models. And arrogance for believing their approach is the only right one. *argh* I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_ disturbing things that she was going to do to the body. My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked.

We are glad it worked. And we are glad your T has enough respect for you people to talk to each of you who’s willing to talk to the T. *little bow to the T* My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message across.

Well, well, well … force, right, force that’s what he would’ve used? Has he ever thought about what he’s doing here? Did it ever occur to the great terrific pdoc that multiples are multiple because of all the sh*t which was _forced_ upon them?! *more argh* He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that my T is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to communicate with them.

Some things take time. Some things take even a lot of time. Slow doesn’t necessarily equal bad in our eyes. And then, you go on and give (in our eyes, from our subjective pov which might be miles besides the point) reasons, at leasst potential reasons for this process’ slowness: A lot of it is fear on my part, and lack of trust on theirs.

These are good reasons to make this process slow. And then, as indicated above, maybe slowness is what you need for this process indeed. Think of it this way – maybe you need time to get over your fear while the others need time to learn how to trust you. Trust isn’t achieved over night, trust most of the time is achieved only after a while. We (my T and I) have been trying to work on this. In the past few months, I have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if my T refused to speak to them.

Hey, you aren’t in t’py to conform your pdoc’s expectations. I guess you got your own reasons to be in t’py, right? So, from your pov, is t’py moving too slow? Do _you_ want to change it? What do the others in your system say – what way would they like to go? This is your life and your t’py we’re talking about, not the pdoc’s. And it is the life you and the others in your system share so maybe it would make sense if all of you or at least all of you who are on speaking-terms with each other would chose the way to go together. At least that’s how we try to deal with things – together. This bothers and confuses me. I spoke with another T friend, who disagrees with the pdoc.

*yeah* *cheering your t friend* In fact when I went to see the pdoc on Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how your pdocs and T’s feel about this? I’d really appreciate it.

We dunno how T’s and pdoc’s think about this as we are neither. Yet, we know what we as a multiple bunch think of this – we think the whole "talk only to the ‘host’"-idea is b*llsh*t. We think this is an outrageous idea ‘cuz it is so disrespectful to most of the folks living in a multiple bunch. And, as we see it, each person in a multiple system has the same right to exist as each person was needed (and probably still is needed though the means might have to change, to change even radically in individual cases) for the whole system’s survival. Also, as each one in a multiple system has a right to exist, each one has a right to speak their own mind and to be heard. We have been silent and silenced far too long – that’s our believe at least. Hope we didn’t create any more disturbance. We wish you well, Nahanton, and hope only the best for you Maeve, Mashora, Fletcher & others of Mischa’s Chaos

Response:

Hello Nahanton, I’m not an expert on the matter and this only applies to me, but my mind is most sound and happiest when the folks in my head dissappear and meld into one. This is certainly the trivial part. But there’s more. The most powerful personallity lies under the surface and is the main engine of the overall personallity. The others fall into line behind the engine and contribute to the overall group, but they are less evident. When I’m in disarray the pieces of my mind have lost their connectivity and either the dominant or the agressive (not the dominant) personallity tries to take over (or sometimes others as yet not fully identified). Then there are problems. They are thus far incomplete identities and I find myself unable to function in the real world. That’s what I have figured out so far. I might be wrong, although it is my mind it doesn’t mean I know the folks that live there. On a humourous note, I am beginning to think my mind is like the country I live in. Canada has many different identities, and there are constant contitutional battles. Oh well. Thanks for listening to me. Peter et al.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – –astri, It seems that there can be different ways of handling this. I want to hear as many theories as I can. This is very hard work, and I’d like to feel that we were handling the therapy in the way that is most likely to help. Thanks. Nahanton what he’s doing is based on the assumption that he can accurately identify a host (i’m assuming that the definition of host is someone who is out the most and doing most of the daily living stuff). some of us don’t have a host (as it’s traditionally defined). some of us change hosts periodically. some of us have folks who share the "host" role. in a way, i can understand what he’s trying to do. i think it might work for some folks. i think it has the potential to backfire in a big way for others — including increasing the possibility for the need for hospitalization at times. i don’t think that would be a good thing. i also think it would have felt incredibly invalidating in lots of ways if i had been treated that way. and then there’s also the fact that i had about 15 years of therapy (much of it with excellent therapists) dealing me as a single person (granted this was prior to the identification of the mp). despite the fact that much of it was excellent therapy, it *didn’t*work*. real, lasting, stable changes didn’t happen for me until someone recognized and worked with everyone in the system. — astri

Response:

Hi Nahanton, Thanks for your reply. You have again given me something to think about. So far I’m using descriptions, but that is getting awkward. And you are probably right, names are the best way to work with them. But I count myself lucky , although I’m a cutter (I’m bipolar too ), none of the folks inside my head wishes me harm. They all seem to serve some protective role whether overt or covert. Thanks, Peter et al

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Peter, et al….pls. scroll down Hi Nahanton, I’m just new here, and I have only just faced up to this whole experience, but I feel compasion and respect for you (I hope you take that positively). I think I understand the rational behind not talking directly to the insiders, although I imagine that some of the experiences can be frightening. For me, I find it difficult to describe the "others" inside my head partly because they are a bit foggy and partly because I won’t give them names. I think that naming them will give them a greater amount of strength, and one or two of them are extremely strong as it is. I hope you begin to feel a bit better soon. Peter et al I remember how difficult it was when I finally faced up to the dx. I felt the same as you, in that I didn’t want to give them names. I thought that it would give them more "power" of me, or something. Eventually I had to give them names, or at times they would tell me what their names were. It was an extremely frightening time for me. At times it still is frightening for me, but not as bad as when I first had to face up to it. I think that you numb out some after a while. After a while some of it becomes commonplace, which, if someone had told me that, I would never have believed them. I do take your compassion positively, and thank you for it. Nahanton

Response:

i forgot to say that the therapy that worked happened after the 15 years of therapy that didn’t work. it took about 7 years of that therapy. — astri

Response:

Why do people keep trying to put us in boxes wrapped up in neat little ribbons and bows? One thing to say for the packaging, it makes for easy handling, don’t it? 14

Response:

Hi All of Mischa’s Chaos…..Pls scroll down Hi Nahanton ‘kay so we don’t have a pdoc and quite frankly, reading about yours has us worried/enraged/and lots of other things. so that’s the pov we’ll write from – if that thought bothers you, maybe you shouldn’t read our post. dunno. we are very upset due to your pdoc’s attitude as described in your post. So maybe our post might upset you and we don’t want to creat any additional stress or something like that for you. So please be careful, okay? we’ll do some snipping and editing to get to the parts we wanna reply to, hope that’s okay. [...] I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response

was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to come back and talk to him. Oh well … so there’s one of _those_ experts again. *sigh* One of those guys who think cuz they came up with a model that’s how the world out there is indeed. Like … for _some_ multiples the "host"-"insiders"-model works. Some multiples do indeed seem to have someone like a "host". But not all multiple systems are like this. We don’t have a host and many of our multiple friends don’t seem to have one either. So … from our pov, this pdoc’s approach is so limited it borders both arrogance and ignorance. Ignorance for ignoring that the world might differ from their models. And arrogance for believing their approach is the only right one. *argh* I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_

disturbing things that she was going to do to the body. My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked. We are glad it worked. And we are glad your T has enough respect for you people to talk to each of you who’s willing to talk to the T. *little bow to the T* My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been

forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message across. Well, well, well … force, right, force that’s what he would’ve used? Has he ever thought about what he’s doing here? Did it ever occur to the great terrific pdoc that multiples are multiple because of all the sh*t which was _forced_ upon them?! *more argh* He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that my T

is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to communicate with them.

have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if my T refused to speak to them.

with the pdoc. *yeah* *cheering your t friend* In fact when I went to see the pdoc on Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how your pdocs and T’s

feel about this? I’d really appreciate it. We dunno how T’s and pdoc’s think about this as we are neither. Yet, we know what we as a multiple bunch think of this – we think the whole "talk only to the ‘host’"-idea is b*llsh*t. We think this is an outrageous idea ‘cuz it is so disrespectful to most of the folks living in a multiple bunch. And, as we see it, each person in a multiple system has the same right to exist as each person was needed (and probably still is needed though the means might have to change, to change even radically in individual cases) for the whole system’s survival. Also, as each one in a multiple system has a right to exist, each one has a right to speak their own mind and to be heard. We have been silent and silenced far too long – that’s our believe at least. Hope we didn’t create any more disturbance. We wish you well, Nahanton, and hope only the best for you Maeve, Mashora, Fletcher & others of Mischa’s Chaos Thank you so much for this post. Be assured that you haven’t created any disturbance on my part, in fact there’s a sense of relief in what I read. My friend, the other T I talked about, said just about exactly what you just said in almost the same words. It is so helpful to send out a post with a really bothersome problem, and get back responses that make sense, from ppl who have "been there" and really know. What the pdoc said didn’t "feel" right, but unfortunately I lack the self esteem to stand up for what I feel is right, most of the time. All I could think of was, "He’s the expert, who am I to tell him that I don’t think that that is the way to go." I appreciate your good wishes and wise words. Best to you, Maeve, Mashora, Fletcher &others of Mischa’s Chaos. Nahanton

Response:

Hi Nahanton, I see your point. It becomes difficult to refer to the personallity with "the deep voice" or the personallity "that is very annoying". It all becomes ponderous. But when a personallity or insider is named what is the name etiquete? To illustrate my point. Catholics from some countries will never disclose their confirmation name to someone who is not close family. This arrises from a superstition. Is there any such taboo on the disclosure of insider names. I think that common sense dictates that one doesn;t tell everyone and anyone who will listen; this can come back and bite you on the butt. And the docs and pdocs should certainly know, IMHO. But other than these two extremes, where does the line lie? Thanks, and sorry for prattling on, Peter et al

Response:

Hi Peter et al… I think that assigning names for insiders vary from system to system. I’ve heard that some do not want their names known. In my case I have put a name to all but the first one who, I think, _told_ me her name. One of the insiders that doesn’t mind being known is Feeler. She has written into the ng and has even corresponded by email to one or two of the ppl here. Feeler got her name in a very simple way. She was the part that got created after the *b*se (a) (u), so she has the ability to "feel" things, and can talk about things because she doesn’t have PTSD. I’ve given the others their names. Most of the names are derivatives of my rl name and my childhood nickname. Then there are a few who, because of their job description, I’ve used that as their names. None of them had any objection to the names I’ve created for them, but I know that in other systems it doesn’t work that way. Other than Feeler and one other, none of the other insiders want their names known to anyone other than the T. They don’t even want the pdoc to know. I just refer to them as "a part" to the pdoc. HTH, Nahanton Hi Nahanton, I see your point. It becomes difficult to refer to the personallity with "the deep voice" or the personallity "that is very annoying". It all becomes ponderous. But when a personallity or insider is named what is the name etiquete? To illustrate my point. Catholics from some countries will never disclose their confirmation name to someone who is not close family. This arrises from a superstition. Is there any such taboo on the disclosure of insider names. I think that common sense dictates that one doesn;t tell everyone and anyone who will listen; this can come back and bite you on the butt. And the docs and pdocs should certainly know, IMHO. But other than these two extremes, where does the line lie? Thanks, and sorry for prattling on, Peter et al

Response:

*I* am trying to think of how it would feel if w/e got a new T who actually tried to enforce the therapeutic approach your pdoc is suggesting here. The first thing that hits me is, many of my parts have found a certain amount of healing just simply in the fact that they have been able to observe, learn to trust, and finally come out and open up to our T. T has been a first-time positive ‘grown up’ model who is there and who validates them and who shows them time and time again that unconditional support and individual tending to their needs and concerns is really ‘there’. Make them go through ‘me’ and you just set us back 10 or 20 years as I most often haven’t the FOGGIEST clue as to what their feeling/going through until they share it with T themselves. Them communicating ‘through’ me is not some m*gic I can conjur up and ‘perform’. T and I would sit for months and very little would be shared because I DON’T KNOW what they’re thinking and feeling most of the time. Maybe, maybe waaaaaaay down the road, when I have had lots of opportunity to watch them and learn about them and listen to them myself and build a bridge of communication with them myself, maybe THEN I could ‘attempt’ or ‘hope’ they would communicate to me as directly as they do with T. But, I see that as an impossibility this early in o/ur therapy. And I’d like to know how this technique assists the client when (s)he is finally able to do this. This is like the difference between walking 180 miles or flying. Also, try to conduct family therapy with say… five family members and try to get all those members to talk through the oldest sister. See how far you’d get before sister starts censoring and silencing and correcting and judging. Sister is there with everone else because all of them are having problems, problems with eachother and with outsiders. Do you think sister is going to be able to be so objective, so honest, so able and so willing to speak all the adversity of the others, especially of the adversity involves her directly? No! Sister is going to stop what she wants to stop and censor what she wants to censor if T can’t tell it’s happening. I don’t agree with or even understand many of the ideas and beliefs of my parts, but, they are THEIR ideas and beliefs and as embarassing as they can be, I wouldn’t want to have to ’speak’ with they’re thinking and feeling a lot of the time, even if I could TELL what they’re thinking or feeling. Maybe I’m just too early in my dx to fathom having to hear, then speak what my parts are going through. I sit and most times am as interested in what they say as T is. Maybe at a later point in therapy this could serve some positive technique for functioning in a singleton world, but for me today? I couldn’t do it. Tell those other four family members to remain silent for the rest of the family’s therapy. Tell them they can observe, but have to keep their mouth shut unless they tell the sister what to say for them. See how they’d feel. That’s what I feel like your pdoc is expecting. How rude! How controlling! How, how….. invalidating! And THEN they’re supposed to communicate to YOU on top of THAT?! If they/you knew you could handle it all, they wouldn’t be there in the first place!!!!! Dayzie

Response:

hi there! sorry yer not feelin good. i’m little right now, so you know. we don’t like what your pdoc said, though we’re glad he could see you for emergency appt, and very very glad you felt safe nuff (?) ta call him, cuz sometimes we don’t feel like our T wants to talk to us and we hardly almost never talk to the pdoc person, cuz she doesn’t really believe there’s lotsa us, but she’s very nice. Oh, the not feel like T wants to talk to us stuff was sposta be in the context of like emergencies and stuff, and we get scared he’s gonna yell at us or be hurtful. k. :) I’m not listening to any insiders right now, cuz I’m not sposta talk to them. Whoops – doesn’t work like that. I’m sposta be the host, right? :) Cuz I’m the outsider right now, right? :) :-D . !!!!! *bounces up and down in glee* Wheeeeeeeee!!!!! k, cuz, like, we think it’s silly that Ts and pdocs aren’t sposta talk to insiders, cuz how can they? If they can talk to an "insider", and the "insider" can talk to them, then the "insider" is "out", not "in". "I" "like" "puttin" "words" "in" "quotes"!! :) k, still bein silly. I’d listen to the voice inside telling me to stop being silly and try to start making sense, but I’m not sposta listen to insiders. Oh, cept I fergot again. I’m the "host". Wouldn’t that be hostess? And since I’m the "host", the insiders are sposta talk thru me. But what if they want to be out? Aren’t they then the host? K, gonna maybe try ta switch, to prove the point or something. :) bye bye!! hope you feel better and stuff! glad the meds makin you feel littlebit better and stuff! happy thoughts, happy thoughts!!! <hey, kid – ya can’t switch out if ya don’t shut up! *pouts at Blue* Ok, so, like, whatever… We usta think there was only one of us, but what’s *always* been the case, far as we can tell, is that we switched all the time – We haven’t found *anybody* who’s *never* been on first, as we term it. Dang it, Luc! You’re not sposta put words in my mouth when I’m talking to others, if you’re inside and I’m out! Or is he? Cuz I’m the host now. Heh…I’m in charge around here, and y’all inside better listen up…uh, oh, the kid’s switching back on. Wow, I’m switching like in the middle of a sentence here. Wheeeee!!!!! What the heck? Ok, now *I*’m getting weird. Wait. I am weird. Like, always. Can’t *get* weird. *Am* weird. :) wanted you to know that I sorta know that you can’t figure out what’s going on based on what I’m saying, but I’m literally switching about every 5-6 words or so. I always have a voice inside my head saying what I’m typing, and that inside voice sounds different based on who’s on first. So you can’t tell cuz of da werds so much, but we kin tell real good, cuz sounds differnt. cuz, like sorta, is sposta be provin the point or sompthin. cuz we switch alla time sometimes, so "insiders" only refers to the parts that don’t happen to be on first at that particular moment in time. We have had the experience of switching without carrying over the short term memory (which usually happens), in which case typically there is less communication between the "insiders" and the "host". um, don’t know what was sayin just now. oh, something bout switchin without warnin the part comin out. cuz we sposta know we’re comin out if switchin. but if somebody’s real upset or somthin, they go away without preparing the next person. It’s sorta like the part on "first" wakes up the part gonna be on first, then makes sure they’re awake and alert before going away. Otherwise it’s disorienting for the part switching *onto* first. Ok, was I supposed to be going someplace with this? the heck…..*grr* Like, how the heck are we supposed to make sense when we’re freewheeling thru these switches? wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!! (btw, that was blue, then dyenths – switch happened at "freewheeling") that was luc! :) k. think we said nuff! not listening to voice inside that says we should go back and "check our work" – oh! I know why I’m not sposta be listening to the insiders!! Cuz my T talks to whoever’s out, and if he thinks he needs to talk to someone who’s not out, he says "Where’s Blue? Can I talk to Blue?" and if he can, then Blue comes out, and if he can’t then we tell him no, and maybe tell him why, and then sometimes T says "Ok, can he hear me? Can someone translate for me?" So I’m not sposta listen to the voices inside cuz my T’s doin the thpy stuff all wrong, and it’s not sposta be workin, accordin to yer T. :P *waggles fingers in ears at Nahanton’s T. blows raspberries, too* Drat – sorta checked my work anyway…..*pout* Did help???

Hi….. I’ve not been feeling very well of late (so what else is

new?) and would like to greet the new ppl who have started to post. "Things" got soo bad, that I had an "emergency"

appointment with my pdoc on Friday. He did put me on Seroquel for dissociation &

thinking, and Clonidine for flashbacks or re-experiencing. This is how he

explained it to me. I do feel a little clearer today and would like to tell you

something he said to me that I found disturbing. I think that I mentioned this before, that this pdoc is a specialist in DID, and has been trained by one of the most prominent

psychiatrists in the world because of books he has written, lectures, etc. I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him

that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if

an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to

come back and talk to him. I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_ disturbing things that she was going to do to the body.

My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked. My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message

across. He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to

talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that

my T is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to

communicate with them. A lot of it is fear on my part, and lack of trust on theirs. We (my T and I) have been trying to work on this. In the past few months, I

have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been

aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has

been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if

my T refused to speak to them. This bothers and confuses me. I spoke with another T

friend, who disagrees with the pdoc. In fact when I went to see the pdoc on

Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I

observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he

was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how

your pdocs and T’s feel – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – about this? I’d really appreciate it. Nahanton

Response:

Hello Nahanthon we’re glad our post didn’t create any disturbance but was helpful for you and a relief, too. ‘cuz that’s how we meant it – we want to help and we want you to find the help in the real world out there which really helps _you_. And not some pdoc or their strange models & theories. We’re sad to hear about your self-esteem being too low to trust your own good feelings (but we can understand about it. dunno how often when we feel something "weird", when we feel something "is not right", our first reaction will be "oh well, that’s just the usses, just our weird sick way to look at things which is wrong"). And we’re glad you posted here so you could get some supportive feedback. Maybe we can learn from you to be here onasdis some more again. Anyway, keep posting. We will definitely keep our fingers crossed for you and hope things will work out _your_ way. best, Mischa’s Chaos (with the littles being happy about this year’s first bit of snow over here – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi All of Mischa’s Chaos…..Pls scroll down Hi Nahanton ‘kay so we don’t have a pdoc and quite frankly, reading about yours has us worried/enraged/and lots of other things. so that’s the pov we’ll write from – if that thought bothers you, maybe you shouldn’t read our post. dunno. we are very upset due to your pdoc’s attitude as described in your post. So maybe our post might upset you and we don’t want to creat any additional stress or something like that for you. So please be careful, okay? we’ll do some snipping and editing to get to the parts we wanna reply to, hope that’s okay. [...] I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to come back and talk to him. Oh well … so there’s one of _those_ experts again. *sigh* One of those guys who think cuz they came up with a model that’s how the world out there is indeed. Like … for _some_ multiples the "host"-"insiders"-model works. Some multiples do indeed seem to have someone like a "host". But not all multiple systems are like this. We don’t have a host and many of our multiple friends don’t seem to have one either. So … from our pov, this pdoc’s approach is so limited it borders both arrogance and ignorance. Ignorance for ignoring that the world might differ from their models. And arrogance for believing their approach is the only right one. *argh* I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_ disturbing things that she was going to do to the body. My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked. We are glad it worked. And we are glad your T has enough respect for you people to talk to each of you who’s willing to talk to the T. *little bow to the T* My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message across. Well, well, well … force, right, force that’s what he would’ve used? Has he ever thought about what he’s doing here? Did it ever occur to the great terrific pdoc that multiples are multiple because of all the sh*t which was _forced_ upon them?! *more argh* He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that my T is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to communicate with them. Some things take time. Some things take even a lot of time. Slow doesn’t necessarily equal bad in our eyes. And then, you go on and give (in our eyes, from our subjective pov which might be miles besides the point) reasons, at leasst potential reasons for this process’ slowness: A lot of it is fear on my part, and lack of trust on theirs. These are good reasons to make this process slow. And then, as indicated above, maybe slowness is what you need for this process indeed. Think of it this way – maybe you need time to get over your fear while the others need time to learn how to trust you. Trust isn’t achieved over night, trust most of the time is achieved only after a while. We (my T and I) have been trying to work on this. In the past few months, I have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if my T refused to speak to them. Hey, you aren’t in t’py to conform your pdoc’s expectations. I guess you got your own reasons to be in t’py, right? So, from your pov, is t’py moving too slow? Do _you_ want to change it? What do the others in your system say – what way would they like to go? This is your life and your t’py we’re talking about, not the pdoc’s. And it is the life you and the others in your system share so maybe it would make sense if all of you or at least all of you who are on speaking-terms with each other would chose the way to go together. At least that’s how we try to deal with things – together. This bothers and confuses me. I spoke with another T friend, who disagrees with the pdoc. *yeah* *cheering your t friend* In fact when I went to see the pdoc on Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how your pdocs and T’s feel about this? I’d really appreciate it. We dunno how T’s and pdoc’s think about this as we are neither. Yet, we know what we as a multiple bunch think of this – we think the whole "talk only to the ‘host’"-idea is b*llsh*t. We think this is an outrageous idea ‘cuz it is so disrespectful to most of the folks living in a multiple bunch. And, as we see it, each person in a multiple system has the same right to exist as each person was needed (and probably still is needed though the means might have to change, to change even radically in individual cases) for the whole system’s survival. Also, as each one in a multiple system has a right to exist, each one has a right to speak their own mind and to be heard. We have been silent and silenced far too long – that’s our believe at least. Hope we didn’t create any more disturbance. We wish you well, Nahanton, and hope only the best for you Maeve, Mashora, Fletcher & others of Mischa’s Chaos Thank you so much for this post. Be assured that you haven’t created any disturbance on my part, in fact there’s a sense of relief in what I read. My friend, the other T I talked about, said just about exactly what you just said in almost the same words. It is so helpful to send out a post with a really bothersome problem, and get back responses that make sense, from ppl who have "been there" and really know. What the pdoc said didn’t "feel" right, but unfortunately I lack the self esteem to stand up for what I feel is right, most of the time. All I could think of was, "He’s the expert, who am I to tell him that I don’t think that that is the way to go." I appreciate your good wishes and wise words. Best to you, Maeve, Mashora, Fletcher &others of Mischa’s Chaos. Nahanton

Response:

I know ya’s don’t know u/s well, but w/e been missing you’s and you’s’s humor and posts past few days jtdgreat! Dayzie

Response:

Hello back to you Mischa’s Chaos…. The feedback I got from you and the others was invaluable. In some way, maybe it’ll help me to trust my own instincts more. What you said helped me a great deal. You should be here on asdis more, you have a lot to offer, and maybe putting your thoughts here will help _you_ too, as it did me. It was snowing here this morning too. Best to you, Nahanton Nahanton Hello Nahanthon we’re glad our post didn’t create any disturbance but was helpful for you and a relief, too. ‘cuz that’s how we meant it – we want to help and we want you to find the help in the real world out there which really helps _you_. And not some pdoc or their strange models & theories. We’re sad to hear about your self-esteem being too low to trust your own good feelings (but we can understand about it. dunno how often when we feel something "weird", when we feel something "is not right", our first reaction will be "oh well, that’s just the usses, just our weird sick way to look at things which is wrong"). And we’re glad you posted here so you could get some supportive feedback. Maybe we can learn from you to be here onasdis some more again. Anyway, keep posting. We will definitely keep our fingers crossed for you and hope things will work out _your_ way. best, Mischa’s Chaos (with the littles being happy about this year’s first bit of snow over here – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi All of Mischa’s Chaos…..Pls scroll down Hi Nahanton ‘kay so we don’t have a pdoc and quite frankly, reading about yours has us worried/enraged/and lots of other things. so that’s the pov we’ll write from – if that thought bothers you, maybe you shouldn’t read our post. dunno. we are very upset due to your pdoc’s attitude as described in your post. So maybe our post might upset you and we don’t want to creat any additional stress or something like that for you. So please be careful, okay? we’ll do some snipping and editing to get to the parts we wanna reply to, hope that’s okay. [...] I told him what some of the insiders have been saying to my T. His response was, "Is your T still speaking to them? I’ve told him that I think that this is holding back your therapy." The pdoc then went on and told me how he had been trained, and is training others to: not, under any circumstances, talk to insiders. He feels by doing this, the insiders will not learn to speak directly to the "host." He said that in his practice, if an insider speaks to him, he will not answer, but instead tell the patient to come back and talk to him. Oh well … so there’s one of _those_ experts again. *sigh* One of those guys who think cuz they came up with a model that’s how the world out there is indeed. Like … for _some_ multiples the "host"-"insiders"-model works. Some multiples do indeed seem to have someone like a "host". But not all multiple systems are like this. We don’t have a host and many of our multiple friends don’t seem to have one either. So … from our pov, this pdoc’s approach is so limited it borders both arrogance and ignorance. Ignorance for ignoring that the world might differ from their models. And arrogance for believing their approach is the only right one. *argh* I told him how, last week, an insider came out and told my T some _very_ disturbing things that she was going to do to the body. My T spoke to her, and then spoke to some other insiders, to try to put together an alliance so that the body would not be hurt. It worked. We are glad it worked. And we are glad your T has enough respect for you people to talk to each of you who’s willing to talk to the T. *little bow to the T* My pdoc said that he would’ve ignored the insider, who then would’ve been forced to speak to me if she wanted to get her message across. Well, well, well … force, right, force that’s what he would’ve used? Has he ever thought about what he’s doing here? Did it ever occur to the great terrific pdoc that multiples are multiple because of all the sh*t which was _forced_ upon them?! *more argh* He said that the focus of treatment in DID is to get the insiders to talk to the host, and then the host can work on things with the T. He said that my T is holding back the progress by speaking with them, and that if he kept on doing this, the insiders would never learn to speak to me, but instead always use the T to communicate with. In fact, it’s been a very slow process for me to communicate with them. Some things take time. Some things take even a lot of time. Slow doesn’t necessarily equal bad in our eyes. And then, you go on and give (in our eyes, from our subjective pov which might be miles besides the point) reasons, at leasst potential reasons for this process’ slowness: A lot of it is fear on my part, and lack of trust on theirs. These are good reasons to make this process slow. And then, as indicated above, maybe slowness is what you need for this process indeed. Think of it this way – maybe you need time to get over your fear while the others need time to learn how to trust you. Trust isn’t achieved over night, trust most of the time is achieved only after a while. We (my T and I) have been trying to work on this. In the past few months, I have had some success in speaking to some of them, and frequently have been aware when they are out. At one time, when they were out, I was not. So there has been progress. But, the pdoc says that it would be much better and faster if my T refused to speak to them. Hey, you aren’t in t’py to conform your pdoc’s expectations. I guess you got your own reasons to be in t’py, right? So, from your pov, is t’py moving too slow? Do _you_ want to change it? What do the others in your system say – what way would they like to go? This is your life and your t’py we’re talking about, not the pdoc’s. And it is the life you and the others in your system share so maybe it would make sense if all of you or at least all of you who are on speaking-terms with each other would chose the way to go together. At least that’s how we try to deal with things – together. This bothers and confuses me. I spoke with another T friend, who disagrees with the pdoc. *yeah* *cheering your t friend* In fact when I went to see the pdoc on Friday, I was in such a bad state, that one of the insiders spoke to him, and I observed. When he said what he did, my insider thought about telling him that he was _talking_ to one. She didn’t tell him. What do you ppl think about this? Can you tell me how your pdocs and T’s feel about this? I’d really appreciate it. We dunno how T’s and pdoc’s think about this as we are neither. Yet, we know what we as a multiple bunch think of this – we think the whole "talk only to the ‘host’"-idea is b*llsh*t. We think this is an outrageous idea ‘cuz it is so disrespectful to most of the folks living in a multiple bunch. And, as we see it, each person in a multiple system has the same right to exist as each person was needed (and probably still is needed though the means might have to change, to change even radically in individual cases) for the whole system’s survival. Also, as each one in a multiple system has a right to exist, each one has a right to speak their own mind and to be heard. We have been silent and silenced far too long – that’s our believe at least. Hope we didn’t create any more disturbance. We wish you well, Nahanton, and hope only the best for you Maeve, Mashora, Fletcher & others of Mischa’s Chaos Thank you so much for this post. Be assured that you haven’t created any disturbance on my part, in fact there’s a sense of relief in what I read. My friend, the other T I talked about, said just about exactly what you just said in almost the same words. It is so helpful to send out a post with a really bothersome problem, and get back responses that make sense, from ppl who have "been there" and really know. What the pdoc said didn’t "feel" right, but unfortunately I lack the self esteem to stand up for what I feel is right, most of the time. All I could think of was, "He’s the expert, who am I to tell him that I don’t think that that is the way to go." I appreciate your good wishes and wise words. Best to you, Maeve, Mashora, Fletcher &others of Mischa’s Chaos. Nahanton

Response:

Hello Sierra *blushing* thanks for saying this. And good to talk to you again. *smiles* Gotta work some but might come back here later on Mischa’s Chaos – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello Mischa’s Chaos, Just wanted to say that I thought this was really well said. :O) Sierra [...] We don’t have a host and many of our multiple friends don’t seem to have one either. So… from our pov, this pdoc’s approach is so limited it borders both arrogance and ignorance. Ignorance for ignoring that the world might differ from their models. And arrogance for believing their approach is the only right one. *argh* — For more information about this posting service, contact: If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page: http://asarian-host.net/emailform.html

Response:

Hi dyenths.. I have great difficulty calling either my pdoc or T. I, like you think that I’m imposing and are afraid that what I need to talk about is not serious enough. The main reason that I did call the pdoc, was because of my T’s urging. He was very worried and felt that I should be seen as soon as possible. I’m feeling somewhat better now that I’ve started the new meds, and especially since getting the response to my post from here. It felt so much better knowing that what I was feeling about the insiders coming out to talk to the T is how mostly everyone feels. I wish that I could speak more to your post, but I have to tell you honestly that I had trouble following it. The switching happen so quickly, that I can’t sort things out. It was clear that you cared enough to send me this post though, and I do appreciate it. Nahanton hi there! sorry yer not feelin good. i’m little right now, so you know. we don’t like what your pdoc said, though we’re glad he could see you for emergency appt, and very very glad you felt safe nuff (?) ta call him, cuz sometimes we don’t feel like our T wants to talk to us and we hardly almost never talk to the pdoc person, cuz she doesn’t really believe there’s lotsa us, but she’s very nice. Oh, the not feel like T wants to talk to us stuff was sposta be in the context of like emergencies and stuff, and we get scared he’s gonna yell at us or be hurtful. k. :) I’m not listening to any insiders right now, cuz I’m not sposta talk to them. Whoops – doesn’t work like that. I’m sposta be the host, right? :) Cuz I’m the outsider right now, right? :) :-D . !!!!! *bounces up and down in glee* Wheeeeeeeee!!!!! k, cuz, like, we think it’s silly that Ts and pdocs aren’t sposta talk to insiders, cuz how can they? If they can talk to an "insider", and the "insider" can talk to them, then the "insider" is "out", not "in". "I" "like" "puttin" "words" "in" "quotes"!! :) k, still bein silly. I’d listen to the voice inside telling me to stop being silly and try to start making sense, but I’m not sposta listen to insiders. Oh, cept I fergot again. I’m the "host". Wouldn’t that be hostess? And since I’m the "host", the insiders are sposta talk thru me. But what if they want to be out? Aren’t they then the host? K, gonna maybe try ta switch, to prove the point or something. :) bye bye!! hope you feel better and stuff! glad the meds makin you feel littlebit better and stuff! happy thoughts, happy thoughts!!! <hey, kid – ya can’t switch out if ya don’t shut up! *pouts at Blue* Ok, so, like, whatever… We usta think there was only one of us, but what’s *always* been the case, far as we can tell, is that we switched all the time – We haven’t found *anybody* who’s *never* been on first, as we term it. Dang it, Luc! You’re not sposta put words in my mouth when I’m talking to others, if you’re inside and I’m out! Or is he? Cuz I’m the host now. Heh…I’m in charge around here, and y’all inside better listen up…uh, oh, the kid’s switching back on. Wow, I’m switching like in the middle of a sentence here. Wheeeee!!!!! What the heck? Ok, now *I*’m getting weird. Wait. I am weird. Like, always. Can’t *get* weird. *Am* weird. :) wanted you to know that I sorta know that you can’t figure out what’s going on based on what I’m saying, but I’m literally switching about every 5-6 words or so. I always have a voice inside my head saying what I’m typing, and that inside voice sounds different based on who’s on first. So you can’t tell cuz of da werds so much, but we kin tell real good, cuz sounds differnt. cuz, like sorta, is sposta be provin the point or sompthin. cuz we switch alla time sometimes, so "insiders" only refers to the parts that don’t happen to be on first at that particular moment in time. We have had the experience of switching without carrying over the short term memory (which usually happens), in which case typically there is less communication between the "insiders" and the "host". um, don’t know what was sayin just now. oh, something bout switchin without warnin the part comin out. cuz we sposta know we’re comin out if switchin. but if somebody’s real upset or somthin, they go away without preparing the next person. It’s sorta like the part on "first" wakes up the part gonna be on first, then makes sure they’re awake and alert before going away. Otherwise it’s disorienting for the part switching *onto* first. Ok, was I supposed to be going someplace with this? the heck…..*grr* Like, how the heck are we supposed to make sense when we’re freewheeling thru these switches? wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!! (btw, that was blue, then dyenths – switch happened at "freewheeling") that was luc! :) k. think we said nuff! not listening to voice inside that says we should go back and "check our work" – oh! I know why I’m not sposta be listening to the insiders!! Cuz my T talks to whoever’s out, and if he thinks he needs to talk to someone who’s not out, he says "Where’s Blue? Can I talk to Blue?" and if he can, then Blue comes out, and if he can’t then we tell him no, and maybe tell him why, and then sometimes T says "Ok, can he hear me? Can someone translate for me?" So I’m not sposta listen to the voices inside cuz my T’s doin the thpy stuff all wrong, and it’s not sposta be workin, accordin to yer T. :P *waggles fingers in ears at Nahanton’s T. blows raspberries, too* Drat – sorta checked my work anyway…..*pout* Did help???