QueechoFeecho

i think it was clearly a setup, and there are probably hundreds of others you don't recall so vividly because they had different outcomes (meaning that you followed the pre-stated orders to your superiors' satisfaction. That practice is similar to lots of ways that people train animals.

Right. I don't think anything I said contradicts what you say in the first paragraph. In fewer words: Employers want to know that people can be taught how to do the job at hand. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. I used the word "ambition" because it is ambitious, at least to some degree, to be seeking a job that you know you will outgrow and intend to leave for a better job. Everyone should do this, but sometimes it is impractical given the goal of the interview, which is for both people to determine if they want the employment situation they are talking about.

What are you seeking from the relationship? and why select him? It doesn't sound he is willing to be the kind of counterparty to a relationship of the kind you want, so what you pursuing it for?

I know in my experience that not having my opinions or thoughts asked for about anything, let alone incorporated into decision-making made simply shut that stuff down. Why get upset about something if you being upset will never be acknowledged or taken into consideration? Why voice your opinions if you know they will be ignored?

It's not a substance, but what about dreaming?

No it doesn't. It means the hiring manager needs the position filled and is acting consistent with that need. Especially in lines of work that have steep learning curves, it is incredibly unproductive, frustrating, and ineffective if your hiring process keeps selecting people that leave shortly, putting you right back where you started: Undermanned. Unless it is a job where high turnover is common and always will be (like cashiers at McDonald's or stocking shelves in a grocery store, it is practical for a hiring manager to prefer someone who will stick around. Otherwise the time you invest training them goes to waste. Not every job needs a rock star level of ambition. Some functions are simply that: functions. You need someone to punch in, move the boxes from here to there, and punch out. Some jobs are similar but require an investment of time and training at the beginning. Those are the jobs where you want someone who wants to stick around. And I don't mean they need to stand up and give an emotional pledge about how they will keep that job until they die, but they could just do one practical thing: not announcing their intent to leave. There is really no need to say that, whether it's true or not.

OP - I think it's clear you're empathetic to the worry the kitten might be experiencing given it is probably worried about having no caregiver. That is why it wants to be near you. It can tell you are caring. Animals are better at following such instincts from what I can tell. Are you able to detect precisely what you feel in each of the two following situations...? 1) right when you close the door to your room and leave the kitten behind 2) right when you open the door and are back with the kitten ??

I'm not going to dismiss the thread starter's concerns as an attempt at humor. That is very non-empathetic, it's neglectful, corrupt, and quite abusive. OP - I see that you stumbled into what many are interpreting as a series of puns built around the very serious and important topic of anarchy. I even printed out your post, read it until I memorized it, and then looked in the mirror while reciting it as though it was my own so that I could know what it was like to be in you. And yes, you will be receiving a package in the mail shortly as I vow to return your shoes. Sorry but they have an extra mile of wear on them.

If I understand things right, NAP is compatible with UPB. That doesn't mean it is proven as "true".

I think there is a podcast from about 2011 that discusses the legitimacy of forming an FDR posse and eliminating a nuisance person from the face of the earth. Maybe look that up. ----------full disclosure below---------------- I am joking

Most people I've encountered on the other side of the spanking issue have a reason why spanking / corporal punishment and its applicability is different for each of the following kinds of people: a) young children (1-2.5) b) children (2.5-5) c) adults, non-spouse d) spouse e) an elderly person So I think the universality needs to be able to be proven otherwise you'll get stuck in that quagmire.

From my estimations, my therapist sees 9-15 clients per week. They are scheduled as 60 minute appointments, but so far 4 out of 5 of mine have been more like 90-120 minutes, because I book the latest one in the day, and she seems more than willing to just keep going. I'm loving it. It is fun. Thinking about people and relationships and talking about those is so much fun. I wish I had such a thing 20 years ago.

You can't control the outcome, only your own actions as you respond to the actions of others. This isn't just a fact of De-FOOing either. It's universal. I can't make the cashier at the grocery store be nice. I can only decide to choose another checkout aisle next time. i can't make a girl treat me with respect. I can only discontinue dating. I can't make a manipulative coworker change; I can only choose to not engage, to engage or to use it against them. I control me. That is all.

If you start this conversation with your dad, saying something like "I remember you did <insert a particular abuse here> when I was seven years old" then you are likely to be told that you're lying, making it up, or simply are misremembering. So figure out how you'd handle that.

Lots of good stuff here, much thanks. I agree that both people would ideally want to understand what the other wants. And first, they need to know what they actually want! That part isn't as easy as it seems.

Pay attention to how she orders her steak. Rare or medium rare or else you get up and walk out.

Asking questions is good. Asking questions AND listening to the response is even better.

I like the idea of making a mistake, ideally not on purpose, it should be a real mistake that somehow interferes with the plans for your date. Like if you're going out to dinner in some city, and you miss the turn to go into the parking garage. And that requires you to circle the block for like 10 minutes, delaying your arrival at the restaurant. How does she react? Does she tolerate when things don't go as planned? Because if she's a keeper for long-term, and you have kids, TONS of stuff won't go as planned.

Could you use the example situation from post #3?

Any other thoughts?

Niiiiiiiiice. I could read some more of that.

Here is a potentially hopeful thought: If you resolve the underlying anger surrounding your parents, your body might heal itself, and you won't have to deal with the colitis. That would be incredibly awesome.

I have seen it go both ways (trying to unearth the truth vs not listening), and I have also seen a third way, which I think is practical. So I'll use a numbered list again to clearly delineate the different paths. The conversation above happens, and it can one of the three following general paths: a) not listening - This goes nowhere and tends to lead to increased frustration. Both people feel ignored, and they both feel that the other person has more interest in being right (and proving the other wrong) than they do in any sort of resolution. b) trying to unearth the truth - This is a good one where both try to replay the events as detailed as possible, hopefully leading to one of the person's memory getting jogged, where they say "Oh yeah I remember now, I DID say I would do the dishes. I'm sorry I misremembered and aggravated you." c) [the third way] deprioritize figuring out who was right and who was wrong, because it simply isn't important - In this situation, both people would say "I think my version of the story was right, however, since it must be true that at least one of us is wrong, and we are unlikely to be able ot figure that out, AND I value us having positive interactions far more than battling over who is right and who is wrong, let's just revisit the issue about the dishes and figure out who is going to do it. Playing 'he said - she said' simply isn't productive."

That sounds like a good tactic/habit to adopt. Are there any other similar things that one can learn and implement quickly?

Sometimes a period of time has to pass before the emotions set in. It's akin to being in shock at the time of an event.