mASF post by "finalD"
posted on: alt.seduction.relationships, August 8, 2004Harmless wrote at Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:05:00 GMT in
news:[email protected]:
> The wording is stilted and the subcommunication is try
> hard. I'm sorry, but I don't like it.
>
> -h
>
I have to agree the specific wording is poor. I hadn't taken it
as a SCRIPT to spout verbatim (in fact, nothing on these boards
or in the layguide should ever be memorized like that, I don't
think) as much as just an attitude. Take that attitude, walk
off, be able to depart from her -- that seems to me to be the
suggestion. I also think the original poster actually isn't a
native speaker of English, so that might explain some of the
miscommunication.
In the long run, I wouldn't want to hold to this suggestion by
rote; but I would support its general attitude and underlying
message, that you should never jump to some chick's WHIMS and
her own emotional reactivity, because then you're being just as
reactive as her. Instead, you should be the stable rock, the one
who is unflappable, the one whose PROactivity emotionally
speaking is something she can rely on. That might mean, "fixing"
her unhappy state, or it might mean abandoning her when she's in
that state, either one, depending on context, I think.
Y'all see my point, I think ... :P ...
--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher esteem those who think alike than those who think
differently.
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
