woinlove Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 No, it's about the 'brand' of advice and its suitability to this board. What is suitable for this board is an interesting question. The LS rules and guidelines seem pretty solid to me, so I'd tend to go with those. Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I think if there were a forum specifically for WS, who sought support from each other, one would find a similar reaction. The Infidelity forum is not just for WS, and, in fact, is more dominated by BS. If it were dominated by WS instead, including those currently involved in affairs and those who thought their affairs were positive, it would be a very different forum. The reaction to BS posting about the fall-out of affairs would also be met with a lot of angst. The issue being discussed doesn't seem to be primarily about posting with respect and kindness. Posts lacking respect and kindness don't phase those who take exception to posts from some BS and alleged rOW, provided the posts lacking respect and kindness come from someone who also takes exception to those posts from some BS and alleged rOW. This thread illustrates that very point. Oh, trust me, we have had quite a few of WSs posting. If they are hopelessly in love with their AP, they are embraced by OW but harshly criticized by BS; mostly to just tell their spouse the truth of their feelings and free her/him to find another partner. If they realize they are shocked and dismayed and remorseful to be in an affair and want to reconcile, they are usually embraced by BSs, peppered with questions, but harshly criticized by OW/OM for using or lying or misleading their APs. All valid opinions from all sides of the triangle, IMO. But here, we need to post with kid gloves, and never criticize too harshly, because that's not supportive enough. Some need to alert posters that others may be rOW, so take their advice with a grain of salt. How insulting. Not once, in Infidelity, has anyone been labelled "Angry, divorced BS," or "Selfish WS" or "Devoutly religious moral code: Warning! Warning!" Pullleaze............. Link to post Share on other sites
trinity1 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 What is suitable for this board is an interesting question. The LS rules and guidelines seem pretty solid to me, so I'd tend to go with those. And what do these guidelines say about using words/labels like "reformed", "repentant", "unapologetic"? Are these words not allowed? Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 What is suitable for this board is an interesting question. The LS rules and guidelines seem pretty solid to me, so I'd tend to go with those. I'd assume no one is reporting posts that are WITHIN the T&Cs. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You are right, SG. I have never seen any member's name mentioned to a newbie to be ignored(but then again, I have not posted here in a while-so I could be wrong). I have seen that happen - on the Infidelity board, where some of the more militant anti-affair posters have attempted to belittle or dismiss the views of some other posters offering advice to newbies by brushing them off as "cheaters" (whether AP or fAP, of whatever stripe) irrespective of what the content of that advice was. It was as if they regarded the presence of an AP / fAP on that thread, or board, at all as an affront to be resisted at all costs. While that's not the norm - thankfully - it has happened, and perhaps still does, on that board. Luckily I've not seen it on this board, even though some of us (who don't advocate NC as the cookie-cutter answer to every situation or every A) get accused of "cheerleading" As because of our (current or former) AP status and our refusal to denounce As from some global pulpit. Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Some need to alert posters that others may be rOW, so take their advice with a grain of salt. How insulting. Why is it insulting? I opposed someone being advised to go NC because I felt it would actually create false bonding in this particular poster's case. I thought she was making her way down a pretty good journey and being encouraged too soon to cut ties might make her more attached. I was told I was 'cheerleading affairs' and I never felt that at all. I thought he deserved to be given the elbow good and proper, this particular guy, but I also suspected (and wasn;t proved wrong) that NC wouldn't assist in her getting some perspective at that particular point in time. What's the difference? Link to post Share on other sites
woinlove Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Why is it insulting? I opposed someone being advised to go NC because I felt it would actually create false bonding in this particular poster's case. I thought she was making her way down a pretty good journey and being encouraged too soon to cut ties might make her more attached. I was told I was 'cheerleading affairs' and I never felt that at all. I thought he deserved to be given the elbow good and proper, this particular guy, but I also suspected (and wasn;t proved wrong) that NC wouldn't assist in her getting some perspective at that particular point in time. What's the difference? From what you post, it sound like someone labelled you an affair cheerleader, rather than arguing their case for their own advice or against your advice. If that is correct, then that is an example of what Spark is referring to - but with the roles reversed. If people don't agree with advice given, they can argue why. That's all fine and good. But a label is not an argument and, as your example points out, it can go both ways. Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 From what you post, it sound like someone labelled you an affair cheerleader, rather than arguing their case for their own advice or against your advice. If that is correct, then that is an example of what Spark is referring to - but with the roles reversed. If people don't agree with advice given, they can argue why. That's all fine and good. But a label is not an argument and, as your example points out, it can go both ways. I don't understand why it's insulting, though. Perhaps I never will... Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) No, it's about the 'brand' of advice and its suitability to this board. This is really interesting. You mean, I've been getting infractions stating that my posts don't allow for free flowing of ideas but I'm being reported because people don't like my advice? That's beyond hypocritical to do. It should never be about the "brand" of advice but the way that its presented. Edited March 8, 2011 by NoIDidn't Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I've not seen anyone post "oh ignore poster such-and-such, because she's [insert reason here]".I have specifically been told that merely because I have not been personally involved in an A situation from either of the three directions, that my views should not be considered. And not by only one OW. Link to post Share on other sites
bentnotbroken Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Ah..violence...to some it always comes to that, does it not, bent? Yes. Espcially when the horse is already lame. Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 This is really interesting. You mean, I've been getting infractions stating that my posts don't allow for free flowing of ideas but I'm being reported because people don't like my advice? That's beyond hypocritical to do. I didn't say that!!! The discussion about the rOW and the attitudes to accompany it, it's not about breaching of T&Cs, it's about some posters attempting to achieve balance in the hopse it might benefit others. You read things in a very unique way sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Lol..:lmao:!..no...really? you wouldn't happen to know these people, eh, donna?Well, actually, most of them have been banned now. Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I didn't say that!!! The discussion about the rOW and the attitudes to accompany it, it's not about breaching of T&Cs, it's about some posters attempting to achieve balance in the hopse it might benefit others. You read things in a very unique way sometimes. Thanks for laughing. It was tongue-in-cheek. We all have unique ways of interpreting things here. This is mine. Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Face it. There are plenty of REFORMED other women on this board. And plenty of bitter betrayed spouses. Why you all want to spend hours and days fighting about what is obvious is beyond me. FO for example is definately a rOW. Had she not been, what is the phrase they like so much at jthornes favorite site?.. oh yeah... Humped and Dumped. She would not spout the ridiculous horse**** that comes from her fingertips and to this board. If she had "won" her man she would be proudly proclaiming herself an unapologetic other woman. Deal with it, it is fact. Jthorne falls into the same damned category. There are many more, I just have limited time to get to them as I have a real life, and don't get to spend taxpayers money to trash other people all day like DonnaMaybe does. (By the way Donna, that is theft, to spend all day online rather than doing the job my taxes pay you to do. So that makes you a thief as well as a liar.) And since I am here, Donna, I just want to go on record saying NO ONE BELIEVES ALL THE HAPPYHORE**** YOU SPOUT OFF ABOUT HAVING NEVER BEEN IN ANY TRIANGLE RELATIONSHIP!!! IF YOU THINK FOR ONE MINUTE ANYONE HERE BUYS THAT, YOU ARE SIMPLY DELUSIONAL! EVEN YOUR SO CALLED "FRIENDS" HERE TALK AND LAUGH BEHIND YOUR BACK (IN PMs TO ME) ABOUT HOW RIDICULOUS IT IS THAT YOU TRY SO HARD TO CONVINCE EVERYONE OF IT. JUST FESS UP FOR ***S SAKE, EVERYONE KNOWS ALREADY ANYWAY, AND YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A TOTAL IDIOT WHEN YOU TRY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OTHERWISE!!! The fact is, there are people here who are bitter and angry, why you all want to hide behind "tough love" rather than just admit you are pissed is beyond my ability to comprehend. If that is how you live your real life, carrying anger and resentment and trying to conceal it as something else, your relationships will continue to fail. GROW THE HELL UP! DEAL WITH YOUR DAMNED EMOTIONS BEFORE THEY EAT AWAY YOUR SOUL. Some of you are already too far gone, like FO, who so desperately wanted her man and lost him. So she took the next available man, and has been unhappily pining away for her xMM for something close to 15 freaking years!!! had she dealt with her emotions when it happened, she may have found herself in a much better situation now, rather than coming here and telling everyone lies about how her life is all sunshine and daisies! HEAL YOURSELVES! TAKE BACK YOUR SOULS!! By living with this anger and frustration and allowing yourselves only one outlet (beating up on OW who never ***ed YOUR husband, or who are in a better position and are being truly loved when you feel you were not) you will never heal. UGH! Nuff said.. Some of you are REFORMED, and it is not a healthy thing. Some of you are BITTER and it too is not a healthy thing. *shakes my head and walks the *** away yet again* And I believe this is one of the angriest, most accusatory and insulting posts I have ever read at LS....naming names too! And your soul is healed? You are kidding? And what does this have to do with labelling people repentant as to diminish their advice. Angry much????????????? Sorry for the t/j Finding Nemo. Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I didn't say that!!! The discussion about the rOW and the attitudes to accompany it, it's not about breaching of T&Cs, it's about some posters attempting to achieve balance in the hopse it might benefit others. You read things in a very unique way sometimes. I think this is on task! It points to some who believe it is their job to arbitrarily decide whose advice is "balanced" and of true "benefit" to others. Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 What is suitable for this board is an interesting question. The LS rules and guidelines seem pretty solid to me, so I'd tend to go with those. Could not agree more! Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 From what you post, it sound like someone labelled you an affair cheerleader, rather than arguing their case for their own advice or against your advice. If that is correct, then that is an example of what Spark is referring to - but with the roles reversed. If people don't agree with advice given, they can argue why. That's all fine and good. But a label is not an argument and, as your example points out, it can go both ways. Thank you for this! My point EXACTLY! Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I think this is on task! It points to some who believe it is their job to arbitrarily decide whose advice is "balanced" and of true "benefit" to others. 'Zackly.... Some do feel they wish to attempt to redress the perceived imbalance. With good intentions, I believe. Link to post Share on other sites
desertIslandCactus Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 No, it's about the 'brand' of advice and its suitability to this board. You're getting plenty of loving kindness sympathy direction encouragement on the 'other' site. So I would assume you either love LS or love the argument. Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You're getting plenty of loving kindness sympathy direction encouragement on the 'other' site. So I would assume you either love LS or love the argument. I didn't start this thread... What's the point of your post? I'm lost! Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 'Zackly.... Some do feel they wish to attempt to redress the perceived imbalance. With good intentions, I believe. I don't think the intentions are good for everyone posting. And that is where the problem lies. If pointing out a poster by negatively labeling them is a good thing, I'm afraid I'm wasting my time explaining why its not. Perceived imbalance is not the same as actual imbalance. Link to post Share on other sites
desertIslandCactus Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 And I believe this is one of the angriest, most accusatory and insulting posts I have ever read at LS....naming names too! And your soul is healed? You are kidding? And what does this have to do with labelling people repentant as to diminish their advice. Angry much????????????? Sorry for the t/j Finding Nemo. Have noticed when someone identifies themself as 'angel' on here ... Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't think the intentions are good for everyone posting. And that is where the problem lies. If pointing out a poster by negatively labeling them is a good thing, I'm afraid I'm wasting my time explaining why its not. Perceived imbalance is not the same as actual imbalance. I agree NID! And whose perceptions are the "right" ones? And I am back to where I started: If a poster perceives their perception is the only one that is "right and true" and then labels others who are not in agreement, yep....that IS a form of censorship! Link to post Share on other sites
Silly_Girl Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I don't think the intentions are good for everyone posting. And that is where the problem lies. If pointing out a poster by negatively labeling them is a good thing, I'm afraid I'm wasting my time explaining why its not. Why is it negatively labelling? Why is it insulting to be called (for example) rOW? Perceived imbalance is not the same as actual imbalance. Abso-blooming-lutely. That word was not used accidentally. Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.09cfccc20b39a14bedb2dfa924b301d2.jpg)
Recommended Posts