Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 And yet she WAS referred to, in a derogatory way, as a ROW. Haven't seen that. And she certainly doesn't sound like the others in her posts.
donnamaybe Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 There is a list? Wow...I didn't know that. Oh, yeah. There's a list. Go make an account on that other site, and I'm sure you'll get a clear view of who comprises that list.
donnamaybe Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Haven't seen that. And she certainly doesn't sound like the others in her posts.Yup. Look back through this thread and you will see that she herself referred to it. It did happen, simply because she wasn't "cheerleading" A's.
Owl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 It's one thing if I decide to inform someone I am posting to of my "status" or position on the triangle (as in...formerly Betrayed spouse). I may do so for a variety of reasons. It's another thing entirely when someone decides to use that or similar label to attempt to discredit my advice or viewpoint because they feel that my "status" or "position" somehow invalidates my advice/support/comments. And this is where I have an issue with labels on this site, because there are indeed a lot of posters who try to do exactly that. And I don't care which side it's on...it's offenseive, mean-spirited, and just flat out doesn't need to happen. I've seen it done a good bit all three ways. On the Infidelity forum, I've seen posters attempt to discredit someone because they had been the WS, or the OW. I've seen it done here on the OW forum equally as much because the poster was a BS, or an "rOW". And THAT is where these labels become a problem. If you disagree with my advice, fine. Post your counterpoint. DO NOT try to discredit me or my advice because you don't like where I'm coming from. I'll offer you the same courtesy. If you use a label to describe someone...personally, I think you'd better have that person's permission or agreemant...or it should be subject to action here under the TOS. Just my opinion...yours may vary.
Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Yup. Look back through this thread and you will see that she herself referred to it. It did happen, simply because she wasn't "cheerleading" A's. It's hard to do that on my phone. If anyone can link to the original I'd be interested in reading it. Many thanks
Spark1111 Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I don't see using labels as censoring anyone. I see it as using our language as the tool it is, to give us a shortcut to understanding the world around us by describing a phenomena. I wonder if some posters are interpreting the word "reformed" in a negative sense which the word doesn't carry. I am proud to say that I am a reformed cheater. I have left that behavior behind me to never return to it. No, I believe some were using the term to alert a newbie that the advice of a reformed OW may be tainted....or less than someone who is proudly in an affair. Actually, the more I think of it, it is a type of censorship in any aspect other than a poster, such as yourself, using it to decribe yourself. Reform on!
donnamaybe Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 If you want to talk about hypocritical, the fOW that says they are just here to "piss people off", yeah, that's hypocritical for sure.Yep, I saw that post on that other site as well, and I know the poster of whom you speak.
jthorne Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Here's what I find amusing about the whole "reformed" nonsense: the unapologetics (their label, not mine) say that you can't possibly know unless you've walked a mile in their shoes, right? Yet, when one, maybe against their better judgement does walk a mile in their shoes, discovers their original inclination and reticence was correct, and thus doesn't agree with those with whom she's walked, she's labeled reformed, hypocritical, or my personal favorite, "a BS parading in OW clothing" Most of the time, labels say more about the labeler than the one being labeled.
OWoman Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I dare to find a single post where a prior OW claims to have never lost a little dignity, in their own opinion. All I have seen spoke about feeling foolish for their part in the situation. Going on to bigger and better things? That I will agree with as it's a given. I have never lost dignity. I have never felt foolish. I do not consider M to be "bigger and better" than an A - it was simply the logical conclusion of it, more of the same.
OWoman Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Isn't that a form of censorship? And do we ALL not agree censorship is wrong? I don't support wanton censorship, but I certainly support SOME censorship - of material such as hate speech, child pornography and brutality toward animals. I believe society has the duty to protect the vulnerable, and to protect the dignity of each individual - and I'm proud to be a citizen of a country whose constitution enshrines those rights.
Author findingnemo Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 I don't see using labels as censoring anyone. I see it as using our language as the tool it is, to give us a shortcut to understanding the world around us by describing a phenomena. I wonder if some posters are interpreting the word "reformed" in a negative sense which the word doesn't carry. I am proud to say that I am a reformed cheater. I have left that behavior behind me to never return to it. Censoring was in reference to some posters warning newbies about particular individuals and their views.
donnamaybe Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I have never lost dignity. I have never felt foolish. I do not consider M to be "bigger and better" than an A - it was simply the logical conclusion of it, more of the same. WAY different scenario and you know it. When I read posts by women who, even on LS, crowed about how happy they are while all the time (as evidence to the contrary has presented itself) they are very unhappy about the fact that their MM won't leave his wife, it makes it VERY clear where they stand, and it ain't in a good place.
Spark1111 Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I don't support wanton censorship, but I certainly support SOME censorship - of material such as hate speech, child pornography and brutality toward animals. I believe society has the duty to protect the vulnerable, and to protect the dignity of each individual - and I'm proud to be a citizen of a country whose constitution enshrines those rights. Well jeez....child pornography and animal brutality ARE against the law in most western civilized countries, prosecutable to the fullest extent of those laws, one would hope. Hate speech? Not sure exactly what this means, and neither do the courts in my land. You cannot yell "fire" in a packed theater house. It is against the law. You cannot utter or print untruths that hold someone up to public humiliation or ridicule falsely. Also against the law. You cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sex, and age. Also against the law. But also in my country, censoring opinion, stifling public debate, is protected by law and I for one am happy to be a citizen here.
Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Here's what I find amusing about the whole "reformed" nonsense: the unapologetics (their label, not mine) say that you can't possibly know unless you've walked a mile in their shoes, right? Yet, when one, maybe against their better judgement does walk a mile in their shoes, discovers their original inclination and reticence was correct, and thus doesn't agree with those with whom she's walked, she's labeled reformed, hypocritical, or my personal favorite, "a BS parading in OW clothing" Most of the time, labels say more about the labeler than the one being labeled. But you would think that if someone had walked a very, very, very long mile indeed... that they would be able to offer polite, thoughtful and insightful advice, without compromising their new principles. Rather than being insulting and curt. Maybe.
Spark1111 Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 But you would think that if someone had walked a very, very, very long mile indeed... that they would be able to offer polite, thoughtful and insightful advice, without compromising their new principles. Rather than being insulting and curt. Maybe. I don't see why they would have to. There are many people in long-term marriages who would NEVER tell you to reconcile after an infidelity, that DIVORCE is the only advice to heed. Why should they have to change their opinions to suit me?
Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I don't see why they would have to. There are many people in long-term marriages who would NEVER tell you to reconcile after an infidelity, that DIVORCE is the only advice to heed. Why should they have to change their opinions to suit me? I didn't for one second suggest anyone should change their OPINION. Because I don't think they should.
Spark1111 Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I didn't for one second suggest anyone should change their OPINION. Because I don't think they should. Except jthorne....she should just temper her opinions regarding how much she came to hate being an OW. Or, BBO7, should not have felt as remorseful and angry as she did to discover her man was not separated. Or, Bentnotbroken, who is devoutly religious and opinionated, or.... the list goes on and on here....
donnamaybe Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 But you would think that if someone had walked a very, very, very long mile indeed... that they would be able to offer polite, thoughtful and insightful advice, without compromising their new principles. Rather than being insulting and curt. Maybe. Unfortunately, it is sometimes hard to answer insults and a curt response with politeness.
woinlove Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 But you would think that if someone had walked a very, very, very long mile indeed... that they would be able to offer polite, thoughtful and insightful advice, without compromising their new principles. Rather than being insulting and curt. Maybe. I really think being insulting and curt has more to do with the individual than it has to do with a subcategory of OW. There are posters who definitely do not categorize themselves as rOW and who others do not categorize as rOW, whose posts still fall into the category of insulting, curt and mean spirited. And we see the counter-example as well, someone labelled as an rOW who is not insulting and curt. Probably more than one, but we don't know everyone who other OW have labelled as rOW.
Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Except jthorne....she should just temper her opinions regarding how much she came to hate being an OW. Or, BBO7, should not have felt as remorseful and angry as she did to discover her man was not separated. Or, Bentnotbroken, who is devoutly religious and opinionated, or.... the list goes on and on here.... Nope. No list for me. I have read enough feedback from newbies to see that the 'tough love' (sometimes evidenced as downright insulting) can be counter-productive. And mean.
donnamaybe Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Nope. No list for me. I have read enough feedback from newbies to see that the 'tough love' (sometimes evidenced as downright insulting) can be counter-productive. And mean. If it's "downright insulting," the mods would step in. I have also read enough feedback from folks on LS to know that the "tough love" has most definitely been a benefit to many.
Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I really think being insulting and curt has more to do with the individual than it has to do with a subcategory of OW. There are posters who definitely do not categorize themselves as rOW and who others do not categorize as rOW, whose posts still fall into the category of insulting, curt and mean spirited. And we see the counter-example as well, someone labelled as an rOW who is not insulting and curt. Probably more than one, but we don't know everyone who other OW have labelled as rOW. I haven't used the rOW term ever. I'd use a different terminology entirely, myself. But I knew exactly the what the OP was referring to.
Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 If it's "downright insulting," the mods would step in. I have also read enough feedback from folks on LS to know that the "tough love" has most definitely been a benefit to many. I thought the mods reacted to reported posts, didn't realise they read and vetted all of them. That's even more of a worry then.
donnamaybe Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I thought the mods reacted to reported posts, didn't realise they read and vetted all of them. That's even more of a worry then. Oh, they don't need to. There are plenty of people who are hell bent on getting certain people infracted if they ever spy the chance.
Silly_Girl Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Oh, they don't need to. There are plenty of people who are hell bent on getting certain people infracted if they ever spy the chance. Hhmmm.....
.thumb.jpg.09cfccc20b39a14bedb2dfa924b301d2.jpg)
Recommended Posts