After a conflict, if you pinkie swear with someone to let bygones be bygones, can you still blog about it? Or would that be not really letting go?
I would have blogged about the fracas when it happened, but I was swamped with all my Super Sunday assignments: sac mtg talk, SS lesson, making cupcakes for RS. And I stayed out late Saturday night seeing a college friend who's in town for a birding conference.
Now that the situation is supposedly resolved, is it fair to do a crabby write up as I would normally do?
Friends' Blogs and Orgs
Scary Feminists
-
Justa Pasta Cheesecake14 years ago
-
-
Off to a great start16 years ago
-
-
-
Perspective...13 years ago
7 comments:
If you pinkie swore to let bygones be bygones, I don't think you can blog about it... I think you have to let it go. There's nothing that says you can't vent privately to a few close friends or your own mom, but a blog is a public thing and, I can promise, it will backfire on you. The result will be, the pinkie oath will be nullified and you'll be worse off before whatever event it was that precipitated the first falling out and required the pinkie oath.
Put another way: If you had to ask the question, you know the answer! ;-)
Whoa, Tewkesy..."If you had to ask the question, you know the answer"??!? That is some tough thinking there -- what is the meaning of that? That anyone who asks about something already knows the answer?
That seems very hardcore to me, for some reason. Maybe because I'm full of questions I can't answer...?
As to the question of pinky-swearing-then-blogging, I would say it's not fair game to do a blow-by-blow recount of the issues. However, the substance of what you are focused on in life is always fair blogging game. So yeah, IMO you can still blog about the issues if you haven't resolved them for yourself. Without implicating anyone else, and without trying to rehash your "side" of things. If that makes any sense...?
I said the situation was "supposedly resolved" because I'm not sure that it is.
There's no "new approach" to the task that still needs to be done. The other party viewed my taking initiative as "dictatorial" but was unable to come up with an alternative approach when I asked.
So I still haven't resolved how to deal with someone who resents my taking initiative so a task (that benefits both of us) gets done; who lashes out with a list of ways I have allegedly done him/her wrong; and pleads for civility as we go forward when I wasn't the one who had a problem being civil.
I now understand the other party better, but I don't think I should have to keep catering to/coddling someone whose passive/aggressive behavior was inappropriate and rude.
"So I still haven't resolved how to deal with someone who resents my taking initiative so a task (that benefits both of us) gets done; who lashes out with a list of ways I have allegedly done him/her wrong; and pleads for civility as we go forward when I wasn't the one who had a problem being civil."
My opinion? Sounds like a toxic person. Best way to deal with that is to distance/shield yourself as much as possible. Trying to make the relationship work will just frustrate you bc the other person is playing games while you're not. Don't take responsibility for a relationship with someone who casts him/herself as a victim this way. You will always be the "perpetrator" to a victim.
I was being a smart-ass, as the emoticon implied (or maybe it didn't. If it didn't, sorry.) Didn't you ever get that rejoinder to questions? I've heard that used in church and professional settings. As in, "Do you think it would be okay to wear this fill-in-the-blank-radical-fashion-combo to church / the fundraising gala / executive committee meeting / whatever event?" And the response is, if you have to ask, you know the answer.
That said, though, no it doesn't mean that asking a question already implies you know the answer.
Ah. I'm walking away from this. Sorry if I pissed anyone off or ruffled feathers or came across as passive-aggressive. Wasn't my intention...
Yeah, I already kinda knew I couldn't crab about it in detail on the blog without violating the spirit of agreeing to put the matter behind us. No harm, no foul in you suggesting I already knew which approach was the high road. :)
That said, I still have to deal with this person--more warily than before, obviously. All I know for sure is that in-person interactions are more civil than email ones, so that's the approach I'll use.
I guess we're buddies again; I got an email this week asking if I knew anyone who does editing and how much it might cost to have a dissertation edited.
I replied with some campus resources as well as my rates and how much time and $ it cost my last two clients (and said I'm not taking on new jobs right now because I'm plumb exhausted).
Whoa, J -- I wasn't mad or pissed off or anything, I was just ribbing back at you. With my usual faux outraged hyperbole...I thought.
(Is that why you haven't been talking to me? I'm really sorry if I sounded pissy, did NOT mean it.)
But yeah, I'm well familiar with that usage of that particular question, and as you know, I'm a rebel born and bred, so it always drove me nuts.
ME -- Glad you worked out an agreeable truce. I agree that some people are dragons on email. For some reason, it brings out the worst sometimes. And in that case, a call or FtF meeting seems to work better. I have usually learned this the hard way, myself. Natch.
Post a Comment