|
In Reply to: Re: Couldn't Agree More With Your Point that... posted by porceleindoll on October 07, 2005 at 21:57:39:
"Personally I would have to say that perhaps Jim didn't research enough about the person he was communicating, and a bit more insight could have helped."
PD, let me preface this by saying I like you as a person and I have never seen you posting impolite or rude things to anyone.
I am surprised at your sentence here. "Perhaps?" "Enough research?" "a bit more insight?"
- How is it that with uncle Jim some become so acquiescent? To say "perhaps Jim did not do enough research" "a bit more insight" is an understatement.
- For him to ask Joseph how many kids he had abused does not = not doing enough research - PERHAPS. When you put that together ( I mean ADD that) with all the reports of people your uncle has slighted and jumped on (who were to start with very favorable and unprejudiced towards him) you get a picture of someone who is at the very least very narcissistic, and on top very insensitive to others' feelings. He jumps the gun, and often at that.
- Why is it that whatever he does can be so rude and absolutely unforgivable if done by any other "FG" (so-called) and even outsider but with him we hear oh but he can be really nice etc? Lots of people can be really nice - at times - but have really big character flaws that alienate them from others. Think about his getting a signature on a contract that gives him 30% from a young widow who is still under shock and reeling from a tragedy, just to name a couple of things. What would anyone call that? Perhaps he did not do enough research there too?
But he says he wrote that contract. Yes, it was the contract I wrote, it was my right to get something for that? huh? Again, he talks about how 'right' he is in his action, he does not seem to understand at all the feelings of the widow. How come he lacks the emotional ability to assess context?
I understand he may be charismatic in his own way, charming at times, has got money compared to lots of relatives or ex-members which definitely puts him in the list of wanna keep close if possible, BUT what puzzles me is the mileage he gets for things that just do not have any justification whatsoever except great egocentrism and even a certain amount of callousness towards the plight of others.
I don't need to hear of all the 'good works' and things he does or has done. I am just trying to point out that it makes no sense at all to try to defend, weasle out of, tone down the indefensible, period.
I understand the emotional conflict for people related to him, and I regret having to write this, but critical thinking is healthy in situations such as this one. It would be better to say nothing at all than to say 'perhaps he did not do enough research' when the guy is known to trample on people, the very people who were so willing to cooperate with him in the beginning.
One last thing: about his not wanting to be called Dad because "it makes him feel old" with younger people. (Btw, I know you did not write that, but I will comment here)
Excuse me but since when men have a problem with that? It sounds more typical for women to have an issue with age. To say anybody can understand that just does not make sense again. Anybody who?
Maybe for a daughter who has not been around for years it means something to call him Dad, and he prefers to please his narcissism instead because in a bar he does not want people to know he has a grown up daughter? And his feelings are more important than her feelings, again?
And buying the drinks (again, reference to money) should make it ok for him to request this little favor. Pls do not call me Dad, call me Jim so I can still believe I am in my 20's. After all I am the one footing the tab. Reminds me kinda of the way "kings" were treated in the F. Their special status gave them the right to perks. I am allergic to that.
Makes no sense to me, but then I do not have a monopoly on quirks. I just do not try to justify my own.
