The way things can be taken PLEASE READ THIS!

Things have got way too complicated l have been here from. the beginning but things have changed. I tend to lurk and not comment much but now l feel quiet. Initiated. I will say no more plus l have had too much wine tonight.

As a newcomer to writing, though a reader for some time, and a man, I hesitate to comment, but fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so here goes.

A lot of the threads are clearly started with a view to encouraging the expression of different points of view, and Gransnet would be a waste of time if this were not the case. Given that, things might progress more smoothly if those who disagreed with an opinion said why, in addition to just saying no, and tried to advance the discussion.

So don't just say Grumppa is talking rubbish, say Grumppa is talking rubbish because.....

I also get the impression sometimes that some people just don't like each other. Nothing wrong with that, but we should try not to let it show, and if in doubt, say nowt.

I agree grumppa with what you have said. But may be don't say Grumppa is talking rubbish, say I don't agree because.... Please don't lurk, join in, it is nice to have different points of view.

I agree too with nanapug, you have gotten to the point. Posters who should know better often don't seem to understand how spiteful their posts sound to others. Well done to those who see this happening and step in and say enough.

Faye I think you are right, nobody should try to tell another poster how they should think or feel as they don't have any experiences but their own. My feelings are valid just because I feel them.

And one shouldn't let one's feelings about other posters show! Mea culpa a couple of times, and each time I have regretted it and apologised but can see why I was wrong.

grumppa I take you point. But how much better it would be if they didn't say grumppa is talking rubbish and simply said I disagree because.......
Incidentally love the name

Oh, just read your post again Faye and I've said exactly what you said. Never mind, I'll let it stand as it reinforces the point.

Ariadne I am guilty as charged but when you feel like that there is often a reason as kitty said feelings are valid because you feel them. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie, but that bl***y dog keeps getting up and barking again, and again!!!!

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I agree that feelings are valid just because they are felt. However, my feelings are my responsibility, not someone else's. I think that sensitivity of feelings, to hurt and offence, may work on a sliding scale, a bit like pain thresholds (some people feel physical pain more than others, or find certain pain 'intolerable', which someone else might not mind too much). I think it's worth thinking about where one might lie on such a scale, to find out whether one is someone who feels hurt/offended very easily or someone who can let quite a lot pass over as not really mattering in the big scheme of things. I say this because I think it could be useful to know. If one is easily upset, it might help one to recognise that, while one's feelings are certainly valid, recognising that certain sensitivities might not be universal could be useful.

This just an idea of mine, which I think it would be interesting to discuss.

I don't think being less easily upset is the same as being thick-skinned (though it may be). I also think that one can learn to be less easily offendable. In my head it is related to self-respect; someone who has a robust sense of self-respect can probably shrug off a great deal that others might struggle with. I may be chuntering along the wrong road here, but that's 'where I'm at' now. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this.

Bags I think this is the kind of post that other people do find patronising. We don't all have a robust sense of self respect unfortunately and, given that some people don't, telling them that it is their problem (which they very well know!) isn't very helpful. Surely it is possible to put over strong views without talking down to people who don't have a strong sense of self esteem. I don't often say much in these threads but I do understand why some people are reluctant to join in debates.

Thanks Absent for revealing that to the person who I was trying to avoid. That says something doesn't it? I have reported it to GNHQ hoping it can be deleted before more damage is done.

wisewoman I don't think bags post is patronising. It's an attempt to explain why some people are more sensitive than others, that's all, and one that sounds quite plausible to me.
We do need to be careful that, in taking other posters' possible feelings into account, we don't stifle debate completely.
What gives me the willies is when people hark back to previous slights and insults.
It's water under the bridge for heaven's sake - let's get over it and move on

Just popped back to add that I think people's place on the scale will change according to circumstances. We all have times in our lives when we are more upsettable than at others.

wisewoman, your post shows how easy it is for someone to find something patronising when nothing patronising was intended at all. I did not intend to imply criticism of people with low self esteem. I cannot know why, or even if, any individual whom I don't know has a low self esteem. However, it does seem obvious, in the light of your post that people with low self esteem will feel patronised more easily than those with high self esteem. This, in my view, is not the fault of 'outsiders' (me, for instance) who simply want to discusss an issue philosophically.

Hello jane back again I see!! I see you echo Absent's sentiments exactly

Or, to put my second para in "street speak" (my perception of that anyhow): it isn't about you (whoever that you may be who is reading this); it's about an idea. If it's patronising to try and spell out an idea, so be it, but that has never been my understanding of patronising.

Or, tomput it yet another way, wisewoman's post shows just how easy it is for some people to feel patronised. This is not someone else's fault. It may not be the patronised person's fault either, but it certainly isn't mine or another person's who is simply thinking aloud inoffensively.

wisewoman I think this is heading down the path that...
being sensitive to your own feelings or the feelings of others = low self esteem = weak
while those insensitive to others feelings or indeed lacking feeling themselves = high self esteem = strong person
I know that's an oversimplification and possibly not exactly what bags said, or hopefully meant. But unless you've been tested in a really terrible situation, then and only then, do you know if you are strong or weak. And people can and do surprise you under testing conditions. I have actually found that it if often the most sensitive people who show the most empathy and are there for you when the going gets tough. Indeed often the 'tough' get going....away and out of sight!
Does any of this make sense or am I rambling?

Somehow I think that this thread has developed just the way the OP would NOT have wanted. Why take up these adversarial positions?

kali your last post directed at me isn't worthy of a response.

I strongly agree with Kali.

Bags your post was interesting but I find your ideas somewhat simplistic.

Some people have complex and sensitive personalities. They are very much in tune with the feelings of others and their own.

Others may not be so emotionally aware, either because that is the way they are 'made' or because they are living defensively.

Self esteem does not equate to these two positions in the way you suggest in my opinion.

But even if it did, I am quite baffled by the regularly expressed view that if people are offended it is up to them to toughen up or clear off.

I agree that we are responsible for our own emotions but also think that we are responsible for the way we behave towards others and the affect it has on them.

Kali it does make sense to me. Perhaps we are "talking" about two different things - philosophical debate / people discussing their feelings, hopes and fears. I enjoy philosophical debate but don't think self esteem etc is part of philosophy - more of psychology. Enough. Going out now and won't be adding any more. Shouldn't have got involved.

I have too much grief in my life already to get involved in these unending threads.
But Petallus has spoken more coherent common sense in the last two sentences of her last post than I have read in all of them.
It's no good even hoping all this sniping will end. Nobody will give up the last word

Kali I had no idea you were hiding from someone. However, shortly after you changed your name, someone else pointed out your post on the weight loss thread where you indicated who you had previously been. Lots of grannies went to check. I can't remember what thread it was on.

Yes, pointed it out and discussed it in a careful and tactful way, so nothing was obvious. I left the clue so regular GNetters would pick up on it, and they did, subtly and carefully. I had been 'outed' as J0 put it.

Lots of grannies went to check? Did they? How do you know this, absent? . Anyway, surely the fact that a member changes their name should imply that they had good reason to do so - revealing their former identity for all to see is hardly tactful.

Kali At the risk of raising you ire even closer to boiling point, whoever you are trying to avoid could not possibly mistake the ferocity and tenacity you employ to counter posts with which you disagree whatever name you used. There was nothing especially careful and tactful about the comments on whatever the thread was where Gransnetters were pointed to your post.