Dear All,
It seems interesting to me that Celia was objecting to a generalisation
with regard to imaginary friends and that her use of the word "rubbish"
was taken so offensively. What is it about that word, that so changed
the potential reactions. There is certainly a lot of food for thought
in the postings that followed it. I wonder about transference of
feelings about first, Celia's reactions to the generalisation, and then
those in response to her posting? What is that sensitivity all about?
Anyone care to explore this?
Best Regards
Amanda
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 03:10 am, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> In a message dated 4/26/02 11:05:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>
> Celia
> Only a Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapist could come out with such a
> rude
> and offensive response as 'Rubbish' I'm so sorry that you didn't have
> any
> imaginary friends. Are you sure that your real ones are in fact real.
> Perhaps they have Pavlovian responses, you may have trained them well.
> Gerald
>
>
>
> I must say that I think Celia's response has been misunderstood. Her
> response was to the rather broad statement that ALL only children have
> imaginary friends. My reaction to that comment was that I doubted its
> truth. While I did not call it rubbish, I did seriously question the
> validity of the comment.
> I am sorry to read some of the remarks directed at Celia. If her
> comments were rude
> a better way to respond may be to offer an opinion on the opinion she
> expressed without attacking her. I wonder if it is the term: "Rubbish"
> that upset some on the list. I can understand that.
>
> My comments here are not meant to be hurtful, disrespectful nor clever.
>
> jim maguire, JD, MA
|