Kolleen

>I think the "getting behind" response could have validated the *fear* part
>of the question....that part is a valid *feeling*. It deserves respect.
>I'm not saying the questioner wasn't respectful--I already said that
>earlier.....I'm just saying that by acknowledging that a valid fear exists
>for that person goes a long way toward positive communication. Then the
>original poster will be more receptive to what else you have to say.
>--Leslie Moyer


Well, Sarah spoke up and said what she meant about 'getting behind' (If I
got this whole thing right, she was the orignial poster).

Getting behind as in pertaining to personal goals and the upset they
bring if they are not met.

What you speak about 'fear' here is a great read. Fears do exist and
acknowleging them is a good portion of the battle to overcoming them.

Of course, that doesn't mean feeding into them. It means responding to
them, understanding them, and then offering one's experience on them.

There are a lot of posts that I don't respond to because of lack of
experience with certain aspects. And a lot of posts I don't respond to
because someone said it more eloquently than I and I have nothing to add.

Either way, none of this is meant to stop the thought-provoking
conversation. Its meant to add to it without the other misagosh.

regards,
kolleen

Sarah Carothers

On Sun, 27 Jan 02 00:11:32 -0500, Kolleen wrote:
>Well, Sarah spoke up and said what she meant about
>'getting behind' (If I
>got this whole thing right, she was the orignial poster).

nope.. wasn't me. It was a newbie but I'm not sure which one.
--
Sarah Carothers, puddles@... on 01/27/2002


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]