Our little male dog is pure black, and likes to do a silly thing - he lies down on the floor, rolls over belly up, and then bicycles madly with all four legs, while making grunting snarfling noises. He reminds me of a June bug trying to right itself. He was doing it the other day, and we were laughing at him. My favourite part, is when he all at once rolls over and springs to his feet, then looks around as if surprised to find himself still in the same spot.
I said to my spouse, "You don't get nearly as far, when you're running while upside down."
I've been thinking about that again this morning. I spent a fair bit of my life running while upside down - lots of noise and fuss and movement, no real progress.
I had a major realisation about the way I deal with conflict in relationships. earlier this year, and it seems as though my Higher Power is giving me the same lesson time and again, to make sure I learn it in the way I need to - so that it becomes second nature, in the way my people-pleasing has been second nature.
It felt quite intimidating the first time I tried out new behavior, and is still a little scary, but I'm gradually seeing that it was my unwillingness to face the fear of standing my ground that caused me so much trouble.
I can deal with the conflict, and survive. What I can no longer deal with, is the consequences of the old behavior.
From the ODAT:
"What's the Big Idea in Al-Anon? What's behind these assurances that I do have the power to improve the shape and texture of my life?
It is this: Look to yourself."
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Responding To What Isn't Said - Should I?
I had someone tell me today, "And then he said, "Nobody else has ever complained about this."
I asked how had they felt, upon hearing that remark?
After some thought, they replied, "I felt I was being given a very clear message that I was overreacting, because had my concern had any validity, it would have arisen long before now."
They added: "And then I was told that he did it, and nothing bad had ever happened to him."
More of the same message in the second sentence.
As human beings, it is possible for us to have one conversation on the verbal level, and another entirely at the non-verbal, using delivery, tone of voice, facial gestures, even a shrug, to make it crystal clear what we really think or feel, while leaving room, if challenged, to be able to reply that all we said was...
We can be dissmissive, mocking, insulting, negating, and do it all under the camoflage of a supposedly courteous remark. CIA director Allen Dulles coined the phrase "plausible deniability" - a good way to describe this mode of communication.
In my time in recovery, I've moved from politely ignoring the subtext of a conversation, to just as politely remarking upon it, usually in the form of a question. I might say:
"Does the fact that no-one else has ever complained about this, or the fact that you've done it for years, and nothing bad has happened to you, make my concern invalid?"
My experience with those who use plausible deniability has been that if I ignore it, it only becomes worse. I am permitting them to treat me with a very clever form of rudeness. I'm not speaking up to make it plain that it is unacceptable to treat me this way.
I don't get into telling them what I think they are doing, I don't start arguing the point by reciting statistics to prove I'm correct, I don't induge in blaming, attacking their character, or taking their inventory. All I do is stop, think about what I believe is being conveyed in the nonverbal message, and address that with a calm, polite question.
I spent years trying to defend myself with the sharp blade of anger, often hacking off my own finger or toe in the process. I don't need a submachine gun to deal with an ant. God grant me the serenity to treat other people with the same level of loving kindness I'd like to receive. Not that they might give me, that I'd like to receive. The two are very different creatures. One is predicated upon the other person's behavior, the second is predicated upon my own choices for my own behavior. I don't always manage this, but I achieve it more easily as I live and work my program.
I asked how had they felt, upon hearing that remark?
After some thought, they replied, "I felt I was being given a very clear message that I was overreacting, because had my concern had any validity, it would have arisen long before now."
They added: "And then I was told that he did it, and nothing bad had ever happened to him."
More of the same message in the second sentence.
As human beings, it is possible for us to have one conversation on the verbal level, and another entirely at the non-verbal, using delivery, tone of voice, facial gestures, even a shrug, to make it crystal clear what we really think or feel, while leaving room, if challenged, to be able to reply that all we said was...
We can be dissmissive, mocking, insulting, negating, and do it all under the camoflage of a supposedly courteous remark. CIA director Allen Dulles coined the phrase "plausible deniability" - a good way to describe this mode of communication.
In my time in recovery, I've moved from politely ignoring the subtext of a conversation, to just as politely remarking upon it, usually in the form of a question. I might say:
"Does the fact that no-one else has ever complained about this, or the fact that you've done it for years, and nothing bad has happened to you, make my concern invalid?"
My experience with those who use plausible deniability has been that if I ignore it, it only becomes worse. I am permitting them to treat me with a very clever form of rudeness. I'm not speaking up to make it plain that it is unacceptable to treat me this way.
I don't get into telling them what I think they are doing, I don't start arguing the point by reciting statistics to prove I'm correct, I don't induge in blaming, attacking their character, or taking their inventory. All I do is stop, think about what I believe is being conveyed in the nonverbal message, and address that with a calm, polite question.
I spent years trying to defend myself with the sharp blade of anger, often hacking off my own finger or toe in the process. I don't need a submachine gun to deal with an ant. God grant me the serenity to treat other people with the same level of loving kindness I'd like to receive. Not that they might give me, that I'd like to receive. The two are very different creatures. One is predicated upon the other person's behavior, the second is predicated upon my own choices for my own behavior. I don't always manage this, but I achieve it more easily as I live and work my program.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
People-Pleasing As Shape-Shifting
I've been thinking about this lately - how does it work for my friend/spouse/family member, if I am always changing myself to accomodate them?
One of the aspects of a relationship in which I draw comfort, is in knowing certain things about the other person. I can feel safe in the knowledge that this person is this way. That knowledge not only brings a feeling of safety, it also gives me a framework upon which to build the relationship.
If the other person is a rampant people-pleaser, so that any time I endeavour to make sure that I understand where their boundaries are, and the mere asking of that question of "Where?" causes them to shift them back twenty feet, and then another twenty feet, and another and another and another - it's like quicksand. There is no foundation, no firm base upon which to stand and say, ok, this is sold ground.
Some days, when they are feeling braver, I might be walking up to where I think the boundary is from last time, and find myself being charged ferociously, and shoved backwards violently, while they yell at me about overstepping myself.
So the time after that, I am very careful to advance to the stopping line pointed out to me on our last encounter, only to have them ask in surprise, "What are you stopping there for? Come closer, a lot closer, come on, don't be so hesitant about it!"
I know I go away from this sort of thing reeling in confusion, irritation and frustration; I cannot get a clear picture of just who this person is. Every time I ask, I get a different answer. My response to this, over time, will be to distance myself. I cannot handle that level of confusion in my life anymore. I choose not to.
So flip this over, and why would I imagine that my behaving in a similar manner would be any the less distressing for those with whom I interact?
Is it possible that those for whom I've been so craven in my people-pleasing, (in my attempts to gain intimacy and closeness,) are distant for precisely the reason of my people-pleasing, and the reality that this impermanence of my boundaries, leaves them feeling lost and confused?
Could I be creating the opposite of what I seek, by doing what I do?
Could it be that I will be far more likely to have the respect I wish for, if I behave in such a way as to register more as a solid person, than a nebulous emotional shape-shifter, always changing?
-----------------------------------
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to."
W.C. Fields
One of the aspects of a relationship in which I draw comfort, is in knowing certain things about the other person. I can feel safe in the knowledge that this person is this way. That knowledge not only brings a feeling of safety, it also gives me a framework upon which to build the relationship.
If the other person is a rampant people-pleaser, so that any time I endeavour to make sure that I understand where their boundaries are, and the mere asking of that question of "Where?" causes them to shift them back twenty feet, and then another twenty feet, and another and another and another - it's like quicksand. There is no foundation, no firm base upon which to stand and say, ok, this is sold ground.
Some days, when they are feeling braver, I might be walking up to where I think the boundary is from last time, and find myself being charged ferociously, and shoved backwards violently, while they yell at me about overstepping myself.
So the time after that, I am very careful to advance to the stopping line pointed out to me on our last encounter, only to have them ask in surprise, "What are you stopping there for? Come closer, a lot closer, come on, don't be so hesitant about it!"
I know I go away from this sort of thing reeling in confusion, irritation and frustration; I cannot get a clear picture of just who this person is. Every time I ask, I get a different answer. My response to this, over time, will be to distance myself. I cannot handle that level of confusion in my life anymore. I choose not to.
So flip this over, and why would I imagine that my behaving in a similar manner would be any the less distressing for those with whom I interact?
Is it possible that those for whom I've been so craven in my people-pleasing, (in my attempts to gain intimacy and closeness,) are distant for precisely the reason of my people-pleasing, and the reality that this impermanence of my boundaries, leaves them feeling lost and confused?
Could I be creating the opposite of what I seek, by doing what I do?
Could it be that I will be far more likely to have the respect I wish for, if I behave in such a way as to register more as a solid person, than a nebulous emotional shape-shifter, always changing?
-----------------------------------
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to."
W.C. Fields
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
What's My Obligation Here?
Yesterday the neighbour's dog appeared in our back yard - he'd somehow escaped his fences, and was free to roam. He was perfectly willing to let me pet him, but the moment I appeared with a leash, he began to play that dog game of: "Yeah ok, I'll let you put that on me ... but maybe not!"
He'd leap sideways at the last moment, then strike that silly dog pose where they crouch with the front end, and elevate the back end - coupled with his goofy expression, it made me laugh. The more I laughed, the better he liked it - at one point he came over and gently shoulder-checked my leg, and it was just like a human being nudging with an elbow. I found it entertaining rather than frustrating, because he's such a big ol' happy dog, and he was having so much fun evading the leash.
I decided another approach might be more useful, and asked him: "Want a cookie?"
He snapped to attention, and came right over, to begin nuzzling my hands and my pockets, looking for it. When I didn't have one, he did the canine equivalent of a shrug and went off to sniff the grass.
Long story short, I got him into my car by showing him the cookie, and tossing it into the back seat. He leapt in after it, I closed the door, and I had him. I drove him home, and the people next door to his owner took him in, as the owner was out at the time.
Later, I was talking to someone about it, and was told, "I'd have taken him to the SPCA!"
"I knew where he lived," I protested. "I see him every day."
"I don't think they walk him enough, I'd have taken him to the SPCA."
It got me thinking, because when I was much younger, if I'd thought they didn't walk him enough, I'd have taken him to the SPCA, too. Back then, I was much more certain not only that my opinions were correct, but that I had the right to act upon them however I chose.
I don't have that certainty anymore. The wisdom of Al-Anon, and perhaps of middle age, has tempered my thinking. In order to take the dog to the SPCA and turn him over, I'd have had to lie. Many times. I'd have had to lie that I didn't know where he lived, that I'd tried to find his owners, yada yada yada. The entire enterprise would be one of deception on my part, and I'm not willing to do that.
If I thought he was being mistreated, I'd have contacted the relevant authorities to get him some help, as soon as I'd realised it, back when we first moved into this house, months ago.
Yes, I wish they'd walk him more often, but he has a huge yard in which to roam, a very nice doghouse, and when I see him with his family, he is the same bouncy creature he was in my yard. He shows no signs of fear or caution, as he would were he being abused.
It's not up to me to be deciding for someone else, how often they should walk their dog. If I saw signs of abuse, I'd do my utmost to get him help - I adore dogs. But I can't take him to the SPCA and tell a pack of untruths because they don't fit my concept of "ideal dog owners." I saw my obligation to be: catch him, was I able, and take him safely home. That's where my responsibility ends.
Life is much more peaceful when I keep my hands in my own pockets, and don't try to change the people and the world around me, to suit my thinking. I cannot achieve that end, so why waste energy trying? I'd rather save my energy to do what I can do.
I'll never forget when we lived in a house in another town, several adult neighbours used to stop and talk when they met on the street, and they were always tut-tutting about a very nice border collie who lived her life on a chain alone in her back yard. It took a young girl to ask the owner if she could please walk the dog. She and the dog would head happily off down the street a couple of times a day. I loved that, it was such a perfect example of what really helps, and what doesn't.
You think a dog isn't being walked enough? Why not stop trashing the owner for his or her lack, and offer to walk the dog yourself, if you are truly concerned?
He'd leap sideways at the last moment, then strike that silly dog pose where they crouch with the front end, and elevate the back end - coupled with his goofy expression, it made me laugh. The more I laughed, the better he liked it - at one point he came over and gently shoulder-checked my leg, and it was just like a human being nudging with an elbow. I found it entertaining rather than frustrating, because he's such a big ol' happy dog, and he was having so much fun evading the leash.
I decided another approach might be more useful, and asked him: "Want a cookie?"
He snapped to attention, and came right over, to begin nuzzling my hands and my pockets, looking for it. When I didn't have one, he did the canine equivalent of a shrug and went off to sniff the grass.
Long story short, I got him into my car by showing him the cookie, and tossing it into the back seat. He leapt in after it, I closed the door, and I had him. I drove him home, and the people next door to his owner took him in, as the owner was out at the time.
Later, I was talking to someone about it, and was told, "I'd have taken him to the SPCA!"
"I knew where he lived," I protested. "I see him every day."
"I don't think they walk him enough, I'd have taken him to the SPCA."
It got me thinking, because when I was much younger, if I'd thought they didn't walk him enough, I'd have taken him to the SPCA, too. Back then, I was much more certain not only that my opinions were correct, but that I had the right to act upon them however I chose.
I don't have that certainty anymore. The wisdom of Al-Anon, and perhaps of middle age, has tempered my thinking. In order to take the dog to the SPCA and turn him over, I'd have had to lie. Many times. I'd have had to lie that I didn't know where he lived, that I'd tried to find his owners, yada yada yada. The entire enterprise would be one of deception on my part, and I'm not willing to do that.
If I thought he was being mistreated, I'd have contacted the relevant authorities to get him some help, as soon as I'd realised it, back when we first moved into this house, months ago.
Yes, I wish they'd walk him more often, but he has a huge yard in which to roam, a very nice doghouse, and when I see him with his family, he is the same bouncy creature he was in my yard. He shows no signs of fear or caution, as he would were he being abused.
It's not up to me to be deciding for someone else, how often they should walk their dog. If I saw signs of abuse, I'd do my utmost to get him help - I adore dogs. But I can't take him to the SPCA and tell a pack of untruths because they don't fit my concept of "ideal dog owners." I saw my obligation to be: catch him, was I able, and take him safely home. That's where my responsibility ends.
Life is much more peaceful when I keep my hands in my own pockets, and don't try to change the people and the world around me, to suit my thinking. I cannot achieve that end, so why waste energy trying? I'd rather save my energy to do what I can do.
I'll never forget when we lived in a house in another town, several adult neighbours used to stop and talk when they met on the street, and they were always tut-tutting about a very nice border collie who lived her life on a chain alone in her back yard. It took a young girl to ask the owner if she could please walk the dog. She and the dog would head happily off down the street a couple of times a day. I loved that, it was such a perfect example of what really helps, and what doesn't.
You think a dog isn't being walked enough? Why not stop trashing the owner for his or her lack, and offer to walk the dog yourself, if you are truly concerned?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Rigidity Of Thought.
I had an experience recently, in which I was confronted with the fact that I am still, even after many years in program, able to get caught up in rigidity of thinking. I think I am bendable, but then an occasion will arise, and (always only in retrospect, of course) I will see afterwards, that I've done it again.
I'd prefer to view this character trait as I did before Al-Anon, as "having exacting standards," and "wanting precision in all things" but the reality is far more along the lines of "being inflexible because of an underlying belief that I'm right."
When I follow the thought process to its conclusion, I can see that the road originates, as so many of them do, in fear. I have a fear that if I don't express my (unsolicited) opinion, I may lose something I value greatly, through watching it be slowly watered down or changed, while I sit and say nothing.
And since I'm trying to speak up more, I can get carried away, and start giving my opinion about something that is none of my business, which is what I've done recently.
So then, it's back to working the Steps, practise Step Ten:
"Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it."
I'm so grateful for this Step - it keeps me clear that I will always be being wrong, and that I need to admit it, make an amend, and do these two things in a timely manner.
I have no control over whether or not my amend is accepted, but if I am sincere in making it, and state my apology in no uncertain terms, with an explanation of how I believe I went wrong - that's all I can do.
I can't go back in time and make my wrong not happen, but I can learn from this one, so that I'm more careful and thoughtful in the same situation next time, and I can make an amend for this one.
I'd prefer to view this character trait as I did before Al-Anon, as "having exacting standards," and "wanting precision in all things" but the reality is far more along the lines of "being inflexible because of an underlying belief that I'm right."
When I follow the thought process to its conclusion, I can see that the road originates, as so many of them do, in fear. I have a fear that if I don't express my (unsolicited) opinion, I may lose something I value greatly, through watching it be slowly watered down or changed, while I sit and say nothing.
And since I'm trying to speak up more, I can get carried away, and start giving my opinion about something that is none of my business, which is what I've done recently.
So then, it's back to working the Steps, practise Step Ten:
"Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it."
I'm so grateful for this Step - it keeps me clear that I will always be being wrong, and that I need to admit it, make an amend, and do these two things in a timely manner.
I have no control over whether or not my amend is accepted, but if I am sincere in making it, and state my apology in no uncertain terms, with an explanation of how I believe I went wrong - that's all I can do.
I can't go back in time and make my wrong not happen, but I can learn from this one, so that I'm more careful and thoughtful in the same situation next time, and I can make an amend for this one.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Discussions of Religion.
Syd posted a comment regarding this post, mentioning the Lord's prayer being said at the end of Al-Anon meetings - I've never experienced this - any meeting I've been to, closes with the Serenity Prayer. So, that's interesting, must be a cultural thing, I guess.
--------------------------------------------------------------
From the Al-Anon pamplet: 3 OBSTACLES TO SUCCESS IN AL-ANON.
"All Al-Anon discussions should be constructive, helpful, loving and understanding. In striving toward these ideals, we avoid topics that can lead to dissension and distract us from our goals.
1. DISCUSSIONS OF RELIGION.
Al-Anon is not allied with any sect or denomination. It is a spiritual program, based on no particular form of religion. Everyone is welcome, no matter of what affiliation or none. Let us not defeat our purpose by entering into discussions concerning specific religious tenets."
When I was very new to Al-Anon, I was grateful for that aspect of the fellowship, because I believed myself to be a confirmed aetheist, and talk of anything religious made me clench my teeth and stop listening. I did NOT want to hear it. I'd had sufficient organised religion stuffed down my throat as a child, that I felt I'd reached my earthly limit, and couldn't swallow another morsel.
I still feel gratitude for this tradition, but my reasons couldn't be more dissimilar. My spiritual beliefs have changed considerably over my time in program, so now it isn't that I don't want to listen to any "Higher Power talk," it's that I have a far deeper understanding of the wisdom of this tradition/policy/suggestion/guideline - call it what you will.
I've seen two individuals who might have been of great help and comfort to one another, divided by their religious beliefs - they didn't respect this Al-Anon guideline, and were soon engaged in heated discussions in which the words "sinner" "misguided" "one true way" and "deluded" were bandied about. From a possible source of support and encouragement, the relationship became a maelstrom of acrimony.
They went from always arriving at the meetings in the same car, to refusing to attend any meeting at which they thought the other might be present.
I've had to set a boundary on this issue with several relative newcomers to Al-Anon over the years I've been in program; some have respected it first time, and some have not.
One of my main beliefs regarding this issue has to do with organised religion's unfortunate habit of choosing to see their members as the only ones who have "Seen the Light."
People who do not believe as they do, are regarded as anything from a poor misguided soul who just needs to be told "the truth," to serious sinners on a road hellbent to destruction.
If I regard myself as in possession of "the truth," and you as either misguided, or flat-out sinning wrong, what possible equality can there be for the two of us, in Al-Anon?
Can I learn from you if I regard you only through that lens? What is the likelihood that I will be offering you "welcome and comfort," and giving the alcoholic "understanding and encouragement?"
12 Step doesn't work very well if one person sees themselves as superior in any way, to another member of our fellowship. The equality we practise, the "feelings we have for you," are only possible if we see ourselves as two peas in the earthly pod.
--------------------------------------------------------------
From the Al-Anon pamplet: 3 OBSTACLES TO SUCCESS IN AL-ANON.
"All Al-Anon discussions should be constructive, helpful, loving and understanding. In striving toward these ideals, we avoid topics that can lead to dissension and distract us from our goals.
1. DISCUSSIONS OF RELIGION.
Al-Anon is not allied with any sect or denomination. It is a spiritual program, based on no particular form of religion. Everyone is welcome, no matter of what affiliation or none. Let us not defeat our purpose by entering into discussions concerning specific religious tenets."
When I was very new to Al-Anon, I was grateful for that aspect of the fellowship, because I believed myself to be a confirmed aetheist, and talk of anything religious made me clench my teeth and stop listening. I did NOT want to hear it. I'd had sufficient organised religion stuffed down my throat as a child, that I felt I'd reached my earthly limit, and couldn't swallow another morsel.
I still feel gratitude for this tradition, but my reasons couldn't be more dissimilar. My spiritual beliefs have changed considerably over my time in program, so now it isn't that I don't want to listen to any "Higher Power talk," it's that I have a far deeper understanding of the wisdom of this tradition/policy/suggestion/guideline - call it what you will.
I've seen two individuals who might have been of great help and comfort to one another, divided by their religious beliefs - they didn't respect this Al-Anon guideline, and were soon engaged in heated discussions in which the words "sinner" "misguided" "one true way" and "deluded" were bandied about. From a possible source of support and encouragement, the relationship became a maelstrom of acrimony.
They went from always arriving at the meetings in the same car, to refusing to attend any meeting at which they thought the other might be present.
I've had to set a boundary on this issue with several relative newcomers to Al-Anon over the years I've been in program; some have respected it first time, and some have not.
One of my main beliefs regarding this issue has to do with organised religion's unfortunate habit of choosing to see their members as the only ones who have "Seen the Light."
People who do not believe as they do, are regarded as anything from a poor misguided soul who just needs to be told "the truth," to serious sinners on a road hellbent to destruction.
If I regard myself as in possession of "the truth," and you as either misguided, or flat-out sinning wrong, what possible equality can there be for the two of us, in Al-Anon?
Can I learn from you if I regard you only through that lens? What is the likelihood that I will be offering you "welcome and comfort," and giving the alcoholic "understanding and encouragement?"
12 Step doesn't work very well if one person sees themselves as superior in any way, to another member of our fellowship. The equality we practise, the "feelings we have for you," are only possible if we see ourselves as two peas in the earthly pod.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Mouths of Babes
A program friend and I were out walking the dogs recently, and passed a family in which a small girl was hopping up a set of stairs, repeatedly reciting the following in that sing-song way kids have:
"You get what you get, and you don't get upset!"
My friend and I turned to each other and laughed, saying it could be a new Al-Anon slogan.
So much of my past misery has been because I couldn't accept what I "got", and I was furiously upset about it. I raged and stormed about my life, and I fought and struggled and kicked against my fate. (I rarely use that word, because it always sounds like it should be accompanied by dramatic music.)
When I was new to program, and people would speak of acceptance, I thought they were either barking mad, or didn't have as an unhappy a home life as I did. Because if they did, they wouldn't be telling me to accept it - on the contrary, they'd be falling all over themselves telling me what a martyr I was, and asking how I managed so well.
Right.
I got what I got, and then spent the next nine years seething with futile resentment. I can see how far I've come in program, by the looks I received the other day when asked to agree that people who believed in ____ were boneheads, by a fellow member of a club to which I belong. I replied that I try to live my life, and let other people live theirs. I don't feel the need to make other people adopt my way of living, and I don't tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing. If it doesn't negatively impact me, then it's none of my business.
You get what you get, and you don't get upset.
I like that, it's a good mantra. Maybe I should write and see if I can get it accepted as CAL.
"You get what you get, and you don't get upset!"
My friend and I turned to each other and laughed, saying it could be a new Al-Anon slogan.
So much of my past misery has been because I couldn't accept what I "got", and I was furiously upset about it. I raged and stormed about my life, and I fought and struggled and kicked against my fate. (I rarely use that word, because it always sounds like it should be accompanied by dramatic music.)
When I was new to program, and people would speak of acceptance, I thought they were either barking mad, or didn't have as an unhappy a home life as I did. Because if they did, they wouldn't be telling me to accept it - on the contrary, they'd be falling all over themselves telling me what a martyr I was, and asking how I managed so well.
Right.
I got what I got, and then spent the next nine years seething with futile resentment. I can see how far I've come in program, by the looks I received the other day when asked to agree that people who believed in ____ were boneheads, by a fellow member of a club to which I belong. I replied that I try to live my life, and let other people live theirs. I don't feel the need to make other people adopt my way of living, and I don't tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing. If it doesn't negatively impact me, then it's none of my business.
You get what you get, and you don't get upset.
I like that, it's a good mantra. Maybe I should write and see if I can get it accepted as CAL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)