January 12Jan 12 Author 36 minutes ago, Riobard said: Unlike here, the protocol for handling narcissism that comes a clinician’s way in a treatment context is quite different. I am also, paradoxically, getting paid to be respected and the fee is much higher to be a sad sack’s punching bag. Toxic costs more. They are paying to do some work in good faith. Somebody like you? … I’d perhaps find an excuse to not accommodate, even if it meant a white lie regarding my own adequacy. One or two per year maximum quota. The lawyers, for example, in my practice have been typically respectful and rewarding. You wouldn’t find them trolling in a desperate ploy for relevance. Anonymity alters the picture both in terms of personal comportment and style of language. Lawyers in opposition and adversarial, in contrast, for example in a sitch of expert testimony, have been put in their places. The dynamic and exchange obviously contextually differs. I have been consistently disabused of the notion that they are particularly intelligent analytically or correctly anticipatory regarding opponents’ ability in relation to the subject adjudicated. But many are reasonably bright and often have unfamiliar curves tossed at them. Their level of deference is moot and likely cloaked in resentment. I’m not completely sure of your background but I’d say you are pretty easy-peasy to compartmentalize in such a way as to amputate from day to day consciousness. You’re the guy with a low single-digit array of lazy retorts. I would never explicitly formulate “Asshole not specified” although it colloquially fits in some instances, and your relation would grasp the wordplay, perhaps even chuckle. Ask your in-law for translational guidance without necessarily revealing the players. That said, a family member essentially has hands tied not knowing all of the behavioural aspects of an aging geezer punter oriented to, say, seeking unprotected insertive anal intercourse with naïve and physically poorly developed and socioeconomically deprived young men abroad for pay. That might partially trump any misguided personal regard heretofore displayed. Only you know for sure what about your number fits the scenario. There can only be bad or neutral sexual tourism. Good sexual tourism is a misnomer and most patients, lawyers, clinicians, etc, would agree. Meaningless, as usual!
January 12Jan 12 Active Members 6 minutes ago, Keithambrose said: Meaningless, as usual! That’s exactly the type of response that coheres with my appraisal. Again, ask her, but fill in the blanks.
January 12Jan 12 38 minutes ago, Riobard said: That’s exactly the type of response that coheres with my appraisal. Again, ask her, but fill in the blanks. If this is analysis, it’s missing structure, clarity, and a reason for the rest of us to care 🤷♂️
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.