daughter-in-law from hell

Is "pedantics " a neologism? Maybe soontobe meant " semantic So"?

So now we have arguments often ends in the parties agreeing to differ. Not always, no. And try telling that to women and men who are battered by their partners. It is the "typically heated or angry" part of the definition of the word argument that I am talking about, that happens before whatever the end part is.

When men or women batter their partners it has nothing to do with arguments and everything to do with control. It has nothing do with mutual anger, although that can happen; it has to do with one partner wishing to control the other one's life. You are so wrong soontobe I honestly don't know where to start.

Back to the OP >

There's a school of thought about behaviour traits which suggests that when one dislikes the behaviour of another, it is because these behaviours are held in oneself, and it is unpleasant to see these mirrored back - leading to antagonism by both parties. Not always the case by any means, but might be worth looking at when trying to understand others, particularly when difficulties arise within families.

Look to oneself first.

The same can apply, of course, with liking behaviour in others. Usually the basis of a good and firm friendship.

argument, meanings thereof:

"a reason or series of reasons offered or available as proof or inducement (with for or against); exchange of such reasons; debate; matter of debate or contention; an unfriendly discussion; a summary of subject-matter; hence contents (Shakespeare); proof, evidence (archaic); a variable upon which another depends, or a quantity or element to which a function, operation, etc applies ( maths, comput., logic ); the angle between a vector and its axis of reference ( maths )"

There you are, soon. As you will see "unfriendly discussion" is only one of many meanings of the word argument. Most of its meanings have nothing to do with unfriendliness, so those of us using its manifold other meanings are correct.

Aargh! " semantics "?

I have decided that in a couple of days or so, I will ask gransnet's advice on sitestuff about a situation like this.

What situation? Like what?

soon please take my advice and quietly leave this thread

absent please, don't rise to the bait!

quarrel, argument, discussion, debate..... shades of meaning.Isn't English wonderful?

I think they will tell you that it is not necessary to reply EVERY TIME to posts that mention you. You can just let the comment pass and the conversation return to the original subject.

I think obedience and harmony are important elements in your life, soontobe. You yourself obey the rules as you see them, within your faith and also in anything else you are a part of, including GN. You like there to be an authority.

That is why you don't like it when someone states their disagreement with one of your principles, and think that putting their opinion forward strongly is quarrelling. That kind of discussion is often called an argument - but doesn't have to be a bitter fight to the death. It is a way of stating opposing points of view and working out where the truth lies, usually somewhere in between the extreme ends. It is how democracy works out what is what, unlike a dictatorship where rules are made by one top dog.

It is hard work being part of a democracy, much easier to rely on the decisions of someone else.

Yes. Language is awesome.

That was in response to anno's post. x posts, elegran. Will now read yours.

About relying always on someone else's decisions. That also applies to unquestioningly following decrees made by fallible humans a thousand and a half years ago on the basis of only a few of the writings about their founder. Those writings were selected at a time of political unrest and religious persecution, so they reflect the pre-occupations of the Christians of that time, and the social order that then prevailed.

Medieval church leaders knew nothing about the geography or history of their planet (let alone the universe) and they were interpreting books written down by hundreds of different, equally fallible, humans over the previous thousands of years for a tribe of wandering warring goatherds and transleated from one language into another, then into another, with inevitable changes in the meanings of words (semantics).

Their interpretations were biased by the social conditions of their own time, and by the political aspirations of Popes, but because they spoke with such authority, their attitudes still linger on.

Brilliant, Elegran.

Why is it that whatever the original subject of a thread, it always ends up with soontobe deflecting it into her own preoccupations? Why do other posters allow themselves to be drawn into those preoccupations (I include myself in "other posters". After I post, I regret it every time .)

I am not having that. I will start a post in site stuff now.

I think GrannyKnot has already answered that second question Elegran

I really struggle with my daughter in law, I can never do right. But you know what? My son loves her. He is happy. That has to be enough for me. I never stop giving and showing love, I do that to keep my son in my life. Sad I know but better than any alternative. ��

I have looked back over the thread to find your reference, anya and in my case it is not that I am taking the mickey, because I don't do that. I answer what seems a genuine question with a genuine answer, and if I don't agree with someone's interpretation or thinking, I say so. If they show a lack of knowledge of something that has a bearing on their thinking, and I can fill that gap, I do so.

I am not convinced that soontobe wants anything which will interfere with what she already thinks.

And I am not at all sure what it is that she is not having.

In answer to your question Elegran my gut reaction is, attention seeking or clever manipulation. I can't believe someone of a certain age can be that naive.

Agus I've never been convinced that age necessarily brings wisdom.

Some people are fortunate inasmuch as they have had a broad education, in the truest sense of the word and can formulate a reasonable argument and order their thoughts logically. Many have refined that experience through their working life and by contact with a variety of people from all kinds of backgrounds, beliefs and opinions.

Others have led a much more insular existance.

My late MiL married early (the war was on) had her children and never worked outside the house. She held narrow views, but was more to be pitied than scorned as she simply didn't have the opportunities to have her views and prejudices challenged. Even the papers she read reinforced her view of society. Yet, in her own way she didn't lack intelligence.

So, I do believe some people can be incredibly naive and gullible at any age.

How true, Anya.

I feel for poor OP!
Six pages of responses, the last three with virtually no discussion about the original post!

Is this a record for Gransnet?

Threads move on loopy. I have replied to OP's post and so have others.