Manipulation and the Force...as Jedi

As far as I understand the doctrine, conversion to Jedi beliefs (missionary work, if you will) is not part of our aim. It is possible to be a guardian of peace and pursuer of knowledge/wisdom without imposing your stance on others. Open discussion, the sharing of ideals and values, does not have to equate to debate. If someone is utilizing inherently flawed logic, I believe they can be called out on it. If someone is practicing oppressive or demeaning behavior, we can shed light on it. At the same time, is it not part of our practice to allow others to follow their own path? We can be supportive without enabling toxic behavior or ideologies.
I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"
I took a moment to address the errors I saw in this individuals thought process, the toxic nature of the rhetoric they were spewing, and the thoughtlessness they were encouraging in their followers. I offered my experience and view in the area of discussion as it was concerning a particular issue I am constantly working with as part of my job. This was a situation and viewpoint I have seen many sides of and managed to develop a fairly detailed understanding of, and this individual offered no personal connection to the matter beyond blind hatred and condemnation. I know for a fact there is corruption and crime WITHIN the system, that it is inherently broken, and there are some seriously twisted individuals within the law enforcement system. I can acknowledge the problem, certainly, but I also know for a fact that there are nuances to this subject. There ARE good cops, with good families. The system IS broken, but not beyond repair, I believe. The sad truth is that there are awful cops in the world, but there are even more awful criminals, and their numbers far exceed the number of officers. The system may be broken, but it is the system we have and in more cases than this person was willing to acknowledge it has saved lives and kept families from gratuitous suffering. There is always a duality, two sides of the coin, and it must be acknowledged. The balance may be tilted, there may be more dark than light, but that can only ever be corrected through honest efforts to make things better. Maybe I am completely off-base, but I don't believe the anger and hatred this person was spreading was that kind of effort; certainly not after reading affirmative comments attached to their post.
I suppose the issue becomes where we draw the line between objective truth and subjective truth. Some people convince themselves their point of view is superior because they feel so passionately about it. This, I believe, is the nature of "dark vs. light" in regards to the Force. I am open and teachable as much as I can be when opportunity presents itself. I invited a response from the individual, hoping they could offer a wider perspective on their anger. I knew by expressing an opposing view based on my experience might invite negativity, and WOW it really did. Quickly, too. I had flare ups of upset inside myself, but I did not feed into it. I was not going to become aggressive or defensive. I wanted to remain in control of my emotions, and I did not want to invalidate or deny others their thoughts or feelings. I wanted to open up discussion, understanding, awareness, because ultimately this person's expression of their feelings was destructive and closed-minded.
Conversation these days, more than ever, needs to be constructive and thoughtful and considerate. People want to be heard, understood, validated, but that process begins when we open ourselves to hearing, understanding, and validating.
Idk, maybe I'm just ranting at this point, lol. My biggest thing is that YES, all feelings are 100% valid, but oppressive, hateful, manipulative EXPRESSION of feelings is never going to be constructive towards solving anything. "...Wise men build bridges, while the foolish raise barriers" (Nigerian proverb, quoted by T'Challa in "Black Panther.")

I love the thoughtfulness in your post here, Tmattos93!

Athena_Undomiel wrote: ...If you push others to abandon their stance in order to cater to you, are you not manipulating the other person?
Where is the line between sharing, educating...and manipulating or bullying?
How do you reconcile the difference? What do you do to combat this manipulative behavior?
If you recognize it in others how do you maintain your stance in opposition to the manipulator?

My take is that the line between educating and manipulating is the gap between the intention to suggest and the intention to demand.

If we are invested in a point of view that differs from another's, a dialogue that highlights the difference while actively supporting the right of the other person to decide upon their own view of things is a healthy way for both people to grow, learn, and remain as friends. When we employ insistence, rage, caginess, or deceit in an attempt to force the other to accept a point of view, that is manipulation and at best diminishes our shared quality of life - and at worst is destructive.

I honestly don't know that we can combat manipulative behavior. A practiced manipulator is probably not fully receptive to reason or supportive suggestion; in all likelihood, the only was to stop a manipulator from manipulating is to manipulate him/her out of the habit. Sometimes, all we can do is walk away. That can be easy, but is also often difficult if we have an emotional attachment to the manipulator.

Tmattos93 wrote: As far as I understand the doctrine, conversion to Jedi beliefs (missionary work, if you will) is not part of our aim. It is possible to be a guardian of peace and pursuer of knowledge/wisdom without imposing your stance on others. Open discussion, the sharing of ideals and values, does not have to equate to debate. If someone is utilizing inherently flawed logic, I believe they can be called out on it. If someone is practicing oppressive or demeaning behavior, we can shed light on it. At the same time, is it not part of our practice to allow others to follow their own path? We can be supportive without enabling toxic behavior or ideologies.
I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"
I took a moment to address the errors I saw in this individuals thought process, the toxic nature of the rhetoric they were spewing, and the thoughtlessness they were encouraging in their followers. I offered my experience and view in the area of discussion as it was concerning a particular issue I am constantly working with as part of my job. This was a situation and viewpoint I have seen many sides of and managed to develop a fairly detailed understanding of, and this individual offered no personal connection to the matter beyond blind hatred and condemnation. I know for a fact there is corruption and crime WITHIN the system, that it is inherently broken, and there are some seriously twisted individuals within the law enforcement system. I can acknowledge the problem, certainly, but I also know for a fact that there are nuances to this subject. There ARE good cops, with good families. The system IS broken, but not beyond repair, I believe. The sad truth is that there are awful cops in the world, but there are even more awful criminals, and their numbers far exceed the number of officers. The system may be broken, but it is the system we have and in more cases than this person was willing to acknowledge it has saved lives and kept families from gratuitous suffering. There is always a duality, two sides of the coin, and it must be acknowledged. The balance may be tilted, there may be more dark than light, but that can only ever be corrected through honest efforts to make things better. Maybe I am completely off-base, but I don't believe the anger and hatred this person was spreading was that kind of effort; certainly not after reading affirmative comments attached to their post.
I suppose the issue becomes where we draw the line between objective truth and subjective truth. Some people convince themselves their point of view is superior because they feel so passionately about it. This, I believe, is the nature of "dark vs. light" in regards to the Force. I am open and teachable as much as I can be when opportunity presents itself. I invited a response from the individual, hoping they could offer a wider perspective on their anger. I knew by expressing an opposing view based on my experience might invite negativity, and WOW it really did. Quickly, too. I had flare ups of upset inside myself, but I did not feed into it. I was not going to become aggressive or defensive. I wanted to remain in control of my emotions, and I did not want to invalidate or deny others their thoughts or feelings. I wanted to open up discussion, understanding, awareness, because ultimately this person's expression of their feelings was destructive and closed-minded.
Conversation these days, more than ever, needs to be constructive and thoughtful and considerate. People want to be heard, understood, validated, but that process begins when we open ourselves to hearing, understanding, and validating.
Idk, maybe I'm just ranting at this point, lol. My biggest thing is that YES, all feelings are 100% valid, but oppressive, hateful, manipulative EXPRESSION of feelings is never going to be constructive towards solving anything. "...Wise men build bridges, while the foolish raise barriers" (Nigerian proverb, quoted by T'Challa in "Black Panther.")

Beautifully stated! You understood exactly what I was getting at! Thank you for participating!

As Jedi we need to stand by our thoughts and values. Back them up by facts when confronted and if you are proven wrong take it as a life lesson and move forward and Grow. Others should freely do the same thing if your argument is more valid and stop being ILLOGICAL by trying to push something at others when they are wrong

Yes, expression and enforcement are two totally different things. You cannot bend others to your will or position. If they come to it naturally on their own, then that's good for them. The minute you stop caring about what's good for them and rather want them to share your view because its good for you, that's when your motives are impure.

If your motives are impure then whatever you do, from that position becomes corrupt. Sometimes we like to relegate this thing called corruption to the political sphere, but corruption is an everyday thing that starts with a selfish or self-serving agenda. When that agenda bumps heads with the good of others; of the greater community then that is corruption. And what you do to prosecute that agenda is much more likely to be negative push you more towards the dark side because the light doesn't need to go that far or be offensive or bully or be intolerant to the views and perspectives of others. It isn't egocentric. It can be wrong because it doesn't need to be right all the time.

Sometimes people use passion as an excuse. It's not. I go by Zealot X. I have passionately defended positions in hundreds of debates for over two decades. Over time I learned a few things. I learned the value of not letting my ego win over me and thus control the direction and flow of a debate. I learned that I had to defend my position with honor, sincerity, and truth because people were watching. And if I made fun of my opponent someone would probably think I was bullying them and it justified them going too far to attack me even though I was only defending myself after they had already went too far. Sometimes in a debate it doesn't matter who did what first. It's the optics. Passion is not an excuse to manipulate or bully because if you feel like you have to do these things to win you have already LOST. If you can't win through honesty then you haven't won by telling lies. If you haven't one by explaining your logical thought process then you haven't won by losing your temper and spewing obsceneties. Some people take this for strength. I take it as weakness and fear; that person is trying to shut the debate part of the argument down because they believe they can win a battle of words but that is simply argumentum ad hominem. It doesn't make your position right and simply turns the other person off until they don't care what you have to say, don't want to hear you, and see you as lacking credibility in the future.

I have to admit, the grey thing... I fundamentally disagree with; not in theory but in practice. I think some people use it as an excuse to be Jedi when being a Jedi is convenient... when being Jedi is easy... when they're in a good mood. But when it is inconvenient, hard, or they cannot control their emotions which is fundamental to Jediism, they disregard the path and claim to be grey. So for some people I think it is more of a copout, a self-manipulation of sorts, to justify their failure at being fully Jedi and fully embracing and being able to walk a more difficult path in place of one that is simply easier. It takes no skill to lose control. It takes skill to manipulate people successfully (unless they are mentally weak or intoxicated), but it takes no skill to simply vomit a word salad of vulgarity. That is simply behavior unbecoming of any Jedi.

How do you combat the manipulator? Well for me, I have always sought to expose their hidden agenda and bring their true motives into the light. If they don't see the error in their ways I might provoke and test their ego because the ego is more likely to tell the truth when the person loses emotional control and is off balanced. If you look at Trump, when he gets upset is when he's more likely to tell the truth. That's because the ego wants to be known and accepted. Once the truth is revealed that is when I decide what to do with it. I can use it to stop the manipulator's ability to manipulate; maybe if only for a short time. Or can decide whether its worth my time because this person will never come to my position because of their own corrupt intent. At that point you can agree to disagree, knowing that they cannot force you to continue the argument. You got the answer you needed already. If they continue to harass or bully you then that's on them, but their manipulation isn't working on you so they're only wasting their own energy and possibly embarrassing themselves if they're doing it in public. Especially if they are acting childish.

And you maintain your stance until someone disproves it logically. I don't care how much passion someone has, if they cannot make a logical argument backed up by facts and not feelings, then I'm not impressed. A true grey or sith, in my humble opinion, would use passion in their delivery but still attack your position with logic and facts. But someone without these things... should never win an argument because their argument doesn't have enough MERIT. If they cannot separate themselves from their argument and see that it is not them but their argument that is faulty... then that's on them. But you expose their argument and if they manipulate then you expose their agenda and if they make it personal then you expose them. But in each case you should only use the amount of "reasonable force" necessary to bring them down.

A certain person attempted to manipulate me and the rest of the forum because they had a hidden agenda against another person who got banned. Because their intentions were corrupt they eventually got exposed and they turned to harassment and bullying as part of an emotional tantrum. When people do that, just like which children do it, they want you to lose your cool and come down to their level. At that point they just want to feel better by trying to make you feel bad. And so the saying goes "misery loves company". Don't give them that. Don't give in to those negative feelings. Don't get sucked into their vortex of malicious intent. Center yourself. Stay calm. Focus on your ow path. Quiet your thoughts. See through their rage. See the truth they're trying to hide. Maintain control. That is how you win. I was able to do this myself and felt great after the encounter. Why? Because they were never my true enemy. They can only provoke my true enemy which is me. And by keeping my cool I was able to defeat the part of me they were trying to manipulate into becoming like them. But I'm not like them. And the truth is, the more you defeat that part of you the easier it gets until there is no longer any real temptation. In that moment, I had fun with it. I knew what I COULD have said but I didn't say anything that had no strategic value because I wasn't interested in causing that person hurt or injury but rather provoking them to THINK. And often a person is only able to do this effectively once they're back in control of their emotions. I don't think they learned from it, honestly. However, that's okay. Maybe later on they'll come to a deeper realization.

And understand you should not be in that position, interacting with another "Jedi". That's simply not Jedi conduct. I don't care who says otherwise.

ZealotX wrote: Yes, expression and enforcement are two totally different things. You cannot bend others to your will or position. If they come to it naturally on their own, then that's good for them. The minute you stop caring about what's good for them and rather want them to share your view because its good for you, that's when your motives are impure.

If your motives are impure then whatever you do, from that position becomes corrupt. Sometimes we like to relegate this thing called corruption to the political sphere, but corruption is an everyday thing that starts with a selfish or self-serving agenda. When that agenda bumps heads with the good of others; of the greater community then that is corruption. And what you do to prosecute that agenda is much more likely to be negative push you more towards the dark side because the light doesn't need to go that far or be offensive or bully or be intolerant to the views and perspectives of others. It isn't egocentric. It can be wrong because it doesn't need to be right all the time.

Sometimes people use passion as an excuse. It's not. I go by Zealot X. I have passionately defended positions in hundreds of debates for over two decades. Over time I learned a few things. I learned the value of not letting my ego win over me and thus control the direction and flow of a debate. I learned that I had to defend my position with honor, sincerity, and truth because people were watching. And if I made fun of my opponent someone would probably think I was bullying them and it justified them going too far to attack me even though I was only defending myself after they had already went too far. Sometimes in a debate it doesn't matter who did what first. It's the optics. Passion is not an excuse to manipulate or bully because if you feel like you have to do these things to win you have already LOST. If you can't win through honesty then you haven't won by telling lies. If you haven't one by explaining your logical thought process then you haven't won by losing your temper and spewing obsceneties. Some people take this for strength. I take it as weakness and fear; that person is trying to shut the debate part of the argument down because they believe they can win a battle of words but that is simply argumentum ad hominem. It doesn't make your position right and simply turns the other person off until they don't care what you have to say, don't want to hear you, and see you as lacking credibility in the future.

I have to admit, the grey thing... I fundamentally disagree with; not in theory but in practice. I think some people use it as an excuse to be Jedi when being a Jedi is convenient... when being Jedi is easy... when they're in a good mood. But when it is inconvenient, hard, or they cannot control their emotions which is fundamental to Jediism, they disregard the path and claim to be grey. So for some people I think it is more of a copout, a self-manipulation of sorts, to justify their failure at being fully Jedi and fully embracing and being able to walk a more difficult path in place of one that is simply easier. It takes no skill to lose control. It takes skill to manipulate people successfully (unless they are mentally weak or intoxicated), but it takes no skill to simply vomit a word salad of vulgarity. That is simply behavior unbecoming of any Jedi.

How do you combat the manipulator? Well for me, I have always sought to expose their hidden agenda and bring their true motives into the light. If they don't see the error in their ways I might provoke and test their ego because the ego is more likely to tell the truth when the person loses emotional control and is off balanced. If you look at Trump, when he gets upset is when he's more likely to tell the truth. That's because the ego wants to be known and accepted. Once the truth is revealed that is when I decide what to do with it. I can use it to stop the manipulator's ability to manipulate; maybe if only for a short time. Or can decide whether its worth my time because this person will never come to my position because of their own corrupt intent. At that point you can agree to disagree, knowing that they cannot force you to continue the argument. You got the answer you needed already. If they continue to harass or bully you then that's on them, but their manipulation isn't working on you so they're only wasting their own energy and possibly embarrassing themselves if they're doing it in public. Especially if they are acting childish.

And you maintain your stance until someone disproves it logically. I don't care how much passion someone has, if they cannot make a logical argument backed up by facts and not feelings, then I'm not impressed. A true grey or sith, in my humble opinion, would use passion in their delivery but still attack your position with logic and facts. But someone without these things... should never win an argument because their argument doesn't have enough MERIT. If they cannot separate themselves from their argument and see that it is not them but their argument that is faulty... then that's on them. But you expose their argument and if they manipulate then you expose their agenda and if they make it personal then you expose them. But in each case you should only use the amount of "reasonable force" necessary to bring them down.

A certain person attempted to manipulate me and the rest of the forum because they had a hidden agenda against another person who got banned. Because their intentions were corrupt they eventually got exposed and they turned to harassment and bullying as part of an emotional tantrum. When people do that, just like which children do it, they want you to lose your cool and come down to their level. At that point they just want to feel better by trying to make you feel bad. And so the saying goes "misery loves company". Don't give them that. Don't give in to those negative feelings. Don't get sucked into their vortex of malicious intent. Center yourself. Stay calm. Focus on your ow path. Quiet your thoughts. See through their rage. See the truth they're trying to hide. Maintain control. That is how you win. I was able to do this myself and felt great after the encounter. Why? Because they were never my true enemy. They can only provoke my true enemy which is me. And by keeping my cool I was able to defeat the part of me they were trying to manipulate into becoming like them. But I'm not like them. And the truth is, the more you defeat that part of you the easier it gets until there is no longer any real temptation. In that moment, I had fun with it. I knew what I COULD have said but I didn't say anything that had no strategic value because I wasn't interested in causing that person hurt or injury but rather provoking them to THINK. And often a person is only able to do this effectively once they're back in control of their emotions. I don't think they learned from it, honestly. However, that's okay. Maybe later on they'll come to a deeper realization.

And understand you should not be in that position, interacting with another "Jedi". That's simply not Jedi conduct. I don't care who says otherwise.

What does our interaction in a previous thread have to do with the current topic?

Whether or not you agree with my claims to be following a grey path, does not make it any less legitimate.

You seem to have an inability to let go of grudges and need for vindication. Seek help.

Tmattos93 wrote: I had an instance this past weekend where I witnessed a myriad of cognitive distortions and flawed logic on full display in my twitter feed, a painful example of SJW extremism, essentially saying "fuck ALL cops, they're all GARBAGE and anyone in support of ANY of them is garbage too!"

You may never hear it from that person, but I personally appreciate you trying to engage that person in positive conversation. I can tell you where that anger is coming from but you and I could have a different conversation because I already know where you're coming from and so there is more of an understanding and ability to relate that's already in place.

Many time periods have revolutionaries. And revolutionaries tend to be zealots. What they don't understand is why other people are not revolutionaries too. So they jump to conclusions. You have to dodge these conclusions in order to have a successful dialogue.

Think of it this way... if someone kills your sibling and someone who doesn't know you or your sibling says "why you mad, bro?" There's a chance you might get offended. And yes, I'm exaggerating in order to match how it sounds in the hearing of the zealous revolutionary mindset. You're saying this person is an SJW extremist but for them, its a black and white issue and it isn't extreme to them. The grey isn't grey because the grey enables the bad cops to stay bad. The grey keeps Rome occupying Israel (in the case of the zealots during the time of Jesus; like Barabbas). When people say they're for good cops or that "ALL LIVES MATTER" that doesn't necessarily help because they're more likely to do nothing in response. Because usually this is a response to the protest... not a response to bad cops. In other words... where were all the good people who support good cops when the bad corrupt cops are being protected by the system? If, and to be clear I'm mimicking his thought process, the system has a majority of good people then how could the corrupt cops be protected? It's kind of like the way the Catholic church protects pedophile priests and sometimes simply moves them to a different diocese. It is, in some ways, an insult to the intelligence of the protesters to treat them as if they haven't considered that not ALL cops are bad. Do you really not think they know that already? Of course they do. But if their message is wishy washy, watered down, and more palatable for you to digest, it wouldn't make you uncomfortable.

And guess what? It's DESIGNED to make you uncomfortable. And it worked because it made you want to talk to him. If he was being completely reasonable you would not have been provoked.

Do I agree with the tactic? Not really. But I understand it. "NOW they want to talk." I can almost hear them say. Maybe you were talking about it before, but the truth is many others weren't. Many others only entered the conversation to defend the police. So while people were getting murdered by the police everything was okay... no talking. A segment of the population was living in fear (OF ALL COPS) because that segment of the population could never tell which cop was corrupt and/or racist and which wasn't when those lights turned on behind them. You don't know which one you're going to get and to many cops ALL black people are bad (but of course they know its not ALL too). But many cops, tend to presume guilt beyond whatever crime they're investigating, depending on the color of the "suspect's" skin. And if there was a break in or car stolen or whatever, even if no one saw anyone, the suspect may be assumed to be "tall black male". Understand, many people fit that description, even myself. But the fact that we say (to the cops) "Black Lives Matter"... simply as a statement of fact to try and get them to stop and consider that black lives ALSO have value and that shooting black suspects when you don't have to shouldn't be tolerated.... when people contradict that statement by saying "ALL lives matter" its like debating the victim on behalf of the victimizer because that's who benefits. And things are less likely to change as long as people defend them. It's just like in the Matrix.

Everyone is potentially an agent.

And even though some want an honest discussion and to have these things explained to them, others really do not. They just want to be anti. And if one side doesn't see legitimacy in the other, conflict is almost inevitable.

Kohadre wrote: What does our interaction in a previous thread have to do with the current topic?

Whether or not you agree with my claims to be following a grey path, does not make it any less legitimate.

You seem to have an inability to let go of grudges and need for vindication. Seek help.

I purposefully didn't mention any names. So the only person bringing up our previous interaction is you.

What I said about grey may apply to you but only if the shoe fits. I said I agreed with it in theory. If you apply it as a means of self-justification then, as I also stated was my opinion, its not legitimate. Guess what? I never said you were not entitled to your own opinion. You do not get to change mine without an argument that has MERIT. You have presented no such argument. You are simply stating a different opinion and trying to denigrate mine simply because YOU feel convicted. I do NOT, I repeat, do NOT need to share your opinion. I do NOT need to validate your personal views and opinions. That's for you to work out, not me. I'm definitely not going to change my mind because someone else says "hey your opinion makes me look bad"; especially when I did not mention their name and it isn't my job,role,goal, or mission in life to protect them from ever feeling bad.

My opinion should not be important enough for you to care enough to complain about it. My opinion shouldn't matter to you. How do you not see this? You don't need to change it or worry about other people seeing it. And therefore you don't need to respond to it. If you are correct then let truth stand for itself. If you want to respond to an opinion that should mean you want to change it because you think you can educate or enlighten me or others. I'm always open to that but you don't provide it. You simply try to push people to share your view because its your view; not because your view is objectively correct. This is just an example that is fortunately and unfortunately, exactly on topic but could not be given specific example without you volunteering yourself as such. Again... I did not volunteer you.

Like I said in my post, the ego wants to be known and is therefore prone to tell the truth.

As far as letting go of a grudge, feel free to ask anyone in charge if I campaigned to get you banned for your behavior. The fact that, even in this post, which is about the very same thing I experienced, I didn't even bring up your name, should have told you that I wasn't doing that. And who were YOU talking about in your post when you said "such as specific membership using smear tactics". Is that not a reference to "someone" else without using that person's name? Seems like I did exactly the same thing you did and yet it is wrong when someone else does it? Hmmm.... indeed.

So now that you've attacked me as being unable to let go of grudges and in need of help... how should I respond? Exactly, as the advice I gave before. Defend your position unless confronted with facts and logic. Expose intent if necessary. Stay in control. See? I win again.

ZealotX wrote:
I purposefully didn't mention any names. So the only person bringing up our previous interaction is you.

What I said about grey may apply to you but only if the shoe fits. I said I agreed with it in theory. If you apply it as a means of self-justification then, as I also stated was my opinion, its not legitimate. Guess what? I never said you were not entitled to your own opinion. You do not get to change mine without an argument that has MERIT. You have presented no such argument. You are simply stating a different opinion and trying to denigrate mine simply because YOU feel convicted. I do NOT, I repeat, do NOT need to share your opinion. I do NOT need to validate your personal views and opinions. That's for you to work out, not me. I'm definitely not going to change my mind because someone else says "hey your opinion makes me look bad"; especially when I did not mention their name and it isn't my job,role,goal, or mission in life to protect them from ever feeling bad.

To my knowledge, I'm the only person within this thread who has openly identified as within a grey path. So by that logic, I would assume you were directly referring to me; unless of course you were referring to another member who also follows a grey path.

We can keep changing words around, but ultimately the content of the message remains the same.

So now that you've attacked me as being unable to let go of grudges and in need of help... how should I respond? Exactly, as the advice I gave before. Defend your position unless confronted with facts and logic. Expose intent if necessary. Stay in control. See? I win again.

Attachment download.jpeg not found