ForumGarden

When I was a kid, there was a bunch of us, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and all living in the area around Grandpa's family farmstead.

We siblings and cousins were completely dysfunctional as family. Bickering, all the time. Someone would pipe up with a comment, another would take exception for one reason or another, and everyone would jump into the fray, taking a side. The sniping and insults would fly, until all ran out of things to say, or the parents came to break it up, and the crowd would disperse with a huff.

All would be quite until the next the next flare.

Then, around '55 or '56, our folks found jobs or opportunities in various places. Dad got a job in LA, Uncle Armon was offered a station in Columbus, Uncle Harvey a new job in Minnesota, Jean went to France, and Uncle Patrice moved back to Louisiana.

No more bickering and fighting for us, we were all in new neighborhoods, meeting new kids, and minding our manners.

FG brings back those fond memories.

I LIKE it here.

LarsMac;1390558 wrote: When I was a kid, there was a bunch of us, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and all living in the area around Grandpa's family farmstead.

We siblings and cousins were completely dysfunctional as family. Bickering, all the time. Someone would pipe up with a comment, another would take exception for one reason or another, and everyone would jump into the fray, taking a side. The sniping and insults would fly, until all ran out of things to say, or the parents came to break it up, and the crowd would disperse with a huff.

All would be quite until the next the next flare.

Then, around '55 or '56, our folks found jobs or opportunities in various places. Dad got a job in LA, Uncle Armon was offered a station in Columbus, Uncle Harvey a new job in Minnesota, Jean went to France, and Uncle Patrice moved back to Louisiana.

No more bickering and fighting for us, we were all in new neighborhoods, meeting new kids, and minding our manners.

FG brings back those fond memories.

I LIKE it here.


You sure the mayor had nothing to do with this?

So we are all dysfunctional ?











(That should make em all kick off)

Bruv;1390571 wrote: So we are all dysfunctional ?











(That should make em all kick off)


Isn't that why they invented Viagra?

Bruv;1390571 wrote: So we are all dysfunctional ?


No, not all.

We are only partly dysfunctional.

Bruv;1390571 wrote: So we are all dysfunctional ?
LarsMac;1390598 wrote: No, not all.

We are only partly dysfunctional.
"We" as a whole or as individuals?

Ahso!;1390603 wrote: "We" as a whole or as individuals?


Well,..., Yes.

LarsMac;1390558 wrote: When I was a kid, there was a bunch of us, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and all living in the area around Grandpa's family farmstead.

We siblings and cousins were completely dysfunctional as family. Bickering, all the time. Someone would pipe up with a comment, another would take exception for one reason or another, and everyone would jump into the fray, taking a side. The sniping and insults would fly, until all ran out of things to say, or the parents came to break it up, and the crowd would disperse with a huff.

All would be quite until the next the next flare.

Then, around '55 or '56, our folks found jobs or opportunities in various places. Dad got a job in LA, Uncle Armon was offered a station in Columbus, Uncle Harvey a new job in Minnesota, Jean went to France, and Uncle Patrice moved back to Louisiana.

No more bickering and fighting for us, we were all in new neighborhoods, meeting new kids, and minding our manners.

FG brings back those fond memories.

I LIKE it here.Relationships are not always easy to negotiate, in fact most long term successful, depending how we define success in this context, are difficult to negotiate.

The dysfunction, I think, comes from having to stumble through the human relationship process because it's the one lesson, in most cases, that is never taught to us in a sensible way.

LarsMac;1390598 wrote: We are only partly dysfunctional.
Bah. Speak for yourself.

LarsMac;1390605 wrote: Well,..., Yes.No, you don't get away that easily, my friend.

You have to define "partly". Is each member partly dysfunctional or is the group partly dysfunctional? There's a difference. If the latter is what you meant, things can get hairy.

spot;1390608 wrote: Bah. Speak for yourself.He might be, we're in the process of determining that.

Ahso!;1390609 wrote: No, you don't get away that easily, my friend.

You have to define "partly". Is each member partly dysfunctional or is the group partly dysfunctional? There's a difference. If the latter is what you meant, things can get hairy.


OK, if you want to be serious about it.

Yes, many here are a tad dysfunctional. Not entirely in a bad way.

As you pointed out, relationships are really about defining boundaries and learning about each other.

We all have our moments, here.

We get our nose out of joint over what someone says, often in jest, and we fire back something that may not be kind. Soon you have a sniping contests.

This is all quite normal, but to the observer, it might seem dysfunctional.

Truthfully it's usually perfectly harmless. But when feelings really get hurt, some folks just shut down and go away. That is really where the dysfunction lies.



Even as adults, when me (My siblings and cousins) get together, we have the same kinds of events. A lot of jibes and jokes on each other, the occasional hurt feelings, a little brawl, and move on.

FG is a lot like that.

Who isn't dysfunctional in some manner? That's a rhetorical question, Ahso.

LarsMac;1390673 wrote: OK, if you want to be serious about it.Who says I'm being serious?

Ahso!;1390676 wrote: Who says I'm being serious?


Not me.

Ahso!;1390676 wrote: Who says I'm being serious?...But we can be.

I see the word "dysfunction" similar to the word "disorder". In order for either word to have merit in the context of relationships whether they be of a social nature or that of a couple or family, there has to be a perfect model in which we can conform to. That model doesn't exist among people and is most likely at least one reason gods are created. Who (other than snooze (kidding, snoozie)) would be arrogant enough to think of themselves or their family as the perfect model?

LarsMac;1390673 wrote:



This is all quite normal, but to the observer, it might seem dysfunctional.

Truthfully it's usually perfectly harmless. But when feelings really get hurt, some folks just shut down and go away. That is really where the dysfunction lies.If any observers choose to view interactions between individuals as either dysfunctional or normal, that's their problem and not that of the observed. Though it would be good to have the opportunity to point that out to them so they can lift that heavy burden of being judgmental.

LarsMac;1390673 wrote: OK, if you want to be serious about it.

Yes, many here are a tad dysfunctional. Not entirely in a bad way.

As you pointed out, relationships are really about defining boundaries and learning about each other.

We all have our moments, here.

We get our nose out of joint over what someone says, often in jest, and we fire back something that may not be kind. Soon you have a sniping contests.

This is all quite normal, but to the observer, it might seem dysfunctional.

Truthfully it's usually perfectly harmless. But when feelings really get hurt, some folks just shut down and go away. That is really where the dysfunction lies.



Even as adults, when me (My siblings and cousins) get together, we have the same kinds of events. A lot of jibes and jokes on each other, the occasional hurt feelings, a little brawl, and move on.

FG is a lot like that.


The next time you have a family function I want an invite.

Ahso!;1390680 wrote: If any observers choose to view interactions between individuals as either dysfunctional or normal, that's their problem and not that of the observed. Though it would be good to have the opportunity to point that out to them so they can lift that heavy burden of being judgmental.


Do you have any qualifications In physco analysis and relationships ?

oscar;1390703 wrote: Do you have any qualifications In physco analysis and relationships ?You mean psycho analysis?

Where in my post do you see me psycho analyzing anyone?

You're addressing the wrong poster.

As for relationship qualifications: do we need certain qualifications to have relationships and understand the dynamics of them?

Ahso!;1390706 wrote: As for relationship qualifications: do we need certain qualifications to have relationships and understand the dynamics of them?


You're assuming I'm attacking you.

oscar;1390708 wrote: You're assuming I'm attacking you.That's an odd statement; similar to psycho analysis.

If you meant to ask rather than assert: the answer is no, not at all. Though I'm wondering what it is you're getting at.

Where have I attempted to psycho analyze anyone?

As for relationship qualifications: do we need certain qualifications to have relationships and understand the dynamics of them?

I think being a human being helps .....but that's just speculation on my part .



Why is psychoanalysis a lot quicker for men than for women?

When it's time to go back to his childhood, he's already there.

Here's some expert advice on relationships....

The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"

I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern Physics and offer my thesis, dedicated to my wife, who anchors me in reality.

In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.

These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a wave.

The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector direction of its momentum at the same time.

This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger. Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the "wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the elements.

The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.

From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.

Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and wrong until he comes out of the woods.

In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon determines the outcome.

Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.


and just you remember that !!!

LarsMac;1390558 wrote: When I was a kid, there was a bunch of us, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and all living in the area around Grandpa's family farmstead.

We siblings and cousins were completely dysfunctional as family. Bickering, all the time. Someone would pipe up with a comment, another would take exception for one reason or another, and everyone would jump into the fray, taking a side. The sniping and insults would fly, until all ran out of things to say, or the parents came to break it up, and the crowd would disperse with a huff.

All would be quite until the next the next flare.

Then, around '55 or '56, our folks found jobs or opportunities in various places. Dad got a job in LA, Uncle Armon was offered a station in Columbus, Uncle Harvey a new job in Minnesota, Jean went to France, and Uncle Patrice moved back to Louisiana.

No more bickering and fighting for us, we were all in new neighborhoods, meeting new kids, and minding our manners.

FG brings back those fond memories.

I LIKE it here.


FG was before a Gahendra until the crocodile Huhu bit his leg.

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.riiti.com/587/gajendra_moksh ... hants_king

rajakrsna;1390714 wrote: FG was before a Gahendra until the crocodile Huhu bit his leg.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Gajendra Moksha : The Story of Elephant’s King


FG before was a Haha Garden until the crocodile Huhu with his colored lie bit the elephant`s leg. There was fight & for thousands of years Gahendra struggled to free his leg from Huhu`s bite. Since the fight took place in the water, Gahendra`s strength diminished while Huhu became stronger & stronger. Thinking he`d die Gahendra remembered the Lord & with his last ounce of strength the elephant took from on the water a lotus flower & offered the flower with a prayer to Lord Vishnu. With one blink of the eye the Master of the Senses-Ajita riding on the back of Garuda suddenly appeared from the sky & with one throw severed Huhu the crocodile`s neck with his sudarshana chakra disc. That was how Vishnu in the form of Ajita, the Master of the Senses was able to free Gahendra-the elephant`s leg from Huhu`s bite ( colored lie ).

By the way, Gahendra can also be referred to as a carbine.

http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/ ... 4AwuZn9m_g

fuzzywuzzy;1390710 wrote: I think being a human being helps .....but that's just speculation on my part .It could be that other species' are better at relationships than we are. They're not preoccupied with sanctimony and they don't complain that much.

I've learned that relationships are much better when you avoid fanning the flames and just enjoy the warmth.

The thing about dynamic and edgy relationships is the sex is usually better, which, on a certain level assumes sex is the driving force behind the formation of the relationship. They're more volatile because they're usually fickle but boy oh boy can the ride be fun - and dangerous.

Ahso!;1390744 wrote: The thing about dynamic and edgy relationships is the sex is usually better, which, on a certain level assumes sex is the driving force behind the formation of the relationship. They're more volatile because they're usually fickle but boy oh boy can the ride be fun - and dangerous.


I told ya everything eventually boils down to sex.