Wednesday, July 10, 2013

External vs. internal limitations

I try not to let my diagnosis of being a sociopath define me or change me. One of my friends told me, I think wisely, "I wish that you had never heard of the word sociopath, that you just lived your life without knowing that there was a label for what you are." Labels can be very limiting and I wouldn't want to ever be frozen, without making any effort to grow and develop as a person.

One of my favorite stories of not falling prey to percevied limitations involves the filming of the opening shot of Sunset Boulevard:

For the opening shot of William Holden floating face down in the swimming pool, Wilder wanted a shot from below that would show both the body and the police and photographers standing at the pool's edge.

They tried putting the camera in a waterproof case and putting it on the bottom of the pool, but the quality of the shot was not good. Then art director John Meehan had the idea of putting a mirror on the bottom of the pool. That didn't work either because the water created too much distortion. But Meehan reasoned that because cold water distorts less than warm water, if he could chill the water enough, they could manage. Although extremely uncomfortable for actor William Holden, they got the shot.

The thing is that if the artistic choice was up to Meehan, he probably would have never thought to do that shot because it wouldn't have been within the realm of possibilities for him. That's the problem with growing up -- the more we learn about the way the world works, the less original our thoughts. It was only Billy Wilder insisting that the shot be that way that made Meehan even bother to go through all possible solutions -- if only to prove to Wilder that it could not be done. But it could. And it is one of the most iconic images in all of film.

I often wonder what my personal limits are, if any. Mormons have a teaching that the purpose of life is that all things might fulfill the measure of their creation, people, animals, plants, planets, everything. Mormons also believe that God "created every man different from his brother" and that institutions thrive when "when we take advantage of this diversity and encourage each other to develop and use our talents to lift and strengthen." The basic idea is that we are to be our best selves, whatever that self happens to be. But could most people say with absolute certainty that they even know who their best self is? Where is the proper line drawn between realistic and loving self acceptance and a desire to be "good" in one's own opinion versus the opinions of those who love you? Sometimes I think to myself, God must have created me differently to fulfill a different purpose than other people. But could I really be more normal than I think? Could I grow a conscience? Or practice empathy enough to the point where I too can feel what others are feeling? If I self-identify as a sociopath who will always be flawed in certain ways with limited opportunity for change, would that be a self-fulfilling prophecy?


  1. Everybody is flawed in some way. Self improvement is never a bad thing but you can never forget that flaws are integral to life. I am personally of the opinion that most people, empaths or socios, almost never change. So you're hardly unique if you remain the same with limited opportunities for change, you're in the same boat as the empaths you speak of changing into. And in the end wouldn't it just be another mask?

    1. change from what i'm a shapeless

    2. Our changes come when we submit to something outside of our own will. A different consciousness, if you will. Most people carry remnants of parental (and other authority figure) voices in the form of a superego. When people talk about a conscience, this is usually what they are referring to.

      My understanding is that the sociopath has no superego to balance and rein in the competing demands of the ego and the id. That is why guilt is less of an issue.

      Our culture assumes that conscience is a good thing, but I'd argue that in many cases, it's simply an amalgam of the things we were taught make us "good" (therefore safe from annihilation) at a very early age. Some of those things may be useful and prosocial, but many of those early messages contribute to unnecessary neurosis. For example- an obsession with cleanliness. Hygiene is good. 4 hours a day of OCD scrubbing- notsomuch. This primitive conscience has nothing to do with reasoning or choice- just compelling mindless obedience.

      In many ways, the superego contains the map to find the buttons to push within an individual to enslave them. If that is the only thing that makes up a person's conscience, I'd argue that the conscience is something people should outgrow once they are no longer dependent on caregivers to function effectively in the world. The ability to be manipulated is modern man's achilles heel.

      But- there's more to conscience than the primitive drives that are rooted in the superego. That's why I really don't see sociopaths as inherently evil. I see them as morally neutral until they consciously choose what to submit themselves to.

      It's a fallacy to think you can live with no principles. By not choosing, one chooses the path of least resistance which is often a live for today/aimless existence. Sociopaths, like everyone else, have a choice. What principles will they submit themselves to? Will they take the form of organized religion? Or will they take the form of a Nietszche like adherence of conforming all action to one ideal (honesty? kindness? self interest?)

      What makes a person morally effective is not feelings of conscience. It is adherence to a set of self chosen principles. What makes a person good or evil has to do with the quality of the principles decided upon. My understanding of good and evil is incomplete, but my gut tells me that a good place to begin is to evaluate all actions by their potential outcomes. Do they create or destroy? A fledgling conscience can begin from that question.

      Ultimately, a choice must be made. Do I surrender the right to short term gratification in the service of the long term principles I have chosen? Or do I simply drift into meaningless entropy and nihilistic despair? When you choose to submit your present desires to something higher you have a moral compass that I would argue is just as (if not more) legitimate than the overactive superego of the neurotypical "conscience".

    3. "When you choose to submit your present desires to something higher you have a moral compass that I would argue is just as (if not more) legitimate than the overactive superego of the neurotypical "conscience"."

      I don't understand why one would be more legitimate than the other. I think people with "conscience" also have quite a bit of cognitive discussion with their "hardwired" perhaps "superego" or conscience as well. I think overactive superego (if this all exists) is something that is more of a superego perversion than SE itself. A dysfunctional construct. I think it is more often the ego that may hold the map to enslavement. This is the way in. To create pleasure. To control the brain.

      I think you may be right as far as what makes one good or evil. Sociopaths though, are by definition evil aren't they?

    4. I don't believe that anyone is inherently good or evil. We move towards one or the other by the patterns of our choices. But even if we are close to one extreme or the other, we still possess free will. To be human is to have the power to make a choice. To be an animal is to be a victim of biological determinism. I rate a primitive superego to be less valuable than a reasoned set of personal principles because the former causes a knee-jerk reaction that does not engage the will. The latter requires more skill and is more likely to produce action that integrates knowledge of the situation, and is filtered through reason. Animals act on impulse. Humans have a choice. Why not take it?

      As you might've guessed- I am not a big believer in fate. I believe that our physical bodies/minds are only one facet of who we are. The mystery of spirit is what enables our capacity to choose. Do I understand the mechanism? no. Sociopaths have a physical body/mind that is particularly vulnerable to developing antisocial traits after experiencing abuse. But we are overlooking spirit. Why do some people choose evil and others choose good?

      I believe that ME's mind/body and life circumstances may've pointed her in one direction. But her strong will plus the x factor of a spirit that asks questions means that she does not have a predetermined fate. As long as that x factor exists, so does her (and all other sociopaths') capacity to choose good or evil. If you separate out potential scapegoating that presents actual physical danger to identified sociopaths, the identification of sociopath by genetics/brain imaging is a red herring. It's only the first part of the story.

    5. I don't believe in fate either. We are animals. We are arrogant deluded animals perhaps. Animals have choices too. When is the last time you experienced an animals consciousness? How do you know what they experience for sure and what they decided and what they could decide on?

      Do you know or have knowledge of the experience of a person with a "primitive conscience" and its knee jerk responses (isn't this something rare anyway - are all empaths just knee jerkers)? How do you know the knee jerk is from the prim consc. and not something else? Maybe you frame it this way to fit in with a belief system? Maybe they have holistic "damage" or issues and you read it as a superego/conscience thing when really it is a problem rooted elsewhere.

      Is skill a thing that is better in terms of conscience? Does it indeed produce higher quality action based on reason and better knowledge? Says who? What about someone who has both, natural developed conscience as well as sophisticated reason and knowledge conscience applications? Can a persons who has only skill derived conscience ever match someone with both? Can they achieve both? Is it a contest and who cares?

      Smells like sociopath spirit. I mean this is always how they argue.

      I have nothing against me. Whatever is going on there, it is going on.

      You have to be careful in this subject. Sociopaths are always trying to manipulate and control people. They are very skilled at it.

      This reminds me of Jessi arguing that sociopaths are only different than empaths in degree. I think that is totally missing the plot and couldn't be more wrong. IMO.

    6. I can only answer via my own experience.
      Growing up in a fundamentalist religious environment I learned that people who didn't think just like my church did were going to hell. I learned that it was the "right" thing to do to be cruel to gay people so they would turn from their sin. (just one example of a belief I no longer hold). Breaking free of my own primitive conscience was very difficult, because I was the sort of child who desperately wanted to please and be "good". Objectively I had a very strong superego.
      There are benefits to never questioning the early voices that come to represent internalized morality. You agonize less over what is the right thing to two when your view of the world is framed by binary thinking. All you have to do is obey. But if I had stayed in this place there is no doubt I would've been a sitting duck for someone like Hitler. All he would have to do is convince me he was a valid moral authority and I would have handed over all sense of personal responsibility for my actions. Why? Because my job would be simply to obey. I would be safe and righteous. It's more comfortable to feel "good" than face the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
      I rate moral thought that is willing to ask tough questions and explore nuance as superior because it is more likely to produce constructive action.

      I'd be careful saying that sociopaths "always are trying to manipulate and control people". Perhaps it is the dominant motivation, but it is not the only motivation. You (appropriately) called me out on my assumption that animals do not experience consciousness the way human beings do. I have a lot of respect for Temple Grandin (interestingly- she has Aspergers) who wrote "Thinking in Pictures"- to help illuminate her capacity to see things from an animals perspective and improve conditions in slaughterhouses, and other commercial farming operations. Clearly- animals have more going on than most humans can grasp. If that is true- couldn't it also be true that sociopaths could be something other than purely controlling and manipulative?

  2. Sometimes I think to myself, God must have created me differently to fulfill a different purpose than other people.

    Moses was a murderer. Paul led a mob against the early Christians. Jacob was a master manipulator, and David- a man after God's own heart- was a killer and a womanizer. And Sampson was a psychopath if ever there was one!

    But could I really be more normal than I think? Could I grow a conscience? Or practice empathy enough to the point where I too can feel what others are feeling?

    Is empathy really necessary, or even desirable, when one can choose to modify one's behaviours without it?

    I believe you do have a conscience, or you wouldn't be asking that question. It simply isn't susceptible to the twin burdens of guilt and shame. As we both know, that's a double-edged sword.

    If I self-identify as a sociopath who will always be flawed in certain ways with limited opportunity for change, would that be a self-fulfilling prophecy?

    I have asked myself the same question. I think our best hope is in learning how to maximize our strengths, and minimize the ways in which we inflict damage upon others.

    I try to sublimate my aggression. I need outlets, badly. But perhaps I am just excusing myself again. I have a knack for rationalizing my behaviour.

    1. divine purpose
      aren't you special

    2. Not really. As far as what I'm concerned, everyone has a divine purpose.

    3. *as far as I'm concerned.

    4. @Alterego
      Moses murdered 1 man in his young years before his devotion to God and God using him.

      Paul persecuted the Christians BEFORE his conversion.

      David sinned and reaped the carnage of those sins. But do you KNOW that he continued in those sins? NO The story of David shows us that we will pay the price if we commit adultry, murder and neglect our parenting.

    5. Anon 7:27
      You are whacked.

      Hello Mach. Let me introduce myself. I am Bible Anon.

    6. Is everyone impressed with 9:30 AM?

    7. Why is anon 7:27 "whacked"? He or she makes an excellent point, Monica.

      Moses may have only murdered one person, but his chronic anger prevented him from entering promised land. David continued to sin until he died, and even Paul had a thorn in his side that he could not remove. They were not able to fully conquer their sin any more than we can.

      The Bible does not whitewash even its most conspicuous heroes, and right when you suggest that the Scriptures show us what will happen when sin eventually reaches its full measure in us. The only way that we can mitigate that process is through faith, because sin resides in everyone equally, and without exception. That is why the Bible states that it is through faith that we are saved, not through works, "so that no man should boast." It is impossible for any of us to earn our way into the Kingdom, because even our most righteous works as filthy rags before God's unsurpassed holiness.

      Does he love us anyway? Well, do we love our toddlers even they misbehave? Do we praise their attempts at imitating us, even when their "helpful works" are fruitful only in terms of building character? :)

    8. *and you are right when you suggest...

    9. The Bible does not list Samson's failures, not his incredible acts of strength. In Hebrew he is listed among those who "through faith conquered kingdoms and administered justice, whose weakness was turned to strength.'

      This proves that God can use people of faith no matter how perfectly they live their lives.

    10. Sin is when you act against man's intended nature. It leads to a hardening of the heart (Blindness, numbness).

      Sin doesn't involve going against some societal standard.

      God never mentioned anything about the Egyptian that Moses murdered, Moses did it in defense of someone else. God was actually disappointed because Moses beat the rock twice, in anger.

      The rock was symbolic of something, to God.

    11. Where do I begin, Alterego.
      First of all, you mix up the Old and the New Testaments.

      Moses failings were his reason for not entering the Promised Land but you CANNOT draw conclusions that apply to the New Testament Age.

      Bible Anon is like Superman having to redress the many Biblical wrongs of the SW Bible novices.

    12. The Bible does not list Samson's failures, not his incredible acts of strength. In Hebrew he is listed among those who "through faith conquered kingdoms and administered justice, whose weakness was turned to strength.'

      This proves that God can use people of faith no matter how perfectly they live their lives.

      This person is right.

    13. @Bible Anon
      The 7:27 AM and 10:32 AM is from the same person. And you called her/him whacked.

    14. Oops
      Bible Anon made a mistake.

      That is an example of God's forgiveness.

    15. Monica aka "Bible Anon", the Bible lists Sampson's failings, but ultimately focuses upon the triumph of his faith. The OT and NT are one, contiguous message, spanning generations. To artificially divide them does a disservice to the scriptures.

      That Moses did not enter the promised land does not mean he did not enter Paradise. That is not what I was implying. I meant to underscore how God uses even the most wretched sinner who places his faith in him, including psychopaths and syncophants of every variety. The Bible is replete with such examples. I am not a "Biblical novice" that you have been consigned to correct, Monica. As it is, you practice *astrology for profit* in direct contradiction to the bible's specific injunction prohibiting it. I am not one to judge you because you sin differently than I, but dont misrepresent yourself as a fount of Biblical knowledge and wisdom, when even such basic scriptural directives elude you.

      God told Moses to speak to the rock, anon, but Moses struck it in anger, and took personal credit for the water that gushed forth. That was the transgression which ultimately broke the camel's back, so to speak, but it was fuelled by his exasperation and anger, and that incident was but one of several. Anger, according to Jesus, is the root of the sin of murder. We are *all* guilty of breaking the Law. That is why we need God's direct intervention to get out of this wretched, corrupt world alive.

    16. Actually, God told Moses to strike only once, but he struck it twice in his anger.

      >'That was the transgression which
      ultimately broke the camel's back.'

      What, you mean that God kept a little score card about all his 'transgressions'?

      That's just sad. I see that you have a different perspective on who you think God is, so we're bound to disagree about these things.

      I don't know where you get the idea that anger is the root of all murder, because the very first act of murder was done out of envy.

    17. I am not sure where you are getting your information, anon, but I don’t think it is the Bible.

      During the 40 years the Israelites wandered aimlessly in the desert of Sin, God commanded Moses twice to interact with a rock to provide water for the community. In the first incident, God commands Moses to strike a rock. He obeys, and water gushes forth. A second, analogous occurrence is recorded in the Book of Numbers, when the Israelites were complaining about a lack of abundant food and drink, which they "enjoyed" in relative abundance whilst enslaved in Egypt:

      6 Moses and Aaron went from the assembly to the entrance to the tent of meeting and fell facedown, and the glory of the LORD appeared to them. 7 The LORD said to Moses, 8 “Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink.”

      9 So Moses took the staff from the LORD’s presence, just as he commanded him. 10 He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” 11 Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.

      12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”

      Moses deviated from God’s instructions. God was painting a beautiful, prophetic picture of redemption. Jesus is often referred to in the scriptures as the Rock of our salvation, the name above all names, and the only name under which men on earth may be saved:

      1Cor. 10:4 ...all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

      The typological picture was that Jesus would be the source of living water that people need. He alone was going to be the one who could rescue them from death in the wilderness of sin. Jesus was smitten once, and he never needed to be struck again. The death he suffered, he accomplished once for all, on our behalf, when he offered himself up on the cross. Once stricken, our Rock, Jesus Christ, needs only to be ASKED to release His living water for us.

      Moses ruined that picture by speaking rashly (anger and impulsiveness), taking credit for God’s actions (grandiosity and pride), doubting God, deviating from his word (misrepresenting God) and thus, in failing to treat God as holy. This is why Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land.

      What, you mean that God kept a little score card about all his 'transgressions'?

      That's just sad. I see that you have a different perspective on who you think God is, so we're bound to disagree about these things.

      No. I am saying that there are basic laws governing the universe. There is the law of karma, also known as the law of reaping and sowing… and then, there is God’s amazing grace. :)

      God is doing the exact opposite of keeping a score card in Jesus. Because of what he did for us, God removes our sin “as far as the east is removed from the west”. It is all forgiven and covered. But we must come to him on his terms, not our own, for our *own* good. Thankfully, his terms are easy. We need only believe on him, and his son Jesus Christ: anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. He is a shield for those who take refuge in Him, and he will not crush the weakest reed, or put out a flickering candle. He will accept all those who come to him in faith- even faith as small as a grain of mustard.

      At least, that is what I believe, and I think the scriptures support it.

    18. Actually, scripture supports what I have been saying all along.

      'Behold, I will stand before
      thee there upon the rock in
      Horeb; and thou shalt smite
      the rock, and there shall
      come water out of it, that
      the people may drink. And
      Moses did so in the sight of
      the elders of Israel.'

      Guess you missed that part.

      Anyway, you believe in karma, which isn't even biblical. You're mixing and watering down the word to suit your own ends.

    19. Are you serious? I *said* the Bible records *two* similar incidents, one in Exodus 17 (which you just quoted), and the other in Numbers 20. I even explained why. You said God was angry because he asked Moses to strike the rock once, but he did so twice. That is not what happened. In the first occurrence, Moses was obedient, and did exactly as God commanded. In the second event, God asked him to SPEAK over the rock, but instead, he struck it twice- which is what I related originally.

      You are mixing up two similar events which were to paint a prophetic image of Christ. How can the Scriptures "support what you've been saying all along" when what you've been saying is patently incorrect? Lol!

      Karma is just another way of expressing that we reap what we sow. You're clearly just trolling, or incapable of reading a few paragraphs and admitting you're wrong.

    20. I was referring to the two separate events, when I made it clear that Moses was indeed instructed to strike the rock the first time.

      The point was that God did not condemn Moses for his 'murder', like you said above.

      Also, karma is something completely different from anything in that is in scripture. Either you're just being ignorant and stubborn, or it's your intention to mix different doctrines, probably to appeal to some kind of audience. But yeah, enjoy your mixed, watered down doctrine then.

  3. Stop self-identifying as a sociopath and instead as a unique person with no predefined way of acting. See where it takes you. You might surprise yourself. It seems to be helping me...

  4. Why does everyone in your life keep messing with you? What a bunch of jackasses

  5. A while ago, I practiced being sad. That probably sounds funny, but I have very good control over how I feel. Recently I went to a wedding where the bride wrote her own vows. She was crying as she read them, and I nearly cried along with her. At least for me, sociopath was a false label, and I actively reject it. I have the ability to feel, and as I reject sociopathy and embrace empathy, I think those feelings will grow. What I've learned, I won't forget, but in redefinition I think I will live a better, happier life. Empathy and emotions are powerful drivers of behavior, but if I maintain objectivity I should be able to cultivate only the beneficial effects, and smother the detrimental ones.

    1. I don't think it's possible to ever smother the detrimental ones. We all have a dark side. But we can choose whether or not we will let it control us.

    2. I mean the dark side of empathy, which leads to things like mob mentality and makes people easy targets for anyone who knows how to play a crowd.

    3. I find your post strange. You sound like you are repressing yourself and your real feelings for some ideal or standard you have for some reason. Doesn't sound very healthy. If you are worried about mobs, just avoid them. Maybe even if you took every precaution in the world you could still be manilpulated. Or maybe a plane will fall on your head. It is ok to get angry and express uncomfortable feeling and unpleasant emotions. You are not a computer. It is often when we repress and try to control we create so much neurosis. Just because you may get out of control or get uncomfortable, doesn't mean you have to stay there. Sometimes, we just need to release things. And then we can be fresh again without resentments, and with a clear head. Repression bad, awareness better.

    4. I agree with Aspie here, Andy.
      I think you have to tell the truth about what your motivations and drives are and work through them. Repressing them is a shortcut that could backfire in impulsive, destructive action.

    5. I said I would try to smother the detrimental EFFECTS of empathy, not the feelings themselves. Mob mentality and susceptibility to crowd-pleasers requires that one get caught up in a group experience that can lead to subversion of individual will.

      I thought I was clear on that point, or do you think mob mentality is a good thing?

    6. Well you did say you have "great control" over your feelings and that you practiced feeling sad for example as opposed to feeling sad naturally lets say. Apparently you also considered that perhaps you were a sociopath but rejected that because you do have feelings (sociopaths do have feelings) and that you "embrace" empathy. You do sound a little obsessed with mob mentality... just like ME actually. But beyond that, how would you smother the effects of the empathy you embrace? By maintaining objectivity? Sounds like a good story.

  6. You make a common mistake. You limit your definations of yourself to
    how you feel in a particular moment. This is what suicides do. They say
    suicide is a perminate solution to a temparay problem.
    If you have a pressing conern, you think that life is all about that consern.
    Other people have thier own consens, so they think that life is about those
    conserns. Actually, life is much bigger then the petty conserns of any one
    individual. Once your present crisis is over, a new set of conserns will
    replace the old ones. You'll wonder why you ever worried about them.
    Human beings DO have a choice. You may well have sociopathic inclinations
    but YOU choose to act upon them, just as the child of alchoalic parents
    might have an inclination towards alcohalism but exercises constraint.
    In order not to fall into common behaviour patterns you need to practace
    self-observation. That way, you'll be aware of your negative traits, and
    head them off before you can suffer from them.

    1. jail is the perminate solution to a temparay problem

    2. Not all suicides.... there would not have been a Dr. Kevorkian.

    3. I don't mean to be petty but you have a lot of spelling mistakes in your post.

      I think you make a good point however it is a very difficult thing for people to self observe. Even when we do that, we do that in the context of our concerns, our moods, our "temporary" mental states.

      To change things, to restrict ourselves, to change our behaviour, requires not just observation, but also discipline. You need the discipline to break the habits, to change the established pathways in the brain. But no observation will make a blind person see, at least directly.

      To be able to do this is rare I think. It is not just realize you have a choice and just do this. Believing this i think leaves you vulnerable to those who would exploit it.

  7. Theme for All of us with Narc Parents



  8. "I try not to let my diagnosis of being a sociopath define me or change me. One of my friends told me, I think wisely, "I wish that you had never heard of the word sociopath, that you just lived your life without knowing that there was a label for what you are."


    Come on. I haven't been keeping up, but is the story now that some friend on a porch on some starry night suggested to ME, a sociopathic lawyer people ruiner (but only in the sense that she bested you in bobbing for apples, not like in the definition of ruin) might be a sociopath and that led ME on this great quest of psychopathic self discovery?

    Puhleeze. Aren't sociopaths self aware pretty early on? I think i read that here. Wouldn't college going lawyers come upon it in abnormal psyche in any case, no pun intended?

    Oh poor ME. She could have kept ruining people and letting animals drown or whatever is in the book but no, someone had to tell her she was an S and then she had to do a blog and a book... oh my god, poor ME.

    Is it me or does the very little i have seen of ME in her media appearances rightly seem like it is a different person? I don't hear me in the little i have heard and seen of this woman lawyer me.

    That's a strange religion isn't it?

    Sociopaths like to talk a lot.

    1. aspie-

      does everything have to be a worst case scenario?
      what would happen if you considered ME might want to stop sabotaging her personal life and that is why she is self disclosing? maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. But if you can only see the worst in anyone (downgrading good actions because of a cynical assumption of the worst possible motives) then there is no space for ME to have free will and make her own path.

      Make no mistake. I'm not ME's apologist. But I'd like to see this play out...

    2. I make my comments as I do because that's just the way some of these things strike me. I'm just a commenter. I would never want to take away ME's right to expression or anything like that. I like ME and this blog and many of the people here. I wish everyone well. I'm sure no matter what we say this will play out. Cheers.

  9. here is a beautiful song:


    1. thank you aspie, it is quite beautiful. I used to hear it in a commercial when i was a child, and the commercial was so extremely sad to me that it is hard to listen to now without my heart hurting. I dont remember the subject of the commercial, but somehow I think it was a psa (public service announcement) type.

  10. Why do sociopaths ALWAYS come back?

  11. It was so refreshing reading the comments. I could see the intelligence shining through from the participants. The debate was civil, respectful and really mature. There were no attention seekers and that to me made all the difference. It is through intelligent dialogue like that people can come and learn something and even find help.

    Well done! Participants

  12. Thanks for sharing the information. It is very useful for my future. keep sharing. A good blog.
    messenger indir | messenger indir | messenger | messenger dowload | messenger indir | messenger | messenger indir | messenger download


Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies


Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.