I have this very BAD habit of being concerned about my friends. It can be something as trivial as a common cold. I will keep giving some simple remedies like take some steam etc etc.
The WORST thing is i do not understand it even when friends say "I will take care of myself . I can ".
Is it really bad to be concerned about friends? Especially if the cold forces the friend to leave work half way through and come back home early? I always thought that it is good to care about the near and the dear ones. They will feel wanted and nice. But I guess I should hold myself back and restrain being concerned. At the end of the day each one is capable of taking care of themselves. But isnt it very natural, when some one is ill, and someone is concerned about this person, the person feels nice? Well have got the answer and its a big NO.
But the habit in me of being concerned never understands. Thanks to not understanding i get to hear something like this " I get very uncomfy atleast a part of me does when my friends fuss over me its always the other way around I cover for them they should not need to cover for me". It is a very "nice" way of putting "You shut up. I know how to take care of myself".
Well i have now decided that i am not going to be concerned. Why should i bother if any one is ill, whether there illness aggrevates or reduces? At the end of the day what do i have to lose? Let them suffer. Long live the sufferers!!!!!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
??
How correct is it that you barge some one without letting the person complete what he / she was saying? You dont let the person complete and neither do you let the person give explanation.
Scene:
Person A accusses Person B of being lethargic. This accusation has been going on for too long. Person B tries to explain on number of occasion, but A is NEVER in a mood to listen to explanations. Therefore A always is under own assumptions. At the same time, A is very much at fault. If you want B to do a certain task, then why is it that you have to tell B about it only at the 11th hour. Can B NEVER be intimated about the task well in hand? When this is a task that is decided before hand? How can B be called as lethargic? Remember B also has other tasks in hand that also need to be completed. There are times when these tasks need more attention. A only is of the opinion that the task assigned is the most important task. Why should all the tasks that A assigns are important?
Person C is always in the background and has been a witness to most of such accusations. One fine day C finally decides that A needs to be told that B is not at fault. So the accusations better stop. C with the kind permission of A, starts telling A that B is not at fault. A does not even listen to the complete sentence and starts barging C. Now the whole issue is side lined and A hurls all that is possible at C.
Was C interfering? Remember it was with the permission of A that C did start speaking. Is C at fault? That C was trying to protect B from A? Is it wrong to side the person who is right and stand up against who is inflicting wrath for no reason on some one who is absolutely innocent?
Does C not have a standing as a person? How fair is it that A hurls all the nonsense possible at C, without letting C complete?
Scene:
Person A accusses Person B of being lethargic. This accusation has been going on for too long. Person B tries to explain on number of occasion, but A is NEVER in a mood to listen to explanations. Therefore A always is under own assumptions. At the same time, A is very much at fault. If you want B to do a certain task, then why is it that you have to tell B about it only at the 11th hour. Can B NEVER be intimated about the task well in hand? When this is a task that is decided before hand? How can B be called as lethargic? Remember B also has other tasks in hand that also need to be completed. There are times when these tasks need more attention. A only is of the opinion that the task assigned is the most important task. Why should all the tasks that A assigns are important?
Person C is always in the background and has been a witness to most of such accusations. One fine day C finally decides that A needs to be told that B is not at fault. So the accusations better stop. C with the kind permission of A, starts telling A that B is not at fault. A does not even listen to the complete sentence and starts barging C. Now the whole issue is side lined and A hurls all that is possible at C.
Was C interfering? Remember it was with the permission of A that C did start speaking. Is C at fault? That C was trying to protect B from A? Is it wrong to side the person who is right and stand up against who is inflicting wrath for no reason on some one who is absolutely innocent?
Does C not have a standing as a person? How fair is it that A hurls all the nonsense possible at C, without letting C complete?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
