Anger and the Inverse of the Golden Rule

Hi Popcorn,

Interesting Post. I saw several things I can comment upon.
First you say

On the other hand, morality I was suggesting should be objective. We discussed how it is difficult to define morality (whereas laws are pretty easily defined, just continually changing and can vary greatly in one place compared to another). But I was thinking that morality - this is the basics of right and wrong - would ideally be set with a collection of universal truths. This means that what we know as right and wrong could be accepted by all.

Have you been to University yet? If Confucius could not figure out a Way to Objectify Morality to some set of Basic Statements, and if Zarathustra could not figure out a Way to Objectify Morality to some set of Basic Statements, and if Every Philosopher since Pythagoras could not figure out a Way to Objectify Morality to some set of Basic Statements, then how could you possibly think that some Modern Committee could Whip It Out and say That Wasn’t So Hard? As Confucius had said, against the Legalism which you are Advocating all while you are pretending you are For Morality, that any Limited Finite Formula for Righteousness is not Large Enough to Contain Its Reality. Please, stop and think about these Distinctions that you should already be aware of. By now you should no longer be confusing Legalism with Morality. You may insist upon Legalism, and that is fine, but, if so, then lets close that subject. Oh, and the Black Flag Terrorists ALSO believe in Legalism. They Think THEY have found that Formula you are seeking. And how would YOU Enforce YOUR Moral Code? Laws Rest upon Officially Sanctioned Violence and Duress. Not All Legalists are as Bad as the Black Flaggers, but they are all on the Same Continuum.
Next

That is where we once again go back to God, because He is the only constant that we know - everything else has an appointed time.

Einstein once held a Confab with all his Buddy Physicists and Scientists and told them they should stop antagonizing Religious People by claiming there is no God. Just talk of God in Terms of being the Greatest and Highest Power, the Entity that Sustains the Universe, blah, blah, blah. And Einstein was wise in his advice, a His Formula appeased nearly everybody. You can still find people out there quoting Einstein about how much he believes in God. But I forget who it was who noticed an important omission – that of Providentiality – that God actively Cares for the World and Cares for the People in it. His observation was that “A God who is not Providential is just as good as No God At All”. What Einstein and his Fellows were describing was just the Ongoing Collection of Mechanical Laws which govern form and motion. It is the God of your Little Atoms and Big Galaxies. We can object to This View, but it is actually quite Correct. You see, the Latest and Best Definitions of God Make Him, or rather IT, Transcendental. God is Pure Unconditioned Love, Light, Bliss and is above being affected by Anything Below. When a Mystic claims to have had the Experience of God, THAT is what he is speaking about. The Experience is Ineffable. If somebody says they Experienced God and says that God Said This or That, you can dismiss it out of hand, assuming that God is Not That Low a Being.

The Ancients Knew all of this and so they made it clear that Any Spiritual Entity that was either Providential or Demonic was clearly Under the Level of God. They spoke of Angels or Demons, or Demigods. The Greeks spoke of their “Gods”, but their “Gods” were what the more Sophisticated Religions would have identified as Angels or Demons or Demigods.

What some of the Less Developed and Unsophisticated Religions believe is that God is probably either a Very Highly Placed Angel, such as Michael (the Zoroastrians called Him Mithra) or Lucifer or Satan who is poses as ‘God’ but on the Evil Side, and, yes, some people CANNOT tell the difference. For instance, the “God” of Amoral Election or Karmic Privilege or the Notion that If Anything Exists then it Exists because God has Willed it So whether or not it seems Good or Bad, well, that “God” is Satan, and he probably has more Followers than Michael (Mithra) who has a stricter sense of Morality.

And here you must realize that the Definition of God as An All Powerful Creator of Everything is inherently Evil. Once you have God being the Creator of Evil, and turn him into the Ultimate Support of Evil (if God is All Powerful He could end Evil with a Snap of his Fingers, couldn’t he, and so He is Evil, or a Partner in Evil for NOT shutting down what is In His Power to stop). The Zoroastrians insisted upon this Caution against an Allmighty God with both the Greeks and the Semites but both Groups were heavily Invested in the Notion that UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES God would smile on Evil just as long as Evil was useful to some Favoured Person or Nation, particularly Themselves. We can see this as the Semites and the Greeks being Seduced by the Wiles of Evil. Some People resist Temptation, and other don’t. They make the Temptation their Preferred Religion.

Yes, we have instances of Artists and lower grade Theologians of Zoroastrianism giving their Transcendental God, Ahura Mazda (later modified to Ohrmaz, or something like that) almost physical attributes and put Him in connection with People, that is, making their God Providential and not Transcendental. But for the Most Part they Left Providentiality in the Hands of the Higher Angels, such as Mithra. Also, surprisingly, a Great Many Mid Level Angels – the Messengers and Protectors and the Guardian Angels and such of the Spiritual Realm appear to us as Female. So if you ever begin to have Spiritual Dreams, keep in mind that while there are Wise Old Men imparting Wisdom, for the Most Part the Angels showing you the Way Forward will be in the guise of Women – from Young Girls to Old Crones. When a Woman looks you in the eye in a dream and tells you something, or when a little girl takes you by the hand and pulls you along, or an Old Lady Points out into the Distance, then Realize that You are having a Big Dream, and so make your Choices carefully, but Certainly go along with what those Girls seem to trying to Tell you or Show you.
Next, about Fatima

Just seeing as we mentioned science, I hope you don't mind that I suggest a scientific explanation for this. Maybe it was a comet that was coming towards Earth but either shot around it or burned up in the atmosphere?

Now you need to go back and check out what People witnessed in the preceding months before the Big October. I thought you read about this? Approaching the Big October Event there were smaller crowds who gathered ( you see, the Children had indiscretely let out the Dates of the Planned Appearances) . Indeed the reason that Such a Large October crowd gathered was because of the Word of Mouth about the earlier occurrences. Now, the People could not hear what Our Lady was telling little Lucy, but they Could see a Shower of Mysterious White Flakes (if I remember exactly) descending from the Sky and falling about them. It’s been awhile since I read about it, BUT 75,000 People didn’t show up to wait all night in a Cold Driving Rain for nothing. There had Already Been Manifestations observable by people other than the Children. I suppose you won’t know many of the details unless you make it a point to study it longer than an hour or two.

Now this awkward idea

. But just as I said before, we aren't going to have any new messengers.

Several of the Major Religions have declared it their Doctrine that All Divine Revelation has come to an End. This makes it much easier to declare against anything New as necessarily Heretical, and so the Priests can Guard their Turf and their Privileges. But it Flies in the Face of Any Notion that Heaven is Providential. To say that there will be No New Messengers is to Say that Heaven has Abandoned us. What good is Religion if Heaven has turned its back on us. What is most strikingly surprising is that a seemingly nice and moral person like yourself would advocate such a notion. Yes, I did mention that some of the Religions hold that idea as Doctrine and One Religion Especially would come down Swift and Hard on any of its Members dissenting from that view, and this is why a Great many people of that Religion simply keep their mouths shut about it. No one gets in trouble for what they don’t say. But you speak of God being Effectively Dead as though it is a Wonderful Idea. But doesn’t it seem Unfair that Satan is still alive and well and the World is Pock Marked with his Messengers, to speak metaphorically, of course.

Next

And I certainly don't think there will be any normal people performing any miracles anytime soon.

Technically no Person performs Miracles. Angels, the Agency of Heaven, perform the Miracles, providing Inspiration and the Phenomena simultaneously – the Angel inspires the Man to say “Look at This” and then, Voila, the Miracle Happens . So it has always been “normal people” who have been seen and understood as performing Miracles. The most detailed Life of a Miracle Working Saint that I have read of was Saint Francis of Paola. He started out in Southern Italy, down near the Tip of the Boot. Later the Pope talked him into being an Envoy to the King of France. There are a great number of well documented stories. Now, yes, one can be sceptical of the Stories, BUT in just a few scan Years he had to build and extended his Franchise of Monasteries to contain crowds of New Applicants for his Brand New Order that was perhaps the most Stringent and Ascetic in all of Europe. These Acolytes were attracted by SOMETHING . I believe that book is still in print.

Well, that should be enough for now.

Hi Leo,

Have you been to University yet? If Confucius could not figure out a Way to Objectify Morality to some set of Basic Statements, .... then how could you possibly think that some Modern Committee could Whip It Out and say That Wasn’t So Hard? Confucius had said, against the Legalism which you are Advocating all while you are pretending you are For Morality, that any Limited Finite Formula for Righteousness is not Large Enough to Contain Its Reality. Please, stop and think about these Distinctions that you should already be aware of. By now you should no longer be confusing Legalism with Morality.

Yes, I have been to university, but I did not study anything to do with philosophy. There was just one module that related to ethics - Medical Ethics and Regulatory Affairs - but that was a practical module looking at ethics that are implemented in the Medical Science and Technology field. Because of my background, perhaps my understanding is very heavily practical. When I used the term "laws" I was simply referring to the rules and regulations outlined by a government which must be adhered to by the citizens of the country. (We did actually have a law module but I didn't choose it). The definition of 'law' being:
"The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties"

Then when I referred to 'morality' I was referring to this (a very simplified definition):
"Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

However, you are referring to "legalism", which is a somewhat different term altogether:
"It is a term Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations for achieving both salvation and spiritual growth. Legalists believe in and demand a strict literal adherence to rules and regulations."

I also found this, which I found interesting:
"Legalism in ancient China was a philosophical belief that human beings are more inclined to do wrong than right because they are motivated entirely by self interest."

But anyway, because I am quite a simple-minded person, if you do not mind, I would rather stick with the more simple terms that I know of - morailty and law, not legalism. Now, from my understanding of these two terms, the way I see it is that one can have a code of morality with which they define their right/wrong acts (maybe they are strong supporters of Consequentialism, or Utilitarianism) and then one could also have, or live in a country with a set of laws. Quite often morality is considered a personal thing - rooted in beliefs usually - while laws are seen as secular and relating to crime or civil disputes (the two types of law: Criminal Law and Civil Law). But of course law has to have some basis - and this is where the philosophy of law comes into play, known as jurisprudence. Apparently the two questions to ask are: 1) What is law? And 2) What should law be? So there are 'natural lawyers' who "argue that law reflects essentially moral and unchangeable laws of nature". I suppose I could say from my own ideas of law I must fall into the same school of thought as these 'natural lawyers'. This is what I had been saying earlier - I was suggesting that laws should be based on the moral principles that, once defined, should be unchangeable. We know that from our own societies, there are certain actions that are considered wholly wrong, and so the law restricts this, for example, the universally accepted idea that killing is wrong. Immanuel Kant even "believed a moral imperative requires laws "be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature"". You said how can a modern committee "whip it out" and so easily define moral principles - you missed what I said before - I joked about giving this to G20 to discuss and suggested that it would be a right mess. Instead I suggested that it should be defined by the Creator.

Having said all of this, I would just like to emphasise that these are my own views and I am just voicing them here in this friendly discussion that we are having. In no way am I trying to force you to accept my views and I do not expect anything more than for us to openly discuss our ideas and perhaps learn something along the way.

Einstein once held a Confab with all his Buddy Physicists and Scientists and told them they should stop antagonizing Religious People by claiming there is no God.

Now this is where I will quietly back down and let things be. Thank you for expressing your opinions on God. I have shared my opinions and told you my personal thoughts on what makes me think. I already said that I am not the best at explaining and debating, and so I do not think I could do any more to explain my beliefs and sadly cannot do them justice. But perhaps we can at least better understand each other and have had a lot of food for thought. Each to their own beliefs.

Also, surprisingly, a Great Many Mid Level Angels – the Messengers and Protectors and the Guardian Angels and such of the Spiritual Realm appear to us as Female. So if you ever begin to have Spiritual Dreams, keep in mind that while there are Wise Old Men imparting Wisdom, for the Most Part the Angels showing you the Way Forward will be in the guise of Women – from Young Girls to Old Crones.

I found this very interesting, and so I just wanted to comment on it. Please understand these are just my views, based on what I have been taught, and I am expressing them here. I have only ever heard of angels coming in male form if they take a human shape - either in dreams or in real life. This is undisputed. But I know other people believe differently, so again, each to their own.

Now, the People could not hear what Our Lady was telling little Lucy, but they Could see a Shower of Mysterious White Flakes (if I remember exactly) descending from the Sky and falling about them... I suppose you won’t know many of the details unless you make it a point to study it longer than an hour or two.

Just based on that additional piece of information that you provided we could say that the "mysterious white flakes" were some sort of ash or debris falling from the comet...? Anyway, you are right, I have not spent much time reading up on it, so I will say no more.

Several of the Major Religions have declared it their Doctrine that All Divine Revelation has come to an End. This makes it much easier to declare against anything New as necessarily Heretical, and so the Priests can Guard their Turf and their Privileges. But it Flies in the Face of Any Notion that Heaven is Providential. To say that there will be No New Messengers is to Say that Heaven has Abandoned us. What good is Religion if Heaven has turned its back on us... But you speak of God being Effectively Dead as though it is a Wonderful Idea.

Now this is where I think what we said before crops up again - people's interpretations of religion cannot often be trusted because of their own self-interests. We would hope that religious leaders would be selfless and stay true to the teachings of the religion, but this is not always the case. We can only try to avoid these individuals in the hopes that we can remain on the true path. But how does saying that there will be no new messengers lead onto saying "Heaven has abandoned us"? We have already been provided guidance - holy scriptures - and this is what we have been graced with so it is this we should follow. God cannot be 'dead' - that is not possible from what little we understand of 'death' - and if that were the case then the entire universe which he is sustaining would be destroyed!

If you do not mind, I would like to mention one other belief that seems relevant here. We have been told that there will be a time when an evil person will rise to power and he will have certain 'powers' which he uses to claim divinity (I think some refer to him as the 'Anti-Christ'?). Then there will come Jesus, who will defeat him and remind everyone of God (of the one God, not himself, because he is not God). This will be a return of one messenger, but not a 'new' messenger. That is just what I am taught and I am sharing it here. I hope it does not offend you nor anyone else (if there should be anyone reading this conversation - if they have followed it from the beginning then wow, well done for persevering and making it all the way here!)

Technically no Person performs Miracles. Angels, the Agency of Heaven, perform the Miracles, providing Inspiration and the Phenomena simultaneously – the Angel inspires the Man to say “Look at This” and then, Voila, the Miracle Happens . So it has always been “normal people” who have been seen and understood as performing Miracles.

You are right! I am sorry for the statement that I made. I completely misunderstood and I now realise it was stupid to say "normal people won't perform miracles". It is always "normal people", because these people do not have powers themselves - they are endowed with abilities or are able to perform a miraculous act through divine inspiration. Please allow me to retract my statement and we will leave it at that!

Dear Popcorn,

I told you I had thoroughly went over the Distinction between Legalism and Morality, and that I did not want to hear any of your Opinions on it until you've taken the Time and Will to completely digest what I had already told you. And now you even pull out Little Authority Tweets from a few Pages you searched up in a minute or two -- simplistic statements of the most general nature, and for why? To show me WHY you feel I am misleading you because my in-detailed analysis doesn't equate word for word with the simplistic over-generalized definition from some publishing house hack. I thought you thought more of me then that. Or maybe you simply know to little to judge. You are like a man spitting out fine wine because he is used to the taste of domestic beer.

Again, I am not writing to you to Learn from a virtual child. As you said, you Have no Background in any of this. And it seems you have read very little. You should be listening and not lecturing.

Everything in this post is redundant from before, or it simply shows you paid little attention to what I have been telling you ( and I did a proof read and edit. I did not 'stutter') . Your responses show that you only SKIMMED what I wrote you. You disregard major details. You are not even giving me your full attention.

I consider all these above Topics Closed. I am not benefiting from it because you apparently have so little to offer, not because you are inherently limited, but simply you have not even begun a serious Liberal Arts Education (which doesn't require Schooling, if you know what to read). And while you could benefit from Me, you seem not very interested in doing so. As I advise So Many People here on the Anger Forum, if you are in a Relationship, and this is a kind of mini-relationship, you should Bail out when you see it Trending downward, becoming more trouble than it is Worth. Free yourself up to Find somebody who is better, and if nobody is Found, then being Alone is so much better than being bothered.

This message is for anyone reading this thread.

If you have read the entire thing from beginning to end then wow! Well done for getting through the whole thing! Or you may have just come here, to the end.

Either way, I would just like to suggest to you that you do not just give up on your relationships when things turn sour (as suggested above). You shouldn’t just turn tail and leave in a huff. I have written a post about some tips on how to let go of hurt when things turn sour between you and a friend. You will find it here:

viewtopic.php?t=105358

However, that is only at the very end, because with any relationship - be it a friendship, family ties or a romantic partner - there will most likely be a problem or argument at some point along the way. Every relationship requires effort, but that must be from both parties. There will be high and low times, but in order to get through the low times you must learn how to deal with the other person. The main points to consider are:

1) Compromise - You have things that you want/need, but you must consider what the other person wants/needs and cater for them too. Meet in the middle.

2) Acceptance - Allow other people to have their own opinions and let them speak for themselves. Accept their ideas and thoughts, but if you do disagree tell them gently. But then move on, and do not force them to have the same opinions as yourself (unless it is something that can’t be compromised on…).

3) Apologise - Make sure you always apologise for your mistakes as soon as possible - do not let hurt and anger build up. If you did not intend to hurt someone, but they misinterpreted your actions, then let them know so as to clear the air.

4) Communication - This is vital. If you feel like you have been wronged speak about it with them and if they did not intend to cause hurt they will apologise. Do not let suspicions become a reason for you to be angry - speak directly to the other party to be sure.

These are just some of my thoughts. I hope this can help someone, because some of the most beautiful relationships are the ones that can stand firm even through the storms...

Your list left out Three Correlative Points:

1) Begging

2) Crawling

3) Crying

Dear Leo,

How old are you? I only ask because if you are an adult and you consider throwing tantrums - begging, crawling and crying - as conducive to a healthy relationship, you may want to consider asking for some help on the psychology forum…

popcorn123 wrote:Dear Leo,

How old are you? I only ask because if you are an adult and you consider throwing tantrums - begging, crawling and crying - as conducive to a healthy relationship, you may want to consider asking for some help on the psychology forum…

Oh, now we see you're really all Tooth and Claw. I knew it was a Good Idea to distance myself from you. Thanks for the Vindication.

But just incase you WEREN'T being vicious and are just Slow on the Uptake, my Begging Crawling Crying remarks were suggestive of the Typical Kind of People who Want to Mend Dysfunctional Relationships, that is the Dependent and Needy People. In every Relationship there is the Person with the Power, and the Person who is only Tolerated. For instance Pretty Girls have their Pick. Rich and Famous men have their Pick. You can tell in a Relationship fairly quickly who the One with the Power is. that is the One who makes all the Ground Rules, and Ultimatums. The Person with the Power is always somewhat Conscious that He or She can do Better and doesn't need the Present Relationship. the Person with Power can Walk away without a Second Thought. But the Lesser Person, who is not Tolerated Anymore, well, that person Can be Brave and walk away saying "C'est La Vie It was Good While It Lasted". Or they can Insist that the Other Should have Stayed to "WORK" on the Relationship. Which Effectively is "BEGGING, CRAWLING, and CRYING.

I rather didn't think that ANYBODY would have any trouble understanding what I meant, but one of the Reasons I found you difficult was that everything had to be explained two or three times, and still you wouldn't GET IT.

Now, MORE about Relationships, since the Subject Came Up. The Large Part of the Quality of our Lives is decided by our Relationships. We are born with Relationships with our Family, no matter the Quality of that Family and we are largely stuck with them. BUT Relationships with Friends are Optional and of our own Choosing.

Some People make friends early in Life and keep with them, or rather, are held down by them.

More Discerning and Hopeful People are not afraid to Trade Up, to be Social Climbers (I think they call it "Networking" now in the Third Millennium). 'Social Climbing' is usually understood in the Class sense, but here we can understand the Climbing as an ascendency in Quality. You Cannot Climb a Ladder If You Are Reluctant To Step On the Lower Rungs.

Typically when People go off to College and become Educated, they drop their old friends who were happy just to get those jobs in the Meat Packing Plant and who still read Comic Books when they are 28. Of course one could "WORK" on such Relationships by

1) Compromising your Higher Life Values

2) Accepting your Old Friends Neanderthal Behavior

3) Apologizing for having Striven for Something Higher in Life

4) and Communicating using only little comic book words and the ubiquitous lower working class foul language.

But why would you Want To?

Relationships are like a Miraculously Large Shoe Store with 7 Billion available pairs of Shoes. There the Shoes are all Free, and you can have as many Pairs as you like. You might find that some Pinch, and since you can get a New and Better pair Free, you can throw them away. Some will flop around on your Feet, and you can go back and get a better fitting pair, and throw those away. Others, some really Fine and Dazzling Ones, might Walk Off on their own, but they were probably 'Too Much Shoe' for you anyway, and, besides, it is no big loss because we can go back to the Store and get another pair for free. and other Shoes simply wear out or become shabby, so its time to get a New Shoe. BUT with all this being Effectively Real Life True, in terms of Relationships, and not Shoes, well, we still have People out there who Insist that we Learn to Live with whatever Shoe we first decided upon -- to suffer the corns from a too tight fit, or the blisters of a too large shoe rubbing us raw, or having to pay exorbitant prices to the Shoe Repair Man to keep an old shabby shoe in marginal service, all when we only have to Get a New and Better Shoe.

Yes, Marriages are a lot like Family, but "Water is not as thick as Blood" and Divorce makes Marriages dissolvable, though at a significant cost. So one can not easily walk away from Marriages. BUT any other Relationship -- Client to Hairdresser, Client to Fitness Coach, Patient to Doctor, Friend to Friend -- all of these one can Walk Away from without necessarily saying a Word. and Why Not?

Dear Leo,

I was not being vicious. I told you already that I do not mean any harm to you nor anyone else, and I do not have any bad intentions by what I say. In fact, I thought that you were being vicious by not acknowledging what I had said, but instead suggesting that people, perhaps me, go around "begging, crawling and crying" when in a relationship.

I suppose my assumption was somewhat correct. You have the view that in all relationships there is one dominator who makes all the demands and one "dependent and needy" person who has to agree to the terms set by the dominator or they will be 'thrown away', unless they walk away first. So some people 'beg, crawl and cry' - and that is how you refer to asking to maintain a relationship by "mending" issues. Well, that is one interesting view. I would give my opinion but you have made it clear that you do not want to hear it, so instead I will just confine myself to consider your point of view. You are after all a lot more experienced in life than I am... It makes me wonder what sort of relationships you have been in...

I actually agree with you (you may be happy to know) about choosing friends - you are allowed to choose who you like. If they have different values in life, then you are free to allow that relationship to come out of your life. This naturally happens all the time anyway - people drift apart due to changes in life and character, etc. But I would be of the opinion that it is not nice to just get rid of someone like pulling up a weed and throwing it aside (sorry, I just had to get one opinion in there).

As for comparing people to shoes, well, I don't know what to say to that really... That is one very misanthropic view. But actually, on second thoughts, I do see your analogy - it makes sense.

BUT any other Relationship -- Client to Hairdresser, Client to Fitness Coach, Patient to Doctor, Friend to Friend -- all of these one can Walk Away from without necessarily saying a Word. and Why Not?

This last point I find very interesting, because believe it or not, I had actually considered walking away without saying a word.... But I am not that sort of person as it just so happens, which is why I replied to your post.

Despite the numerous times you have insulted me, I still wanted to take the opportunity to thank you again for your insights. Also, I had actually enjoyed our conversations and so I wanted to thank you for making me smile.

A while ago you had suggested to me to work on listening and empathy skills - I think we both need to work on that. Perhaps this will help you consider things from another person's perspective (before jumping to conclusions and calling them a "Lucifer" maybe...?). Please, because I do not want you to continue to push people away, even those who care about you.

Best of luck.

Popcorn

M. or Mme Popcorn

You thank me for my "Insights" and then characterize my honest appraisal of your Social Character and Intellectual Conduct as "insulting" (all of which can be Changed for the Better if you should apply yourself). Maybe this is another thing that you should think about, but, in keeping with your usual Behavior, I would bet you would either glance past it, ignore it or deny it in terms of just being another one of my "insults". Often on this Forum I evaluate and categorize people, of course for my own convenience in dealing with them, as either Promising or Hopeless. You have put yourself squarely in the Hopeless Pigeonhole.

Oh, as a NOTE to our General Members and Browsers regarding what might seem an overly cautious stance against faltering Relationships that I have taken in the last several Posts here. Well, I have come to understand Relationship Dynamics through the Lense of Anger Management and have developed a habitual concern for Members who are Already Fighting plenty of Anger Issues and would need no further Aggravations on their Already Full Plates. You see, as most People who Have or have had Chronic Anger Know, Angry People are a lot more sensitive to Stress, Insult, Provocation, etc. than those who are constitutionally and metabolically More Easy Going. Yes, our Goal here at Uncommon Knowledge Anger Management Forum is to so Transform our Anger-Prone Behaviors that We may all be Easy Going too. However, Rome was not Built in a Day. The Work of Anger Management takes Time. An Angry Person working on His or Her Anger needs to minimize the Stressors. Also, while STILL Chronically Angry, one is likely to Permanently Screw Up any Relationship anyway, and then THAT adds to our Reputation as being an Angry Person. It is Unfortunate but the Last and Most Difficult Task in Anger Management involves the Repair and Rehabilitation of our Tattered or Shattered Reputations (often my advice is simply to Change Cities. If every one in New York is wary of you even after you have been a Perfect Saint for a year or so, then it is time to see Chicago or L.A. Starting with a Clean Slate is better, as, even if you totally Erase the Old Slate, the Smudges still remain.) So while Working on your Anger, Stay Low and don't needlessly expose yourself to Situations which are Nearly Always Provocative at some point or another, as is certainly the case with Relationships.

And Perhaps the one of the Pillars of Anger Management is Knowing when to Walk Away.