Many people say that they want openness, honesty, and truthful forthrightness in other people.
However, my everyday experience has given me the impression that most folks really prefer Fake Friends.
I have come to the stark cold realization that most people really prefer that others, who do not agree with them 100%, pretend to be open, truthful, and honest by always being of the same opinion on all issues, matters, and concerns.
Please open the following embedded link to read my Roland Ramblings blog entry entitled Friendship: Qualitatively Quoteful that I posted on January 9, 2011.
I much prefer that people be who they truly are and not put up a fake front.
I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and that each person should be able to feel free to express his/her own opinion without fear of retaliation, reprisal, or retribution. Disagreements happen; that is part of life. In my humble opinion, friends do not have to share the same opinion in order to remain friends. The key to me is expressing differences in opinions and perspectives in a polite, courteous, intelligent, and respectful manner, and to allow true communication to take place. Communication is a two-way process. It takes all parties involved to be willing receive the message being sent as well as sending one's own message in order to be effective. I love to learn whether it be from sitting in a lecture hall, from reading, from watching a documentary, or from a good honest debate such as can be had from a respectful, intelligent verbal or written exchange of differing opinions and perspectives.
Oftentimes, fake friends are also what I refer to as 'friends of convenience.' Friends of convenience are those folks who say they are your friend but they only see or visit or speak with you when it is a matter of convenience, such as a club meeting, a social event, a reunion, and such other events that bring together people that have some common interest. These same people rarely, if ever, initiate contact; however, they will respond if you are the one who intiates contact. They are also the ones who will say, "We should get together sometime." - but then fail to find the time to actually do so. They are also the folks who say "I will give you a telephone call." - and then you never hear from them again.
Friends of Convenience are not Real Friends.
Fake Friends are not Real Friends.
I much prefer to have Real Friends
Please open the following embedded link to read the Roland's Ramblings blog entry entitled Real Friends that I posted on February 10, 2014.
I have no desire to have Fake Friends!
ADDENDUM, JANUARY 11, 2018
Chris (CW) Martin told me I should add on this blog entry the latest e-mail exchange between him and me.
Therefore, I am placing below a copy and paste of our e-mail exchange (i have redacted the e-mail addresses):
From Chris Martin to Roland Hansen, January 7, 2018:
That as much as anything shows the nature of our "friendship" in your eyes. You think cutting ties is about you not seeing me. I don't care if you see me. I'm the same anywhere I am. It was about not wanting to continue the fighting when it became clear that you were just using me to get your jollies. Throw out the bait, see what he does to react, when he reacts then bash him for his "hypocrisy" and build my own self esteem. Well, you know something? I had a father that would get drunk and do that same crap. Build your self-esteem some other way.
I've given you plenty of chances to prove, if nothing else, that your claims of friendship mean anything. This last google+ attempt at one-upmanship shows it was a vain thought. Why don't you be a fricking man for one minute? Geez!
You should add this to your last blog post that you floated on fake-friends: friends don't spy on each other and brag about it.
When you're done being a kindergartener, I'll be right where you can find me...
From Roland Hansen to Chris Martin, January 7, 2018:
Dear Chris,
As is all-too-often the case, you have misinterpeted the intent of my message. You seem to have a habit of twisting things to fit your view of things and you seem to have a propensity to mislead people.
You posted in a blog entry of yours that I used my wife's Twitter account to see what you tweeted. That is an absolute mistruth; some would call it an outright lie.
I attempted to show you the truth with my G+ post. The plain and simple fact of my latest G+ post was to show you that I could view your tweets without doing that of which you have accused me and of which you have led others to believe of me. Making that allegation as an absolute truth is wrong on every level.
I do not like to argue, as I told before, and yet you continue to want me to enter an argument. You call my nonresponses as ignoring you when in fact my nonresponse are my attempts not to engage in an argument,
You have proclaimed that I have stated things about all Republicans when, in fact, more often than not, I have used the phrase "Political Conservatives" for the very reason that I do not like to stereotype and make broad general statements about all Repubicans.
Again, you have totally misconstrued my words to fit your personal interpretations and/or opinions.
Oftentimes, you have taken things I have written, memes I have posted, and news articles to which I have linked, and you have internalized them as being referemces to yourself or to your beliefs and opinions. You are making assumptions about me, my writings, and/or my intentions if you see yourself in any of those things but I have not referenced you.
When I referenced my education, you took that as an attempt by me at belittling or demeaning you. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
A person does not need a formal education, degrees, credentials, etc. to be intelligent, well-informed, or conversant. However, throughout my life I have encountered persons who denigrate other people who do have college education, etc.
It is not uncommon for someone who needs a doctor, a surgeon, a plumber, an auto mechanic, a carpenter, and so on and so forth to look at those person's professional credentials in order to make an informed decision as to the credibility of the knowledge and ability of those providers of services. For some reason, many people do not place the same level of importance or confidence or validity or reliabity on credentials of people in the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, political science, etc. And yet, the social sciences are just as complex as are the natural sciences and as are the skilled trades or just about anything else involving KSAs (knowledge, skills, abilities).
I see yet once again from this e-mail of yours that you have chosen to make false assumptions, belittle me, and even stoop to name-calling (attributes that you have assigned to me).
I have not personally attacked you. Can you say the same?
Chris, in my opinion, the written word is not as conducive to good debate as is face-to-face conversation, which is why I prefer not engage in "arguments" on the internet, although I regretfully admit to having done so all too often in my not-too-distant past.
Respectfully,
Roland
From Chris Martin to Roland Hansen, January 7, 2018:
1-"You posted in a blog entry of yours that I used my wife's Twitter account to see what you tweeted. That is an absolute mistruth; some would call it an outright lie."
Then tell me, why did she start following my twitter feed when I blocked you, and then my G+ when I blocked her? I think you hold the title on outright lie on that one.
2- "The plain and simple fact of my latest G+ post was to show you that I could view your tweets without doing that of which you have accused me " Again, who cares, I didn't block you because I was hiding from you. BFD.
3- ""Political Conservatives" IOW, you have nothing against Republicans who are likely to roll over and kiss your feet. Anyone who tells you you are wrong is a different story.
4- "Oftentimes, you have taken things I have written, memes I have posted, and news articles to which I have linked, and you have internalized them as being referemces to yourself or to your beliefs and opinions." Considering the last time you e-mailed me was a meme that DIRECTLY referenced me, I call BS.
5- "When I referenced my education, you took that as an attempt by me at belittling or demeaning you. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! " Then why say it- or why not clarify when I refenced it. I think you knew EXACTLY what you were saying. You like to throw out little bon-mots that show what you are thinking, and then claim it isn't what you meant. I called you on that during the last twitter exchange as well.
6- "A person does not need a formal education, degrees, credentials, etc. to be intelligent, well-informed, or conversant. However, throughout my life I have encountered persons who denigrate other people who do have college education, etc. " OIh, and I denigrate you because of your degrees, yes? (Wait, I'm just twisting your words again). I gave examples- you know when- of the dishonest, ideologically zombified intellectuals who spout the same "everyone's a Nazi" crap that you do. If you want to id with them, go ahead. Fact is, anytime that I have challenged you ON POLICY, you haven't had a thing to say. You only bite when I bust you on the left's chicken little nonsense.
7- "I have not personally attacked you. Can you say the same? " I hate to tell you, but we have a different definition of what you have done to me. And, on what I have done to you. And if you wanna bring up what I said on the last letter, I am just tired of your games. The problem is, I had a higher respect for what you are than what you were posting. You were taking an intelligent man whom I could disagree with and turning him into someone who could do nothing but post sound bytes and cry wolf over things he knew damn well weren't true. How many times did I tell you you were better than that? And you chose to go ahead. I never attacked you- though I have exposed you a bit.
8- "Chris, in my opinion, the written word is not as conducive to good debate as is face-to-face conversation, which is why I prefer not engage in "arguments" on the internet, although I regretfully admit to having done so all too often in my not-too-distant past." And I have asked HOW many times to work this out by e-mails? And what have I got? Two "follows from your wife", one insinuated accusation of being xenophobic and Nazi-esque, one broadcast over Google+ that I was a fake friend, and tonight's deliberate provocation.
Let me tell you a story, Roland. My Dad thought that it was okay when drunk to bring up any sore spot he could, get his victim so upset that they would lash out, and then say, "Why are you yelling? I'm not yelling," as if it was some sort of victory. He found it a temporary balm to his self-esteem.
Well, now I'm not dealing with my dad, but I have the same situation- a person who claims to be a friend, does everything he can to provoke, then claims the other person is at fault. "Why are you yelling? I'm not yelling." And I refuse to put up with it anymore. You claim, "I don't attack you", but you did all those things I listed above.
And the joke is, people will look at the web-trail and say, "this is all over whether Trump is a Nazi". But it isn't, and I realized that a while back. This is your self-esteem exercise. Well, I am good and tired of being bullied by people with low self-esteem who see me as an easy way to make a mark.
You think I have attacked you. I have been doing my very best NOT to do that, as I have said before, and considering the gun Satan has wanted me to fire, I still haven't. Damn you, figure it out, I have been trying to walk away before it gets REALLY truly ugly. But you want to just keep picking. What the hell happened to you?
I need to end this now. You have made it abundantly clear that whatever friendship is available would have to be at the expense of what I know to be right, and after tonight I really doubt that that would be anything more than just keeping me hitched to the self-esteem feeding trough. Have a good life, I wish you the best, but find someone else to drag down to bring you up.
From Roland Hansen to Chris Martin, January 7, 2018:
I see that selective perception/selective reasoning is your forté.
I also see that just like your god-like idol Trump, you believe your own lies.
You play psychologist, but I doubt you have anything close to the credentials required.
Your oft-referenced father-son relationship indicates that you have a deep-seated psychological problem.
It is unfortunate that you practice the psychological ego defense mechanisms of repression, regression, projection, reaction formation, and sublimation rather than accepting fact, truth, and honesty.
And, as I have stated before, "Oh. well."
No comments:
Post a Comment