Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Reference

Reference Important threads

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 03:50 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 84
wife#2 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
What in particular was "well said"? Just curious, as you have chosen to provide a blanket opinion without any contribution to the discussion.
If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 07:20 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wife#2 View Post
If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.
Just asking for feedback as to what elements of the argument you felt were "well said" that is all. Clearly you are unable to provide that information. It would be helpful in addressing the argument presented if you wanted to actually contribute versus generate conflict in a manner such as this.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 10:37 AM
baldclub's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 456
baldclub is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
What in particular was "well said"? Just curious, as you have chosen to provide a blanket opinion without any contribution to the discussion.
I'm pretty sure she likes the whole comment, Tayken!
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 10:39 AM
baldclub's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 456
baldclub is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wife#2 View Post
If any other member of this forum is in anyway unclear what 'well said' means directed at a poster, directly under his post, I would be happy to explain. I was also unaware that one could not comment on an on going debate if they were not directly involved in the debate itself.
No, it's pretty clear I would say.
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 10:43 AM
baldclub's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 456
baldclub is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Just asking for feedback as to what elements of the argument you felt were "well said" that is all. Clearly you are unable to provide that information. It would be helpful in addressing the argument presented if you wanted to actually contribute versus generate conflict in a manner such as this.

Good Luck!
Tayken
How is it that she is clearly "unable" to provide that information? Because she doesn't feel the need to present to you why she approves of her support for my post? By stating her support for my post, you feel she is actually generating conflict? Maybe some people don't feel the need to explain further what for them is obvious, and furthermore entangle themselves in the vicious circle of arguing for arguing sake.
Reply With Quote
  #76 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 10:50 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
How is it that she is clearly "unable" to provide that information? Because she doesn't feel the need to present to you why she approves of her support for my post? By stating her support for my post, you feel she is actually generating conflict?
Nope, it is more "cheer-leading" but, I did ask for relevant feedback. For which none has been provided. Always looking to improve an argument in a debate that is all.

To demonstrate that they are an active participant and not an negative advocate they can simply provide a good and solid counter argument. Cheer-leading on an argument doesn't really benefit the development of the argument and leading it to a conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
Maybe some people don't feel the need to explain further what for them is obvious, and furthermore entangle themselves in the vicious circle of arguing for arguing sake.
Too bad for some of those people your theory doesn't apply the same logic to their escapades before the Family Courts as well.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
No, it's pretty clear I would say.
As clear as your argument before the Superior Court of Justice which by your own admission was "shushed" by a Justice in Oral Arguments in a past admission against interest in another posting to this message board?

Last edited by Tayken; 11-12-2012 at 11:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #78 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 11:31 AM
baldclub's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 456
baldclub is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Some observations to comments made and analysis with supporting clinical evidence.

I have highlighted for everyone in red the attempt to create an emotional reaction by "laughing". This is a common pattern of behaviour for which often highly conflict people attempt to use to generate an emotional response in an argument.
Well Sigmund Freud, it was just funny to me that you thought I was going to spill the beans and diss the military; and you actually felt the need to warn me of taking such a position. I've got plenty of time in the military and in life to not worry about crossing that kind of line, it was simply funny. That's why it was funny to me that you actually warned me and I was expressing that smile you put on my face when I read that. So I'm high conflict because I laughed out loud at your warning? Another smiley face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Those who are not trained in identifying conflict patters of speech and writing are often triggered by personal attacks like this. It is a common pattern of behavior deployed by negative advocate solicitors against unrepresented litigants. For the most part in my honest opinion, based on my personal observations of oral arguments before the SCJ it is quite a successful technique to demonstrate the other party (unrepresented) as overly emotional and gain attention to their arguments no matter how irrelevant they are.
Well, you can bet that I will be representing myself with relevant facts and professionalism in court, everything is centred around the children's best interest and case law. A lot of my focus actually comes from your more positive posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Furthermore, one of the defense mechanisms of the highly conflicted is to attempt to "befriend" the other person counter to their argument. Not sure for what grounds the person in question would considering me a "friend". Or is the poster in question attempting to use similar terminology that barristers use before the court under professional courtesy?
Also, trying to befriend a person is a technique to reduce conflict by putting oneself at their level and showing that there are commonalities. Maybe your analysis is over analysis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
For those who have spouses and opposing counsel that try to state that the argument you are presenting is "laughable" take note. In the materials presented by experts such as Mr. William Eddy these are key elements for which these experts track in responding arguments before the court. They collect them up and then present them back as counter evidence to the person in question (and often negative advocate solicitors) attempts to generate conflict where no conflict should exist.
Sometimes one's arguments are "laughable". I've read here on the forum that people posting here should have "thick skin". My "haha" is a simple response to your suggestion, nothing more nothing less, definitely not an attempt to "generate conflict where no conflict should exist".

My understanding from posts here on the forum and reading CanLII is that while judges will raise a brow when presented with attempts to generate conflict, they go right back to what is concretely proposed in the children's best interest and take it from there.

Judges are so weary of all the bs, but I wished they would take more action to prevent it. My experience at a settlement conference over a year ago was that all it took were a few unsubstantiated accusations from my ex, with no burden of proof, and I was not allowed to increase the children's access to me although living five blocks from their school after material changes in circumstances. Well, the judge asked for the OCL's involvement but I'm still 20 months since any resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Hopefully this link to the pages from Google Books works as it brings you right to what I am talking about with regards to Mr. Eddy.
I've read what Mr. Eddy has to say and I take note. However, I don't see my comments at all as "high conflict" based on your couple of citations of Mr. Eddy and Psychology Today.


P.S. The "Sigmund Freud" comment was sarcasm yes, the lowest form of humour. I urge you not to take offense to it. However, it is simply an attempt to highlight the overly analytical response you've demonstrated in some of your arguments. And it reminds me of my ex who claimed I was overly analytical, so maybe we share more in common my friend than we know.
Reply With Quote
  #79 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 11:40 AM
baldclub's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 456
baldclub is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Nope, it is more "cheer-leading" but, I did ask for relevant feedback. For which none has been provided. Always looking to improve an argument in a debate that is all.
No feedback is required seemingly in her opinion. Are you really looking to improve an argument or maybe just argue for argument's sake?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
To demonstrate that they are an active participant and not an negative advocate they can simply provide a good and solid counter argument. Cheer-leading on an argument doesn't really benefit the development of the argument and leading it to a conclusion.
Not sure her cheer-leading is getting us further from a conclusion then the constant back and forth. Any opinions on my doubt?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Too bad for some of those people your theory doesn't apply the same logic to their escapades before the Family Courts as well.
Not sure how to read that statement. At first impression, I agree with you that people need to be totally rational in their arguments for the best interest of the children. However, I have a lingering sense that your statement might be pointed at specific people here, and I'm not sure how constructive that kind of direction would be.
Reply With Quote
  #80 (permalink)  
Old 11-12-2012, 11:45 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
Well Sigmund Freud, it was just funny to me that you thought I was going to spill the beans and diss the military; and you actually felt the need to warn me of taking such a position.
Thank you for the negative complement but, I am no "Sigmund Freud" at all. Your attempt at "sarcasm" is noted.

Think Sarcasm is Funny? Think Again | Psychology Today

Quote:
What’s more, since actions strongly determine thoughts and feelings, when a person consistently acts sarcastically it usually only heightens his or her underlying hostility and insecurity. After all, when you come right down to it, sarcasm is a subtle form of bullying and most bullies are angry, insecure, cowards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
I've got plenty of time in the military and in life to not worry about crossing that kind of line, it was simply funny. That's why it was funny to me that you actually warned me and I was expressing that smile you put on my face when I read that. So I'm high conflict because I laughed out loud at your warning? Another smiley face.
See my above link and quote...

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
Well, you can bet that I will be representing myself with relevant facts and professionalism in court, everything is centred around the children's best interest and case law. A lot of my focus actually comes from your more positive posts.
That is unfortunate for your case that you are depending on case law that I provide. I highly recommend you retain a qualified barrister and solicitor to represent you in the Superior Court of Justice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
Also, trying to befriend a person is a technique to reduce conflict by putting oneself at their level and showing that there are commonalities. Maybe your analysis is over analysis?
There are few "commonalities" between us possibly other than gender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
Sometimes one's arguments are "laughable". I've read here on the forum that people posting here should have "thick skin". My "haha" is a simple response to your suggestion, nothing more nothing less, definitely not an attempt to "generate conflict where no conflict should exist".
And the purpose of this response is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
My understanding from posts here on the forum and reading CanLII is that while judges will raise a brow when presented with attempts to generate conflict, they go right back to what is concretely proposed in the children's best interest and take it from there.
Actually, depending on how much conflict and the frivolity of the argument presented the judge will weigh in their custody and access decision the impact that the person in question (the conflicted ones) impact to the ability to joint parent and share equal residency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
Judges are so weary of all the bs, but I wished they would take more action to prevent it. My experience at a settlement conference over a year ago was that all it took were a few unsubstantiated accusations from my ex, with no burden of proof, and I was not allowed to increase the children's access to me although living five blocks from their school after material changes in circumstances. Well, the judge asked for the OCL's involvement but I'm still 20 months since any resolution.
You are not barred from bringing forward a motion to resolve temporary issues. As often stated on this site by not just me but, many others, a Conference is a mediated solution and no justice can make an order on a substantive issue. You have to bring that to MOTION or to TRIAL.

Your expectations of what can be done in a Settlement Conference by a justice is puzzling considering the amount of time spent on this site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
I've read what Mr. Eddy has to say and I take note. However, I don't see my comments at all as "high conflict" based on your couple of citations of Mr. Eddy and Psychology Today.
You can interpret the materials any way you want. Hopefully you take the advice of Mr. Eddy and other

Quote:
Originally Posted by baldclub View Post
P.S. The "Sigmund Freud" comment was sarcasm yes, the lowest form of humour. I urge you not to take offense to it. However, it is simply an attempt to highlight the overly analytical response you've demonstrated in some of your arguments. And it reminds me of my ex who claimed I was overly analytical, so maybe we share more in common my friend than we know.
Just wait to see how a judge writes up your upcoming trial decision and the analytical review against Rule 24 of the CLRA that will come as a result. It makes my "analytic" light in comparison.

Also, I don't take offence to much. But, thank-you for admitting against interest that your intent was to leverage sarcasm a tool often leveraged by high conflict people to solicit an emotional response.

Some advice: Don't use sarcasm before a judge. They don't find it "funny".

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Motion to Vary - Applicant's affidavit dickstacie Divorce & Family Law 4 02-17-2010 04:26 PM
Lawyer calls for judicial inquiry into disfunctional family court system! logicalvelocity Political Issues 9 07-19-2009 10:41 PM
Legal Aid serrona Divorce & Family Law 1 10-27-2006 08:00 PM
Can I send this letter to the court dvr Divorce & Family Law 1 08-01-2006 11:28 AM
How credibility is affected in the eyes of Judges. gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 12 03-12-2006 04:05 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM.