2.12.2007

twice within the last year (last march, and then again today) i have been told that because someone did not intend to hurt me i have no reason to actually be hurt. i do not understand how this works. it seems to me that the actual effect of an action is what matters in the end, not the intention of it. seems to me as though even if you don't intend to hurt someone, if you do you are still responsible for owning up to it and then *apologizing* and perhaps clarifying things so that the same mistake does not happen again. am i wrong on this?

i am so tired of manipulative people who are on power trips.

kindof want to go crawl into a cave. or sit in the rain and watch the thunderstorms. mrrrrr

4 comments:

  1. /me promptly makes thunder noises and dumps a glass of water.

    Perhaps this will cheer ya: the "word verification" that Blogger requires me to enter to submit this is ZOLJGO!

    ReplyDelete
  2. hmm.. it would require coming back to WI to see that thunderstorm, now wouldn't it?

    ..i really think i'm ok with that thought. i do enjoy it when word verification comes up with fun things. thanks for the smile :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. don't feel too bad, aj... today I was told that someone absolutely did not regret hurting me or feel bad for it because it happened over a month ago and "it's in the past." apparently this is some new thing that I'm also unfamiliar with.

    my word verification word is (peivr)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:21 AM

    when someone is hurt unintentionally, everyone involved has a responsibility to examine his or her actions to determine what he or she can do in order to prevent it from happening again. apologies should be made.

    so what does kvdanpoz mean? that's my verification.

    - kristin

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting! Make sure to leave your blog address or website so I can easily come visit you!