Mildly Offended

Well, I went to the meeting this morning. Managed to ascertain he sent the same message to pretty much everyone. He also apologised to me and said he didn't mean to cause offence. Meanwhile 2 of the people there who go to the same church think it was odd of me to be offended. I am now getting quite uncomfortable therefore at the mix of business and religion, it is not what I get up so early for.

I'm sorry the article is getting stick but on the other hand it does seem somewhat Victorian in attitude, patronising in tone and generally poorly written. Even the title 'How to Avoid the Affair' is odd. Why not 'an' affair? It reads weirdly to me.

L
xx

Quite

L
xx

Are these meetings essential? I'd be trying to avoid these people like the plague if they can't see why being sent unsolicited, religious marital advice by a man you are trying to do business with is inappropriate, never mind that it casts nastercians on your fidelity!

Sorry Ginni but I agree the article is a lot of tripe written poorly, and I'm not really understanding why you'd be offended by people saying so unless you are the author...

Zebra, we are getting good business out of me going to these meetings so while not essential they are handy. Also, there are a handful of really nice people there

L
xx

That is very odd, I'd have been very offended too.

How annoying then that you're stuck with these ninnies then!

Of course I'm not the author Zebra (unless my secret identity is a welsh man named Rob), but I do like Care for the Family - their SEN family support newsletter is helpful to me, as it goes. I guess my sense of offence comes from the fact that I appreciate the source of the article (ie. Care for the Family) and what they do, and I think the article has come in for some unwarranted criticism, which should surely be directed towards the guy who sent it to Lois, rather than the article/writer - it's not in context. They didn't send it to Lois, the bloke did.

Fwiw kieren, I'm not saying you need to be on your guard at all times, imo the article is saying that one should stay out of compromising situations, and that affairs can start from very innocent beginnings. Maybe not for you, maybe not for me, but certainly for some people. In the course of his work, I'm sure Rob Parsons has had enough people describing that kind of situation to him to prompt him to write an article about it. He's obvioulsy pitching it at a certain demographic, one which Lois probably doesn't fall into.

You're not a Welsh bloke?! ?

I agree with BGB and Jess - It's not an attack on the magazine as a whole or the organisation - presumably they use more than one writer - but this particular article is horribly written. And the content is atrocious. And the fact that is so poor (in our opinion), surely that only makes it even worse that it was sent to poor Lois.

I mean, really - The tiger is picking up speed and you're on its back?! ?

Oh for goodness' sake. I wrote 'mildly offended' in the style of Lois's original post, which I thought would be obvious, yet now I'm some kind of fruitloop because I got slightly peeved that the article is getting the stick instead of the weird guy. I'm obviously not getting my point across, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Edited to add I obviously skim-read the article as I didn;t read anything about a tiger ?. I may be a touch oversensitive perhaps?

That's the way I read it too, which is interesting - as I work with nine blokes (and one other girl). Does this mean I should get a new job (starting tomorrow) or just stop talking to them all ?!

I'd also like to know what makes the author of the article a) knowledgable and b) exempt from the power of temptation? What give him the authority to write about it?

I think you are fine where you are, as long as you only discuss work and don't accept lifts, go out for drinks etc. Or at least allow yourself ten seconds before you think 'feck it'

L

xx