The Evolution of Bullying

[mvir9]

Virginia,

Nobody would ever try to claim that Trump is without blemishes. However, Objectivists never tire of explaining how the robber barons of old actually helped the economy and how they were heroes. I can't think of one who would not use eminent domain, even for a parking lot.

It is possible in my own heart to fiercely admire Trump for his achievements, yet disagree strongly with the times he crawls into bed with the government (as in this case), or parts of his personal philosophy and behavior.

I don't think that kind of blemish in today's world annuls the good he does. His bad is bad and his good is good. His good FAR outweighs his bad in concrete terms.

(btw - Good on Coking for standing up for her rights against a... er... bully. )

Michael

I sympathize with people who admire Trump for his virtues -- for I once did as well.

My primary reason for posting the case was to inform those individuals who hold Trump in high esteem, without the knowledge of his not-so-virtuous behavior. Once the information is known, then every individual can decide whether or not Trump is still worthy of his/her respect. In my case, the flaw was severe enough to kill my respect for him. Some people, like yourself, will find enough good in Trump to "trump" the bad. I understand and respect that.

You're right about the classic heroes of entrepreneurship (non-political-pull "Robber Barons") -- many of them weren't perfect. I judge them individually, though. Some committed deeds worse than others. Some misdeeds I can accept, others I cannot. Whether or not these men would have taken advantage of eminent domain is supposition, so I won't judge them on an issue I can only suppose they may or may not have done.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Virginia,

I don't think that kind of blemish in today's world annuls the good he does. His bad is bad and his good is good. His good FAR outweighs his bad in concrete terms.

Michael

Michael,

How do you know? You would have to open up the books on his transactions for a lifetime. I suppose in some twisted sense you could say that he made some bad investors lose their money and prevented them from further folly.

Incidentally, I am also one of the few Objectivists who does not admire Michael Milken. I don't agree with what the government did to him, but I really disliked how he aggressively marketed junk bonds to pension fund managers. Those managers had no business buying the bonds, but Milken had no business selling them for the purpose they were used for either.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Jim,

I apologize for my too strongly worded previous post in which I said "your .... sucks." I shouldn't have said that. I appreciate the level-headedness of your response.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Virginia,

I don't think that kind of blemish in today's world annuls the good he does. His bad is bad and his good is good. His good FAR outweighs his bad in concrete terms.

Michael

Michael,

How do you know? You would have to open up the books on his transactions for a lifetime.

Jim,

Actually it is easier than opening his books. I see skyscrapers, hotels and casinos all over the place, a top-rated TV program (twice Emmy nominated), more than one NYT best-seller, golf courses, Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA pageants, enormous brand licensing of his name for a host of products, and high profile sports ventures.

Not bad.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

I apologize for my too strongly worded previous post in which I said "your .... sucks." I shouldn't have said that. I appreciate the level-headedness of your response.

--Brant

No Brant, you were right. I took a look at the accumulated effect of my posts on the Heinlein thread and here and there was an excessive tone. There is a human emotional side to this. If there's any blame for the housing mess, however, it should go to the big mortgage lenders who should have known better. Corporate heads are rolling as we speak.

I think the housing crisis has been caused by the almost limitless willingness of the Chinese to buy long term U.S. securities in the early 2000's coupled with high budget deficits which overcame that and drove up long term interest rates. I think people tend to exaggerate the effect of monetary policy on long term rates.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Virginia,

I don't think that kind of blemish in today's world annuls the good he does. His bad is bad and his good is good. His good FAR outweighs his bad in concrete terms.

Michael

Michael,

How do you know? You would have to open up the books on his transactions for a lifetime.

Jim,

Actually it is easier than opening his books. I see skyscrapers, hotels and casinos all over the place, a top-rated TV program (twice Emmy nominated), more than one NYT best-seller, golf courses, Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA pageants, enormous brand licensing of his name for a host of products, and high profile sports ventures.

Not bad.

Michael

Michael,

How much of that would we seen under other developers' nameplates had the creditors he stiffed taken their money elsewhere?

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

You talk like you know all the bad things for a fact, yet say you don't. Are you contending that Trump went into his deals for the sole purpose of "stiffing" investors? Or he was wrong to obey the law when he resolved his financial problems? I am of a mind that when one takes a risk, like an investor does, he assumes the bad and the good. He didn't invest in Trump as a man. He invested in a specific deal. When the deal didn't work out, the guy lost. He certainly would have wanted to receive every cent had the deal worked out, so why should he be immune if the deal failed?

You are extremely reluctant to acknowledge Trump's achievements, despite the evidence. I have acknowledged his monkeyshines, despite such being within the law. I condemn them and admire the achievements. I won't say the Rand thing of despising the good for being the good, but I see no reason to denigrate or ignore brilliant productive achievement because of failings.

Or maybe we can talk about evil ruthless dog-eat-dog capitalists who need even more government regulations to keep them in line so we can stand up for the little guy.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Now that you are calmer, I think it is unfair to blame Greenspan for the housing crisis. His sworn duty was to keep the USA money supply stable and he had enormous restrictions on what he could and could not do. He did the best he could and I think he performed brilliantly.

The USA is nowhere near a 1930's kind of depression. Now that would be a real problem, not the present losses of people who took out irresponsible loans because such loans were offered. If you want to see all hell break loose, let a Keynesian economist chair the Fed during a market crisis, like when Greenspan took over in 1987. I shudder to think of what would happen.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Virginia,

I don't think that kind of blemish in today's world annuls the good he does. His bad is bad and his good is good. His good FAR outweighs his bad in concrete terms.

Michael

Michael,

How do you know? You would have to open up the books on his transactions for a lifetime.

Jim,

Actually it is easier than opening his books. I see skyscrapers, hotels and casinos all over the place, a top-rated TV program (twice Emmy nominated), more than one NYT best-seller, golf courses, Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA pageants, enormous brand licensing of his name for a host of products, and high profile sports ventures.

Not bad.

Michael

Michael,

How much of that would we seen under other developers' nameplates had the creditors he stiffed taken their money elsewhere?

Jim

I don't think we should fault Trump too much for what appears to be ignorance in some cases. Not all cases. There are much, much worse in this country. I consider him a mixed bag. I fault him for that eminent domain thing in Atlantic City, but the worst violator by far is COSTCO. Do you (any you) shop at COSTCO? I don't but I might, not in sanction of corporate policies but because I haven't seen an economic weapon that ever did any real good against a real bad. I don't think Cuba would have withstood trade with the United States for the last 40 years, but it has against the embargoes. Trade gets inside a country and transforms it. Embargoes push from the outside and the inside pushes back.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

You talk like you know all the bad things for a fact, yet say you don't. Are you contending that Trump went into his deals for the sole purpose of "stiffing" investors? Or he was wrong to obey the law when he resolved his financial problems? I am of a mind that when one takes a risk, like an investor does, he assumes the bad and the good. He didn't invest in Trump as a man. He invested in a specific deal. When the deal didn't work out, the guy lost. He certainly would have wanted to receive every cent had the deal worked out, so why should he be immune if the deal failed?

You are extremely reluctant to acknowledge Trump's achievements, despite the evidence. I have acknowledged his monkeyshines, despite such being within the law. I condemn them and admire the achievements. I won't say the Rand thing of despising the good for being the good, but I see no reason to denigrate or ignore brilliant productive achievement because of failings.

Or maybe we can talk about evil ruthless dog-eat-dog capitalists who need even more government regulations to keep them in line so we can stand up for the little guy.

Michael

Sure, the stock and bondholders in Trump's previous deals made bad bets. It is also true that through the failure of those ventures Trump destroyed that capital. If Trump is a net producer, the value he has created should exceed the value he has destroyed. If you believe in Trump's current ventures, I guess you could say the old Trump was a bad developer, but the new Trump has learned his lesson. I think the current investors with Trump believe more in the Manhattan real estate market than they do in Trump and he does have a name that people recognize.

If you really want to look at a savvy real estate developer look at Sam Zell.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Jim,

You talk like you know all the bad things for a fact, yet say you don't. Are you contending that Trump went into his deals for the sole purpose of "stiffing" investors? Or he was wrong to obey the law when he resolved his financial problems? I am of a mind that when one takes a risk, like an investor does, he assumes the bad and the good. He didn't invest in Trump as a man. He invested in a specific deal. When the deal didn't work out, the guy lost. He certainly would have wanted to receive every cent had the deal worked out, so why should he be immune if the deal failed?

You are extremely reluctant to acknowledge Trump's achievements, despite the evidence. I have acknowledged his monkeyshines, despite such being within the law. I condemn them and admire the achievements. I won't say the Rand thing of despising the good for being the good, but I see no reason to denigrate or ignore brilliant productive achievement because of failings.

Or maybe we can talk about evil ruthless dog-eat-dog capitalists who need even more government regulations to keep them in line so we can stand up for the little guy.

Michael

Sure, the stock and bondholders in Trump's previous deals made bad bets. It is also true that through the failure of those ventures Trump destroyed that capital. If Trump is a net producer, the value he has created should exceed the value he has destroyed. If you believe in Trump's current ventures, I guess you could say the old Trump was a bad developer, but the new Trump has learned his lesson. I think the current investors with Trump believe more in the Manhattan real estate market than they do in Trump and he does have a name that people recognize.

If you really want to look at a savvy real estate developer look at Sam Zell.

Jim

Jim: He's a mixed case in a mixed economy. That's why he's successful. I'll give him this: I think he'd be successful in a much freer economy.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The New York Times did a good article on Trump a while back:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/business...6Jqrypocjjoghmw

Edited November 11, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I have a lot of admiration in my heart for the virtue of production. I have no problem whatsoever admiring Zell and Trump for their achievements. I read the article What's He Really Worth? by Timothy L. O'Brien and what an inspiration! Talk about overcoming great odds. I really love Trump's no-quit under any circumstances spirit.

O'Brien's beef is that Trump inflates his worth and that Forbes is not a reputable reporting agency on wealth. O'Brien works for NYT, a competitor, so that is not as surprising as it might seem. But even taking the reporter at his worst estimate, he still concedes that Trump is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

I don't even have one million dollars. Do you?

Here are some quotes I particularly liked from that article:

To survive a process as tortuous and unpredictable as a debt workout, however, requires a large dose of gumption. Donald had gumption in spades.

"You're out there alone. I mean, it's not fun," he advised me. "I went from being a boy wonder, boy genius, to this [expletive] guy who has nothing but problems."

. . .

Unbeknownst to his creditors, Donald was just as worried about a bankruptcy as they were. He later told me that he wanted to avoid bankruptcy at all costs because he felt that it would permanently taint him as a failure or a quitter.

Sanford Morhouse, a lawyer representing Chase Manhattan bank in the Trump negotiations, said: "I did a lot of workouts in those days on behalf of Chase, with a lot of real estate developers who had similar problems, and big ones. Almost all of them, at one point or another in that era, filed for bankruptcy protection. And Donald, to his credit, did not." [MSK - my emphasis.]

Donald whittled down his mammoth personal debts by forfeiting most of what he owned.

. . .

[About the West Side yards] According to former members of the Trump Organization, Donald did not retain any ownership of the site's real estate - the owners merely promised to give him about 30 percent of the profits once the site was completely developed or sold. Until that time, the owners kept Donald on to do what he did best: build.

. . .

Exactly what investors thought they might get for their Trump Hotels investment wasn't entirely clear. Donald had already demonstrated that casinos weren't his forte, and investors were buying stock in a company that was immediately larded with debts that made it difficult, if not impossible, to upgrade the operations.

This guy O'Brien is hostile to Trump, but that account does not sound like a con man to me. It sounds like investors knew precisely what they were getting and it sounds like Trump is a high-end achiever who overstates his already high achievements.

As far as I can tell, Trump has no current problems attracting investors. Either the whole world is a sucker or Trump makes money for investors (other than investors in casinos, which I personally find unsavory anyway).

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I'll bow out . One thing I will acknowledge is that I admire managerial talent and that I don't have it. I come from an old school Northwest Iowa background where you build wealth brick by brick. My old school grandparents, who owned 4 banks in that area were so conservative they didn't even believe in equity investing. They also ran the numbers on everything they did and they were never close to bankruptcy. They sold everything before the farm banking crises of the 1980's saying the numbers didn't work anymore. I know what my grandfather would have said about someone like Trump.

No, I don't have a million dollars. I think my wife and I are worth about 700K at last count, about 500 of which we've made ourselves. I'm OK with it, although I hope to make much more in the future .

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think my wife and I are worth about 700K at last count, about 500 of which we've made ourselves. I'm OK with it, although I hope to make much more in the future .

Jim,

That is great news. Keep up the good work.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I think my wife and I are worth about 700K at last count, about 500 of which we've made ourselves. I'm OK with it, although I hope to make much more in the future .

Jim,

That is great news. Keep up the good work.

Michael

Michael,

This thread has made me realize that a lot of my attitudes about money are cultural. I heard over and over that you don't spend what you don't have and you don't gamble with other people's money. There are probably a lot of achievers that don't follow those rules.

I think it's OK to wait until you have money to invest it. I think many real estate developers are compulsive builders and take on projects whether the money's there or not.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

Jim,

I apologize for my too strongly worded previous post in which I said "your .... sucks." I shouldn't have said that. I appreciate the level-headedness of your response.

--Brant

No Brant, you were right. I took a look at the accumulated effect of my posts on the Heinlein thread and here and there was an excessive tone. There is a human emotional side to this. If there's any blame for the housing mess, however, it should go to the big mortgage lenders who should have known better. Corporate heads are rolling as we speak.

I think the housing crisis has been caused by the almost limitless willingness of the Chinese to buy long term U.S. securities in the early 2000's coupled with high budget deficits which overcame that and drove up long term interest rates. I think people tend to exaggerate the effect of monetary policy on long term rates.

Jim, etiquette is very important. I fell down in that department.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Now that you are calmer, I think it is unfair to blame Greenspan for the housing crisis. His sworn duty was to keep the USA money supply stable and he had enormous restrictions on what he could and could not do. He did the best he could and I think he performed brilliantly.

The USA is nowhere near a 1930's kind of depression. Now that would be a real problem, not the present losses of people who took out irresponsible loans because such loans were offered. If you want to see all hell break loose, let a Keynesian economist chair the Fed during a market crisis, like when Greenspan took over in 1987. I shudder to think of what would happen.

Michael,

My post was badly overheated. I shouldn't have flambeed the man, just slow roasted.

--Brant

[Judith]

I only dealt with bullies as a grade-schooler. Since reaching black belt at the age of 13, girls and guys (even ones who didn't like me) treated me as if I would drop kick them if they said something against me (amusing, really, since I abhor fighting). However, I have had a number of friends (in high school, mostly) request that I intercede with a bully (keep in mind that I'm 5'4 and weigh around 114 lbs). Never did one of these instances come to violence. By confronting the issue (and the bully) head-on, they always backed down.

I'm curious, since I'm still learning this stuff myself. What exactly did you say and do in these confrontations to get the bullies to back down?

Multiple anecdotes would be most welcome, as well as summaries and conclusions!

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following article really excited me. People are doing something positive about cyber-bullying!

YouTube launches site to battle online bullying

By Gary Cleland

20/11/2007

Telegraph

Here is the YouTube site: Beatbullying

Of course, this is only YouTube in England so far and the thing is in its infancy. But it will grow. Maybe something in the USA will start up, too.

I loved seeing this.

Michael

[mvir9]

I only dealt with bullies as a grade-schooler. Since reaching black belt at the age of 13, girls and guys (even ones who didn't like me) treated me as if I would drop kick them if they said something against me (amusing, really, since I abhor fighting). However, I have had a number of friends (in high school, mostly) request that I intercede with a bully (keep in mind that I'm 5'4 and weigh around 114 lbs). Never did one of these instances come to violence. By confronting the issue (and the bully) head-on, they always backed down.

I'm curious, since I'm still learning this stuff myself. What exactly did you say and do in these confrontations to get the bullies to back down?

Multiple anecdotes would be most welcome, as well as summaries and conclusions!

Judith

First and foremost, I always look the bully in the eye. I am happy to know that I am more than capable of defending myself and that the bully would be at a disadvantage should he engage me physically. So, I have no need to show hesitation.

I'll give a couple of examples, but keep in mind that the people I confronted had at least some information about my martial arts background.

1. High School --

A guy friend of mine had been forewarned that a bully planned to attack him after school. My friend asked for my assistance. After school, I found the bully and asked what his intentions were. He wanted to know why I cared, so I explained that the guy he was about to attack was a friend of mine. I asked him if they could simply ignore each other, since nothing had actually happened between them yet (they simply didn't get along). No kidding, he agreed to it. We shook hands and he left my friend alone after that.

2. High School --

Another friend of mine (this time female) told me that there was going to be a gang fight after school. I hate gangs and violence, but I happened to know the "leaders" of both gangs (one of them was in an honors class with me!). I separately spoke with both of these guys before the end of the school day. I told them that they were, in a nutshell, being idiots. I told both of them to call it off. The honors student was easier to convince -- the other kid needed to be informed that I would be happy to call the police. The gang fight never happened. Interestingly, both of these guys ended up treating me with a great deal of respect.

3. Post High School --

My mom worked with a guy that had an annoying habit of thinking that he was every woman's dream date. Once a woman began to date him, however, he became abusive. One night, I attended a Halloween work party with my mom. This fool was there (quite drunk). He walked up behind me when I wasn't looking, grabbed my breasts and lifted me off of the floor. I was pissed beyond belief. Due to my training, I was able to stay reasonable -- and focused, however. I tilted my head to the side so he could hear me very, very clearly, then I confidently stated: "If you do not let go of me right now, I will rip your balls off and shove them down your throat." He must have known that I meant it, because he put me down and never (literally) came near me again. Several years later, I heard that he had been arrested for domestic battery . . .

In every example, I had no problem speaking directly with these individuals. They didn't scare me, and they knew it. I have no doubt that it was my confidence (exhibited by body language and verbal skill) that convinced these people to change their minds.

Keep in mind that every situation is different. It is important to do your best to talk them down, even if it requires threatening to call the cops. However, it is also important to "read" the bullies -- sometimes they are intent on violence regardless. In my last example, I was mentally prepared to fight, because he was drunk and known as a woman-beater (I was pleasantly surprised that my threat worked).

[Judith]

Keep in mind that every situation is different. It is important to do your best to talk them down, even if it requires threatening to call the cops. However, it is also important to "read" the bullies -- sometimes they are intent on violence regardless.

Impressive. Thank you! I've got more work to do to earn that kind of confidence.

Judith

[RTB]

I see these threads tend to get waaaay off topic. People are talking about Rosie O'Donnell and free markets and libel laws.

Excellent point. I absolutely agree that body language is a key factor in self-defense (against any type of bully, including the criminal sort).

To get back on track. It's important to teach your children how to deal with bullying in schoolgrounds. This is where ideally fathers come in handy as it's a skill not naturally given to mothers to pass on to sons.

There's analysis after analysis after analysis about schoolyard bullying. There are practical concerns of course that can be addressed by certain parents such as putting their kids in private schools.

But look, there's the basic method of dealing with bullies insofar as a parent instructs. Give him decent ethical instruction on when and when not to throw a punch.

When the bullies continue it's amazing how soon most stop once one of them is socked in the nose. Hard.

Am I too simplistic on this message board or are you people too overthought?

[Rich Engle]

I'm not overthought...usually...

If you go all the way back to the top of this thread, MSK commented that it appears bullying goes back to ape-days. I concur. But the thing is, cause/origin ceases to matter when you are dealing with one of these poor bastards.

I know, oh-so-well. I was the skinny kid with a runny nose from allergies, and I was cannon fodder. I remember when my family moved back here to Cleveland, summer of '69. First day in the new neighborhood. I got on my bike, and went to explore the territory (it was very pleasant, we lived on a big oval). By the time I got home, I had had sticks put through my spokes, and the snot beaten out of me by the local moron-in-charge. Not fun for age 11, it never is for anyone.

It had happened before, and my parents literally forced me into martial arts lessons, which I ended up doing for the better part of my life, up to and including street survival and bodyguarding.

But it never changes. Barbara linked it here earlier to self-esteem issues, and I believe that to have a lot to do with it. But in the end, it just doesn't matter: you end up with some moron in your face, one way or another. I used to feel the fight or flight question thrumming through me over the years, when that kind of stuff popped up. Later, I just erased that emotion. It's very simple, you have to kick their ass, and you have to do a professional, public job of it. I find that abhorrent, but certainly not as abhorrent as taking a beating from one of these unfortunate souls. The real problem with them is that the classic, primary directive of martial art (avoidance) usually doesn't work right then and there. But, they do have incredible psychological weak points, and these can be exploited, but it requires finesse. You don't have a lot of time to work with because their solution is ALWAYS making Mr. Hand turn into Mr. Fist.

I like to catch them right when they are changing over like that. POW. Sorry. POW. Maybe not so sorry, but still so.

Fortunately I didn't deal with it much later in life (practicing avoidance, not putting yourself in situations helps a great deal), but when I did, it was no quarter. I had to beat them into the tar. A good, down-home-style backyard ass-whuppin'. I always felt bad after having to do something like that, but considering the consequences otherwise, well... It's just not time for therapy--you have to "alpha roll" those kind of people. Advice: make sure they can't get up for awhile--sadly, that last final touch kick to the ribs is important. I certainly never felt good about it, but that's the way it is in my book, and that often includes interceding if you see a bully pick on someone else.

Punching in the nose, indeed. They cry pretty easy if you poke them in the eye. It's sad. I've gotten out of more than a few confrontations when playing at bars through sheer will power. I weigh 163 lbs and look like someone's dad or Mr. Rogers or something, but bullies, generally, are often weak enough that you can stare them down. I've been face-to-face, barstool-to-barstool, more than once like that, and it's amazing how fast you can back them down. I'm usually stronger that way because I actually like myself, and don't want to hurt people.

The other thing they totally loathe is any kind of public put down. Meaning, allowing them to go on and on with the pre-fighting stage bullying, and making it abundantly clear to everyone there what an ass the bully is making of themself. They really can't take that, though of course it can backfire. But if it does, they act out of rage, not a quiet mind, and they are easy to put down even if you know only a little bit about how to do that kind of thing.

Edited January 5, 2008 by Rich Engle

[RTB]

I'm not overthought...usually...

If you go all the way back to the top of this thread, MSK commented that it appears bullying goes back to ape-days. I concur. But the thing is, cause/origin ceases to matter when you are dealing with one of these poor bastards.

I know, oh-so-well. I was the skinny kid with a runny nose from allergies, and I was cannon fodder. I remember when my family moved back here to Cleveland, summer of '69. First day in the new neighborhood. I got on my bike, and went to explore the territory (it was very pleasant, we lived on a big oval). By the time I got home, I had had sticks put through my spokes, and the snot beaten out of me by the local moron-in-charge. Not fun for age 11, it never is for anyone.

It had happened before, and my parents literally forced me into martial arts lessons, which I ended up doing for the better part of my life, up to and including street survival and bodyguarding.

But it never changes. Barbara linked it here earlier to self-esteem issues, and I believe that to have a lot to do with it. But in the end, it just doesn't matter: you end up with some moron in your face, one way or another. I used to feel the fight or flight question thrumming through me over the years, when that kind of stuff popped up. Later, I just erased that emotion. It's very simple, you have to kick their ass, and you have to do a professional, public job of it. I find that abhorrent, but certainly not as abhorrent as taking a beating from one of these unfortunate souls. The real problem with them is that the classic, primary directive of martial art (avoidance) usually doesn't work right then and there. But, they do have incredible psychological weak points, and these can be exploited, but it requires finesse. You don't have a lot of time to work with because their solution is ALWAYS making Mr. Hand turn into Mr. Fist.

I like to catch them right when they are changing over like that. POW. Sorry. POW. Maybe not so sorry, but still so.

Fortunately I didn't deal with it much later in life (practicing avoidance, not putting yourself in situations helps a great deal), but when I did, it was no quarter. I had to beat them into the tar. A good, down-home-style backyard ass-whuppin'. I always felt bad after having to do something like that, but considering the consequences otherwise, well... It's just not time for therapy--you have to "alpha roll" those kind of people. Advice: make sure they can't get up for awhile--sadly, that last final touch kick to the ribs is important. I certainly never felt good about it, but that's the way it is in my book, and that often includes interceding if you see a bully pick on someone else.

Punching in the nose, indeed. They cry pretty easy if you poke them in the eye. It's sad. I've gotten out of more than a few confrontations when playing at bars through sheer will power. I weigh 163 lbs and look like someone's dad or Mr. Rogers or something, but bullies, generally, are often weak enough that you can stare them down. I've been face-to-face, barstool-to-barstool, more than once like that, and it's amazing how fast you can back them down. I'm usually stronger that way because I actually like myself, and don't want to hurt people.

The other thing they totally loathe is any kind of public put down. Meaning, allowing them to go on and on with the pre-fighting stage bullying, and making it abundantly clear to everyone there what an ass the bully is making of themself. They really can't take that, though of course it can backfire. But if it does, they act out of rage, not a quiet mind, and they are easy to put down even if you know only a little bit about how to do that kind of thing.

To be quite honest after reading half of your posting I wasn't quite sure if you were being sarcastic or not. But I understand.

Yes, it's how you carry yourself. Someone else commented on it. If you weigh 163 lbs I weigh less. I can walk through a ghetto without a gun. There's a point I'm getting at if I could just find it. :-P

*2 minute pause*

Ahhh. A look in the eye and walk that demonstrates the idea that "I have a right". Oh...and the walk that comes from the attitude of masculinity, no matter what one's size or stature. Pffft.

The point, when you refer to things as an adult all have to do with stranger on stranger male on male confrontation type scenarios.

You know what. I even consider that women would be more properly suited to post on the issue to be honest. When I get tongue tied it's usually time to appeal to a woman. I'm not trying to be too flippant. I almost stared at the keyboard for 5 minutes not knowing how to keep typing.

Edited January 5, 2008 by RTB