---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fleetwood_macncheese@...> wrote :
Perhaps the article should have been titled: "Seven techniques to handle elements of other people that you may find toxic, but such toxic elements are in no way meant to label such persons as 'toxic', and any reference to toxicity, is merely making a relative comparison, between normal social interaction, and the interaction with such individuals, and in no way is ever meant to imply that such individuals, are in whole, or in part, actually toxic." Good one. I mean, truly toxic people, and they do exist, need to take responsibility for who they are and consequently what they do. All this semantic b.s. is exactly that, semantic b.s.. Skirting around the core of the issue - which is, some people are downright odious to be around, a real drag, a real drain and a real downer. Calling it by any other name is simply avoiding the true issue. It's kind of like those who believe kids shouldn't be graded in school because it might stunt or damage them in some way if they actually fail at something. Well, it is possible to fail at something and the sooner humans learn that the better off they will be later when there are real consequences beyond a lousy report card. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : I see that Bradberry used the phrase toxic people. I'm surprised and still think it's emotionally unhealthy to label people that way. Healthier imo to focus on the toxic behavior and look for solutions to that.
