twisted thinking

[Mati]

Hi all

There has been a crisis back at the cesspit  (abode of nH, nson).

nH was taking the dog for a walk late at night and having crossed a bypass (highway?) he let the dog off the lead, just before entering a gate leading to a wood. Instead of the dog running off to the woody area, it turned around and ran back accross the road and was hit by a 4X4 at 70mph. It is a miracle but, even though it was thrown up in the air, it has escaped with no broken bones or damage, only shock.

However, the three (nson nH and normal but brainwashed son) are in shock because the driver, although he stopped, was shouting and got back in his car and drove off. Well I can only go by the story I was told, but it seems to me that the guy was very angry indeed with nH for having a dog loose on that road. I am not saying that he was justified in driving off and not taking the dog to the vet, just that I can understand his actions and hold nH responsible for what happened. But here's the thing, none of the three think the same way as me (I did not bother to tell them what I think, I gave that up a long time ago )

They are very angry with the driver, and seem to hold him totally responsible. None of them seem to think that nH did anything wrong. Sheesh! I just wonder how others see this and whether they think the same way as me. 

[Stormchild]

I hope they took the dog to the vet. Internal bleeding from blunt trauma injuries can kill, and a vet should check for signs of this since it can be treated... [Sorry - as a critter nut that's my first thought. I'll contemplate who's to blame for what later on ].

[bunny]

Yes, your nH was to blame IMO. With that said, it's normal to point fingers at others when in shock, stunned, traumatized, etc., so I cut them a break right after it happens. I hope that later they will acknowledge their part in it.

bunny

[Mati]

Yes the dog was taken to the vets and spent the night there. He is shaken but fine.

I think that I just mentioned it because it follows the pattern of nH never accepting his responsibility in anything and the boys enabling him. I do not think that he/they will see the drivers side in it and I am sure that he drove off after nH got aggressive with him. In fact I know that it would have been his reaction.
Well I hope that I am wrong and they will show that they have some empathy.

[Stormchild]

Hi Mati

Gotta be quick, have to go to work. But... was thinking about this last night [thanks for the update on the pooch, whew] and it occurs to me that this sounds kind of like a classic N-on-N encounter: screaming, flaming, blaming, and of course it's the innocent party that gets hurt.

In other words - that driver was probably just as N as your husband [and son?]. I can't imagine using an argument as a pretext to abandon a possibly injured animal, no matter how obnoxious its owner might be. And I have seen plenty Ns concoct or provoke arguments so they would have an excuse to back out on a commitment, stiff a waiter for a tip, or otherwise duck their legitimate responsibilities. A decent human being would have been horrified at hitting the dog and would have been shaken, concerned, possibly even apologetic. And would have tried to follow up somehow, even if only by contacting the vet.

Uh uh. Sounds like jerks all around, on this one. The only blameless one in all of this is the dog. Who, of course, is the one who got hurt. For just being a dog.

[Mati]

Hi Stormchild

I think you are right! Yes, the driver must have been an n too.

What is missing in the way nH and the boys see it, is that they blame the driver entirely without seeing that nH and he both behaved irresponsibly. And the innocent dog suffered.

I could see how they develop the victim mentality through incidents like this. All of the parties involved see themselves like this. Yet it was the dog not them who was the victim.

[mudpuppy]

Hi everybody,

I think we may be going a little rough on the driver here.
The odds of an N who has just irresponsibly let his dog get whacked relating a truthful rendition of events is just about nil.
For all we know the guy was compassionately leaning over the pooch preparing to take him to the vet when Mati's nutburger ex started threatening to sue, punch, castrate or otherwise commit mayhem on the guy.
The one thing I've learned with Ns is, when they're relating a story they were involved in, its invariably 180 degrees off.
More likely, your ex kicked his dog for looking at him wrong, and thought up some grandiose story to avoid responsibility.

mudpup

[October]

I just wonder how others see this and whether they think the same way as me. 

Hiya Mati

My own view is that if a person is responsible for an animal, and something happens to that animal, then the responsibility remains with them, unless the car driver drove into the wood, or onto the pavement (sidewalk   )

In this case, your nH took the lead off the dog too soon.  End of story. 

It is his responsibility for the dog turning and running into the road.  The dog shouldn't have run into the road, but cannot be blamed because that is the kind of things dogs do; that is why we put them on leads.

The driver may have been going too fast; we don't know.  Your H says it was 70mph, but he would say that even if it were only 30mph.  I think that had it been a 70mph impact, the dog would have been killed.  Some of our road adverts here say that if a child is hit at 30mph it has an 80% chance of surviving, whereas at 40mph only a 20% chance of surviving.  So perhaps we can realistically say the car was probably not doing 70.

The car driver was not a hit and run.  He stopped, and he was perfectly right in saying that the dog should not have been loose on the road.  But your nH would not accept that, and switched the blame onto the car driver, and showed anger and animosity.  At that point, if I had been the driver I would have done what this person did; got back into my car and driven off.  I would have been sorry to leave the dog behind, but too afraid of the owner to stick around.  I think that is understandable, whether the driver was N or not.  (But I suspect an N driver would not have bothered to stop the car.)

I am very pleased the dog is ok, but I don't think the Ns involved will ever admit the truth. They don't know what truth is.

[Moira]

Hi Mati! What an awful story- hate animals being hurt. I am one of those people who frankly prefer animal and small child company to that of most adults. Am a huge animal lover- have 3 four legged children myself! I wholeheartedly agree with comments that your nH's account of events is not remotely based on the actual events. Ns are incapable of truth and their stories aer always about THEM- your pooch just happened to be the source of N supply. What pity and attention he can get from this. I doubt there even may have been an alleged other driver involved. I feel for our " brainwashed" son- his is likely the only version of truth, but he can never tell. Bottom line- I don't think I would be able to entrust my furry companion to the likes of any N. My ex N had a dog for several years- not because he liked animals, but it was a babe magnet. As soon as his dog developed a medical condition entailing medication for several months, he decided the dog " was too sick...his quality of life was gone...I have to do the right thing". He drove to the vet and left his poor dog in it's carrier outside the door and said " put it down and mail me the bill". Then he milked it for all it was worth again to get attention from women. What a callous- but typical N!!!! I'm really glad your furry friend is recovering- give him/her a biscuit for me!!

[Mati]

Hi Moira

The dog is not mine. It belongs to my youngest not n son. I would never trust my nH with a dead rat never mind a dog.

Hi October

The story now is that the car was going at least 70 mph and probably 80 but you are right. Some kids were supposed to witness it and saw the speed of the car. And said that the driver was probably drunk.

It sounds more like an n lie than a miracle  And you are right that the driver was not hit and run which an n would more likely be than someone who stopped to see how the dog was. Especially as it was dark. I just had not thought of that. He stopped. Then he drove on....so what happened in between. Having seen nH in a rage, I would not blame anyone hotfooting it out of his way.

mudpuppy

yes, it is all starting to sound like a story. So glad I brought it here to get another prospective on it. I still tend to believe what n tells me or tells our sons. Even though i should know not to believe a single word he says.

[Stormchild]

Hi Mati

Something else occurred to me today... this is an observation only, and other folks may have had other experiences. But... in my experience...

When an N is faced with a problem their first reaction is to blame someone else and demand to be rescued.

When someone traumatized by Ns is faced with a problem their first reaction, until they heal, is to blame themselves and then try to rescue everyone else.

When someone who is non-N, or has healed from N trauma, is faced with a problem, their first reaction is to look for a solution.

A really abusive N can be an absolute genius at blaming the same person he or she is demanding rescue from.

A really traumatized N survivor can be an absolute genius at always choosing to rescue the most abusive, N person in the room.

And round and round it goes...

I'm glad the accident story was probably fabricated. Do you think the dog even really had to go to the vet?

[Mati]

Hi Stormy

Thanks so much for that. it is brilliant and I will copy it out and keep it handy. It is so true.

Yes it seems that the dog did spend the night at the vets unless nH managed to construct an extremely complicated deception. My sons believed that the dog was at the vets all night and came home in a very shocked state and I expect they saw the vets bill. This has been a very valuable lesson for me. I have been so trusting in the past, and do not automatically assume someone could be lying. Very naive of me I know. I would never dream of lying to anyone, so have to work hard at living in an alien world.

[Stormchild]

Mati - I can relate so well to what you say. And believe me, I'm one of the worst Abusive N Rescue Operations on the planet. Or was. I'm getting better

I have trouble myself starting from the premise that the other person is a liar, manipulative, etc. We're groomed by our predators to be trusting and open! It makes it so much easier to gut the oyster if its shell is never closed. To this day, I'm stunned when I discover just what manipulative creeps some people are.

And then I pingpong back to the other position and assume that everybody is a lying scheming con artist and there is no one righteous, no, not one. According to some experts, that's not as extreme a position as I wish it were... some estimates are that more than half of people are N to some degree... but it should be possible to believe that, accept it, and go on with your life with your armor in place, without always feeling so bad that things are that way.

When someone finds the recipe for that, post it to me please .

Hugs

[mudpuppy]

Hi Mati,

Let me modify what I said about Ns and their stories.

Only occasionally are their stories 180 degrees off. That only happens when there are no witnesses to contradict them. That's when you get the real whoppers. Its also a great opportunity for a laugh if there were witnesses they weren't aware of.
Usually its about five to twenty degrees off center; just enough to shift the blame off of the N and/or to make him look either the victim or the hero.
You can't laugh off the 5 to 20 degree ones because they're the ones other people believe.

mud

[October]

 I still tend to believe what n tells me or tells our sons. Even though i should know not to believe a single word he says.

That is because you are not a liar.     People who tell the truth think that other people do the same.  Ns on the other hand expect everyone around them to lie, and so believe no-one, and think (if they think at all) everyone as hypocritical as themselves.