Read about Gabby's Point of View

Read about Gabby's Point of View
Site Admin
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:24 am

Read about Gabby's Point of View

Postby Gabby » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:39 pm

Note: The primary purpose of our* Dear Gabby serves as reference material for our tutorial participants.

Gabby supports open, honest, and spontaneous communication, through to mutual satisfaction, zero significant thoughts withheld.

It could be said that reading this page is a test. You may use it to measure your integrity. The test is to see if your mind will allow you to read the entire page. If you find yourself resisting reading it through to the end then it's possible your integrity is out. Possibly your mind won't allow another point of view to mess with its reality—your mind could be protecting a lie. It's not that this page contains any usable truths, merely that once you allow the following content into your mind your all-knowing self will assimilate and eventually act upon any truths herein.

Premise: The partner or parent who cannot/will not read this entire page is creating someone withholding thoughts from them. Put another way, shutting down your mind causes your partner/child to not communicate openly and honestly with you; she/he has absolutely no choice other than to mirror your communication model, your integrity. It's no accident that you are reading this today.

When you hide certain things (thoughts, judgments, opinions, omissions, perpetrations) from another you create a reality in which they have no choice other than to withhold certain thoughts from you in order to maintain a relationship with you. You automatically cause (unconsciously intend) them to hide things (his/her items of choice) from you. They know intuitively that they have found in you someone who will not require open and honest communication.

This pact, this agreement to withhold certain thoughts, gets communicated non-verbally. When you discover someone has withheld something from you it is irrefutable proof that you are the source of the dishonesty in your relationship because you'll notice that you began the deceit by withholding something (a possible deal-breaker) from them; often within seconds when you first met.

For example: If you caused your partner to cheat on you you'll notice that you began the deceit, perhaps by withholding from him/her that you cheated on a high school test. It could even be that you conned your partner into deceiving both sets of parents so as to have sex. In other words, you presented yourself as an honorable person. This is deceptive. Deceivers always attract deceivers. There are no exceptions to this fundamental entanglement communication phenomenon.

If you begin a relationship with an open, honest, and spontaneous communication model, zero withholds, the other person has no choice but to follow suit. The item you hide, the first thought you choose to withhold, creates a condition of out-integrity. The withhold becomes as ". . . a mote in thine eye." All intercourse thereafter is but an imitation of communication.

With all breakdowns in communication, especially one in which you suspect another of deceit (of hiding something from you), you will notice that you are withholding something, an acknowledgment (in the form of a judgment, a criticism, a perpetration, a truth), or your love and support, from them.

A person addicted to blaming tenaciously resists acknowledging that he/she is the source of, the cause of, the starter of, the deceit in the relationship. Such a mind resists being responsible for not being a safe space for others to tell the truth.

What I've noticed is that quite often advice columnists advise and support deceit.

For example:

    Letter writer's question: Shall I tell my husband about my past affairs?
    Columnist's answer: "No." (the implied advice being—keep deceiving him—there is absolutely no correlation between yours and his, and your children's, happiness, success, and health, and your integrity)

    Letter writer's question: Should I tell my grandchild that he is adopted?
    Columnist's answer: "No." (the implied advice being—continue to train those with whom you relate to not be truthful; support your grandchild's parents to raise him/her to be deceitful and confused)**

    Letter writer's question: Should I tell my mother that I had an abortion when I was 15?
    Columnist's answer: "No." (the implied advice being—whether you are open and honest with your mother has absolutely no bearing on your relationships, especially with your spouse)

    Letter writer's question: My _______ is dying, should I tell them the truth?
    Columnist's answer: "No." (the implied advice being—"... let sleeping dogs lie." Let them die deceived.) This does not take into account that the person's health may be a consequence of the unacknowledged deceit in the relationship.
Deceit always requires reasons and justifications, these remain locked in one's mind for the duration of the deceit, occupying space, keeping one from being whole and complete. The truth frees the mind. Thoughts withheld sap one's creativity, thereby causing more of the same less-than-desirable results.

The success of Abby's and Ann's columns clearly reveal that most readers subscribe to their philosophy; the majority also condone police "sting" operations.

The vast majority of readers cannot imagine a relationship in which there are zero secrets or thoughts withheld. We have been brought up reading advice columns. We have come to believe that hiding the truth is sometimes acceptable.

The fact that a problem persists is proof of an out-integrity. It reveals that there is a lie somewhere. The lie never goes away. Once the truth is told the problem disappears. It creates space for a new problem.

In each of the above examples, if the truth were told, the letter writer would have an entirely new set of problems, and, an opportunity to re-create the relationship on a foundation of integrity. Relationships that were of expanding value would continue to be so and those that were unhealthy or damaging could be completed.

Quite often the reason for the deceit invalidates the person from whom the secret is being withheld, as though they are not big enough, or capable of getting, understanding, or forgiving. This is called arrogance. It keeps another small. In truth, secrets are held for survival reasons—out of fear of ....

A secret hides a part of who you are, which means the other is having a relationship with someone they don't truly or totally know. It is impossible for another to experience being in communication with your "honest" act. To withhold a thought from a loved one is premeditated abuse, it condemns the relationship to mediocrity with few or no moments of joyous love; it usually reveals both have an unconscious intention to eventually divorce.

Most people are unaware that a deceit that has not been verbally acknowledged is written on their face, their aura. Verbally meaning—not verbally communicated to the person on whom the deceit is perpetrated. The word "verbally" is important because the deceit is being communicated non-verbally and is having an effect. People don't know what you are hiding, just that something is not right, something is wrong. There is in fact an aura of untrustworthiness that emanates from you. There is no space for the experience of communication with someone who is hiding something. They are doomed to a life of talking which serves as a barrier to the experience of communication. Love, joy, and happiness are by-products of communication. "Pretty good," "OK," "not great but not bad," "getting better," (mediocrity) are by-products of talking.

Dear Gabby presents another point of view. Ultimately it works to have a choice among several alternatives. This site is educational as opposed to therapeutic; it is understood that few would/will act upon Gabby's advice.

Congrats for reading this entire page.

To optimize the value to be gotten from reading Gabby's Point of View register (it's free) and post your comments or feedback by pressing the "post reply" button.

Note: It's understood that those who write to columnists have come to expect a reply that reflects a certain point of view delivered using the prevailing Adversarial Communication Model taught by teachers nationwide. It's the model that accounts for the dramatic increase in lawsuits stemming from blame. Most letter-writers would not have written to Dear Abby had they known Gabby's Point of View. Why? Because Gabby supports personal responsibility, zero blaming or badmouthing, no withholds; after reading a few of Gabby's replies one can pretty much intuit Gabby's reply without even writing—that the source of a problem is never ever the other person.

* There are hundreds of other Dear Gabbys online. Our's has been listed (without ads) among the first in Google for more than 14-years in a row.

** For a child to be whole and complete he/she must know their roots, their ancestry, else they are incapable of acknowledging (with experiential pride) the contributions their ancestors have made to civilization, the trials, tribulations and sacrifices that caused them (the child) to be. i.e. As an orphan I discovered, at age 56, that my father's father came from Italy; it gave me an entirely new perspective and appreciation of all things Italian.

Kerrith H. (Kerry) King
President, Community Communications

Last edited 11/23/17

Site Admin
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:24 am

Re: Read about Gabby's Point of View

Postby Gabby » Fri May 04, 2012 12:18 am

Hi KubaLibre,

Thank you for the nice acknowledgment.

With aloha,


Return to “Gabby's Point of View”