Passive aggressive is any passive (or nonconfrontational) expression of anger. Keying a car could be one, but so can leaving #### for other people to deal with.

Leaving #### behind for your roommates to deal with is certainly passive aggressive.

Not calling Pat when you did't have his number isn't really. I didn't know you didn't have an easy way to contact him. If you did, that "yes, I was annoyed" combined with not calling certainly would have been.

Pat ditching a present might be, it would depend on how Pat felt toward Will.

P-A behavior doesn't have to be conscious, and often isn't.

Have things changed? Have you been specifically taught about this subject recently?

It's been a while, but I've been specifically trained in this area and intent had a lot to do with it. I remember other students arguing about people who they knew who they thought exhibited this behavior and they were corrected by the instructor.

Yeah, there are people who run around an say things behind other people's backs who don't realize exactly how damaging the things they are saying are, and whether it's conscious or not, that's Passive Aggressive, but there has to be some malicious intent.

I don't think leaving stuff behind that other people have to deal with is PA. It could be irresponsible, thoughtless, or just lame, or uncool, but, according to what I was taught, it's not PA. But, again, definitions may have changed.

You mention "expression of anger" in your definition. I don't see anger in this situation. It's totally possible that Pat was thinking, "I know Haven will be the last one out the door. Our friendship is toast, but I have no use for this set and if he can use it, I'd like to see him, or anyone, make use of it. He can take it or leave it at the curb."

So, out of curiosity, Bob...did you ever find out why Pat left the dining room set?

Now that I realize this happened years ago, it also makes sense why it was difficult to contact Pat. Nowadays, almost everyone has a cell phone number that travels with them, or facebook, or someone who can easily contact them via a friend of a friend, etc.

Wikipedia, citing the DSM:

In the summary, it also references hostility, which is probably a better word choice than anger.

Mostly referencing work requirements, but I'd say leaving stuff for others to deal with (and perhaps I'm making too big a deal, but a dining room set counts as large to me) which is your responsibility is passive-aggressive. Not making an call to see whether he wanted it is more questionable, depends on your social expectations ("expected of others" above). I'd totally expect such a call, personally, but I'd have also left a phone number. And you referred to being annoyed, which sounds like mild hostility. That one is on the border, I suppose.

Also, intent isn't always conscious.

"Oh, I didn't realize" may get a pass the first time, but don't you know anybody who seems to be willfully clueless as to the negative impact of their actions?

There is one angle about this whole thing I hadn't thought of--

Was Will taking back the set because if Pat didn't want it, *he* did? Or was he taking it back because he didn't want *you* to have it?

Yeah, this was mid nineties, right after I graduated.

I, to this day, have no idea why he left it.

I'm fairly certain that Will, at the very least, attempted to return it to him and something like, "Dude! Why would you treat my gift like that?" was said. But I've never wanted to bring the thing up again.

Will has stayed in contact with Pat, even though, from what I can tell, Pat blew him off fairly obviously. I've only recently felt comfortable with Will's reaction to ask, in passing, where Will is and what he's doing with himself. As I said, Pat and I had a parting of ways and Will felt like he was in the middle, so I do my best not to bring it up.

Hostility is a much better word, indeed.

But the definition sites "habitual". To me, that's a big part of it. One of the things I argued with my Pscyhe Profs about was the idea (theirs) that unhealthy psych status isn't a problem until it interferes with your life; becomes a problem. I didn't hold to that, but they often pointed out parts of the DSM (Is it still called that? I'd heard recently that they'd done away with that or something) where one word, such as "habitual" made all the difference. I remember going over the DSM for School Refusal and several of us (students) had a hard time seeing the distinction between that and those of us who faked illness al a Ferris Bueller when we were kids. Fortunately, (or really unfortunately) my girlfriend at the time had a little brother who was ten or so who went through School Refusal and I got to see first hand how different it is.

Anyway, I don't think Bob (Hi), Will, or Pat's behavior was PA or even if you could view it as such, it wasn't habitual and therefore it doesn't meet the DSM standard.

I was annoyed to a very mild extent. One of the reasons I waited until the last minute to close the house was because I half-expected him to return for it. My new apartment was really close, I'd already moved all my stuff. It wasn't difficult to pack it up and take it over in one trip as I left. Of course, I was younger, stronger, and had less back/muscle problems, so I saw it differently than I would now.

But I looked at it as if I'd seen something left on the curb and taken it, (Which happened all the time around that time of year in that little college town. Want a full set of furniture? I can tell you the street names and the dates to score almost everything you need.) not as though I was assuaging my annoyance with ill-gotten gains.

It's also probably a contributing factor in why I let it go fairly easily.

Oh, totally, I know (have known) too many to count.

Maybe there should be a condition called Passive Obnoxious.

I've never thought of that until now either.

Thanks.

I think.

But I doubt it. Will has been very helpful and generous to me on several other occasions since, and, specifically in the one that's caused us to spend more time together.

I'm fairly certain we all have friends like that. They do stuff that either confounds you as to their reasons from time to time or they do stuff that positively bothers you from time to time, but they're loyal and they have that much going for them.

From what you describe later, it doesn't sound like it.

Also, I think we're in agreement. One PA act does not make one PA, and I had no larger context to judge them (Fundamental Attribution Error). Then again, I see PA behavior everywhere of a non-pathological nature, I'd say that it's part of the normal spectrum of human behavior. I'm also a boss, so I deal with minor amounts of it all the time. I don't think it's the worst thing to think about people, though it makes for annoying roommates.

From post 269 to now, TL;DR

That means that you're currently winning the thread.


Haven, (if you haven't already) go read Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely.

Ooo. The blurbs on Amazon alone have my interest piqued.

When I'm done with Vikings: A Dark History, it could be next!

..the time in The Hobbit when Legolas whooped out Orcrist and cut a mofo to show them he meant bidness?


hbt:bfa005 E Legolas Greenleaf
Team: No Affiliation
Range: 7
Points: 145
Keywords: Elf, Mirkwood, Warrior

8 10 17 3

7 10 18 3

8 11 16 3

9 9 17 2

9 9 16 2

8 11 16 3

7 10 17 2

KO KO KO KO

KO KO KO KO

KO KO KO KO

KO KO KO KO

KO KO KO KO

(Improved) Born of Mirkwood: Improved Movement: Ignores Characters

(Special) Orcrist: Legolas Greenleaf may begin the game with HBT #S101 Orcist assigned to him by paying its cost. This object does not count toward your object total and is scored and removed from the game when Legolas Greenleaf is KO'd.