According to the DR text boundary and ultimatum are synonymous..
pp 230 uses the terms interchangeably in the same paragraph.
You were asked earlier if a boundary is not followed what would your response be... Follow through YES or NO...
And you have yet to answer...
And now you indicate that boundary and ultimatum "to you" are different.
No definition or distinction made...
But that point is moot. The question of this thread is "what is and what isn't divorce-busting"... not what is or isn't Arniebusting.
What "to you" these two terms mean isn't the point. The point is in the text they are synonymous. And the text advocates follow through. And further indicates that if you don't.. you are making a "hollow threat."
So, by not responding you are advocating either making hollow threats, or not setting boundaries at all.
The only alternative is to set a boundary and follow through.. which you clearly are avoiding even comitting to on a forum...
It's ok to say you don't advocate setting real boundaries or ultimatums... That's fine..
It just ain't in line with the text is all...
There's a lot of advice floating around the internet and even on this forum that isn't in line with the text... It's welcome here in my book.
I'm just sayin' that making hollow threats/unenforced boundaries are not in line with the text...
That was my initial problem.. That passing off advice as what is divorce busting without it being consistent with the text isn't being fully honest...
It's cool with me if you want to advocate "standing".. just don't try telling me its divorce busting... I have the book right in front of me.. Standing ain't divorce busting.
If you don't advocate follow through of boundaries its fine... It just ain't divorce-busting...
