I am sticking my nose into someone's business and my neck out where it can get chopped. Am I stupid or sick or just vain to think that my interference is necessary and will bring a positive result?
So far, my life experience taught me that it's better to stay insulated, not venturing into someone else's territory where you are bound to step on someone's sensitive toes. It's too bad that my common sense and I work different shifts: when I get up, it goes to sleep.
I am still an outsider at the Al Anon meetings. I go there, mostly, because Mr. P. heartily recommends it. He also said that people there are his best friends and they will stand by him no matter what. We-e-e-ll....
I am not saying: "I told you so." I'm saying: "Watch out!" Mr. P. was absent at a meeting yesterday. A lady began talking about someone's (meaning - his) behavior and, specifically, him writing in his blog about the goings on at the meetings and naming names, which made her sense of privacy feel violated. Another person supported that point of view. By then those of us who never read that blog were swept into the indignation over the member of Al Anon committing such a glaring snafu: naming members' names and saying what they shared at the meeting. The first rule of Al Anon is anonymity.
The second is that there can be just one leader at a meeting,
otherwise it's considered like someone is trying to establish their dominance over the participants.
To make sure, Mr. P. did seem a little too smug sitting at the meetings and frequently suggesting the way those meetings should proceed. I noticed and was a tad amused by that. Since I don't know him that well, I will assume that he doesn't realize that he is enjoying his authority a little bit too much. It happens with the best of us! I don't think that he willingly is trying to assert influence over the meetings.
What the ladies suggested though was, that he overstepped the Al Anon's norms of behavior. Their downfall was oral diarrhea. They talked and talked, until there was no time to vote for the methods by which to censure Mr. P. The meeting concluded with a vote to dedicate the next meeting to that purpose.
Like I said, I thought that charges against Mr. P. were quite heavy. On the way home, in a car full of Mr. P.'s supporters and clients, I heard that there were no names named in the infamous blog. When I read it for myself, I saw that he didn't even refer to the meeting as Al Anon, but only said that he was meeting with some friends.
Phew! Now relieved, I began to realize what those ladies were trying to accomplish. They didn't talk about the initial reason why they were upset at Mr. P. but instead employed the tactic that we see so many times in some sort of elections: they made up charges and tried to manipulate the public opinion against Mr. P. Wow!
They are masters of manipulation! Fortunately, Mr. P. adhered to the rules and therefore can be exonerated by simply showing to the rest of the meetings' participants the copied pages of his blog. Which I and some of his friends will do.
So, do you think that I should've just sat on my hands and not interfere? Would you have done so?