>>>[...]
>>>>Didn't you advise that we should take the side of the friend and thell them that the other person is a b------d for treating them this way? Didn't you say pretty much that this is how one treats one's friends and not by telling them that the fault might be theirs?
>>>
>>>I use both 'tactics'. It are the details that matter here.
>>>
>>>From the very moment that someone 'discovers' that a friend is oftentimes (or "always") playing the victim role, rather than really being a victim, it is tempting to 'remember' this each next time that this person complains about someone else.
>>>
>>>Personally, I prefer to 'discover' that this friend has certain skills, a certain knowledge of the world and a certain idea about justice that causes new cases that are perceived by this friend as victimization and perceived by others in a different perspective.
>>>
>>>Other times I apply the same Gestalt as this friend (afterall, friends do share many opinions).
>>>
>>>And there are many occasions where I use a combination. First I kind of confirm their emotion ("he's indeed a b___d"), only later I make certain mild critics ("perhaps it was not wise to start yelling at him").
>>
>>Ok, but in your previous post - see my second response, you made no mention of confirming anything. You seemed to immediately and unconditionally take your friend's side.
>
>I guess it was a reaction to the abundant opinion here that N is playing the victim role. There are many here who start telling N to stop, the very minute that she brings a new case to our attention or rementions a case we didn't know how to cope with.

Ok, then. Let me ask straight out. How long is long enough? How much moping over it is enough moping? Is there never a point where the person (Naomi, if you like) should simply say, "Ok, I guess that's how it's going to be", and just get on with life?