Well OK, I didn't stop analysing altogether ...

While surfing (BE style) today I came across these thoughts on someone's blog (sorry I didn't get the URL to acknowledge the writer, if it's blogmarked I'll add it later) (I've added line breaks to make it easier to read):

"When people are hurt and/or angered by something someone says to them, does it mean the person speaking is just mean and hurtful deliberately or perhaps just hit a nerve with the recipient?

In other words, the person whose feelings are hurt by a particular statement feels the deliverer of the statement is just being mean, hateful, or hurtful.

However, isn't it true the recipient is hurt simply because the statement hit a nerve, which brings a truth to the forefront of their mind?

Could it be the hurt comes from within the person receiving the information rather than the person delivering the information?

Could certain statements bring about truths people fail to face and/or admit?

Make sense? I think it does. Why else would people react to certain statements, words, and phrases?

If the statement is not true, why get upset?"

This 'struck home' for me. I guess that's because of something I've thought before (don't know if it appears anywhere in the blog), which is:

If the things I write in my blog are just 'lies' and 'crap', then WHY does it create any kind of reaction in her. The above writers' thoughts, and mine too, are that obviously she sees truth in what I write, things that she has failed/refused to face or admit, and that is why she reacts badly to what I write.

And maybe that's why I am do unaffected by his nasty e-mails and SMS's - because I know the things he says are not true, not what he really believes or feels. And why hers just make me laugh.
Oh, and he is back in the technological world again today.