Obsession obsession

Dear Editor,

Below is a reply for the many articles that has been written by this community's "college professor," who is teaching our children and community.

He seems, more often than not, to present what is fitting for him. You are more than welcome to print this in Open Forum, as I believe many I have spoken to seem to agree, and feel it is only fair to see that all sides are important, especially when speaking about relationships.

Mike at Night -- After reading your many columns, and with many times wanting to reply, your most recent article on "obsession" compelled me to finally comment.

I have come to realize, that your articles are strictly your side, which fits best for you, without presenting the other side of the experience. Possibly in the future, you may want to get some in-put from someone else who has experienced the other side of your subject to be able to present both views.

Your definition is quite correct, and your view point is one of two -- good obsessions, but you forgot to mention the BAD obsessions and their effects on other people who deal with someone being obsessed with them, without their desire to have you obsessed with them.

You seem to fit the good obsession in with your life, and I'd like to explain the bad obsession side, which with you being a college professor, I believe you already know, but forgot to include in your article.

There are many bad obsessions ... overeating, alcohol, drugs, and one of the worst being another human being, that is so obsessed with another person, without the other person willing to participate in the relationship. I believe this bad obsession can lead the obsessor into many acts that normally they would not do -- obscene phone calls, sending mail to them, stalking them in stores, in their car, and at home (which as you can imagine, can be very very scary), and continuing to try to communicate and change the person's mind about participating in a relationship with them, even when they had expressed no interest or no desire to be a part of this person's life.

This, as I believe you are aware of, can really affect the other person in a lot of negative ways, such as emotional stress, anxiety, physical illnesses from the stress, and a lot of difficulty in their life, and the damage it can cause because of this person's persistence.

So as you see, there are good obsessions, and there are bad obsessions, with the results of the bad obsessions, being so much more miserable, so very much more intense, and so very much more emotionally damaging, than are the good.

I just wanted you to hear from the other side of the obsession definition.

The point I am trying to express, is that in Mike at Night's article about obsessions, as he did not cover the bad obsessions, in that there are more people out there than we care to believe, who do struggle with obsessions that are very damaging to other people.

Many times the result is reporting it to the authorities to end the stalking, harassment, and the misery. I am sure anyone who has experienced this, could not even put into words the hell it puts them through.

My question being, did his article encourage even those with the bad obsessions, to think even more now than ever, that this is OK and acceptable?

Truly, his viewpoint is only about the good of obsessions, possibly even to validate his own. My viewpoint, is that when I hear the word obsession, it more times than not means that someone is very intense about something, or someone, very often resulting in making them behave in ways they other wise would not.

Thanks for listening,

Wanda Wantsal

Beaver City

Mike Hendricks responds:

"I appreciate Ms.Wantsal's response, as I appreciate all responses to my columns, favorable or unfavorable.

However, I should point out, as I've mentioned before, that my column is an opinion column, not an investigative report. That's why it's printed on the opinion page, along with editorials and other opinion pieces.

My job as a columnist is not to present a fair and balanced presentation of all sides. My obligation is to present a particular perspective, my perspective, that people can either accept or reject.

The reason I've written a column for this newspaper for seven years is because I've discovered that my perspectives and my opinions touch a chord with many readers. That happens because I'm just a normal person navigating through life like everyone else is. If people agree with what I say, sometimes it helps them act to better their lives.

If they disagree, they either pay no attention to what I've written or they write letters presenting a different perspective, as you have done. That's what it is to live in a free society. If I'm trying to "prove" a particular perspective, then I will quote my sources.

If I'm offering my opinion only, then readers should look elsewhere for "objectivity," which is sometimes deceivingly hard to find.