To be, or not to be . . . yourself, that is

The main theme running around this BLOG has been whether or not being myself, i.e., nice, forgiving, helpful, even a "goody-two-shoes" to some, is something that others take advantage of, and if so, how do I stop that, AND do I really care if others keep "trying it on."

Obviously, I do care if those that I have offered help to turn around and use it against me, but not for the reasons one might think.  It isn't a pride thing, and I am not pitying myself for being played by those out there who seem to live to use other people.  It is the fact that these people usually cause me and my family, staff, friends, etc., extra work, or stress, or the players' actions just seem to frustrate and harass, in a world in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to maneuver - effectively and efficiently.  Being effective and efficient is the environment in which I was raised, and it is inherent in me now.  I have fine tuned this characteristic because it is helpful to my law practice, and benefits all of us there, clients and staff, alike.  Me, I can deal with the stupid player who makes a game out of causing mayhem in people's lives -- for whatever reason they feel they have a right to.  Perhaps, as in the former employee I discussed earlier, they have some misguided idea that they are a victim and everyone around them is either out to get them, or has/is about to let them down.  Can't fix Stupid, remember, and that grates on me because STUPID is also dangerous in many ways.  Not mortally, necessarily (although STUPID is dangerous when cars and other "weapons" are in the mix), but they are dangerous to how others around us live their lives.

What, exactly, does that mean, you ask?  Well, let's give an example.

Janet is a friend, and has been a friend since she was a client some 14 years ago.  Janet has a couple of kids, from one husband, and a disabled child from her recent ex-husband.  Janet lives a couple of hours away from my office, and the disabled child has certain schedules Janet keeps to ensure his schooling, medical appointments, and visitation with the child's dad.  Janet no longer works outside the home for some other reasons that she was not responsible for.  This was the client that the former employee from an earlier BLOG post actively worked to "screw over."  Why did she take affirmative action to "screw her over?"  Because she knew she is a friend of mine.  Did it matter to this former employee that Janet has a life that is already full of things that are important, and need to be done every day for the sake of her family?  So, dangerous to not only Janet, an innocent in this former employee's mentally deficient battle against me, for her own insane and inane reasons, but dangerous in many ways to the children Janet is responsible for.

So, am I expected to "play nice" with this former employee who has an obvious mental deficiency?  Am I expected to "be myself" because I will not change for anyone, despite what some of these "players" choose to try to hit me with?  Where is the base line in this, and where is the toe-line, and where is "too far?"  Do I choose to be less interactive, sympathetic, empathetic (as the case may be), with all clients and staff, and only become that person outside of work?  Why is it necessary to switch that on and off because others' actions cannot be trusted -- even though I don't know who can be trusted and who can't be trusted until they actually show their true colors?  Comments are welcomed!