It is important to view verbal attacks as the violent behavior they are. Most of us have a tendency to follow the "sticks-and-stones" rule--you know the old adage, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me." We say things like, "Well, at least he never hit her," because we can't imagine anything worse than beating. We view words as harmless.

Not true. Words can hit like fists; they do immeasurable damage to their victim; and the damage isn't so easily mended. When we think of an abusive relationship, we think pretty much in terms of broken arms, bruises, and the like. We don't think in terms of broken egos, destroyed confidence, and lost self-esteem. And yet these effects are as real as the physical damage inflicted in other (or the same) relationship. And no doctor has learned to "set" a broken ego.

Another frightening aspect of verbal violence is that it often softens up the victim for physical violence to follow. Once the victim comes to think of him/herself (and yes, men are abused too), as sort of weak and unworthy, as the sort of person who "has it coming," then it becomes less and likely that she or he will seek help or try to leave a damaging relationship. Often when we think of an abusive relationship we see, we ask ourselves, "Well, why doesn't she just leave? I would." Frequently that's true because we haven't been acclimated to a level of violence and harm over time, as has the victim.

One of the most striking conversations I've ever had is with a woman (let's call her Susan) who, for years, was severely and repeatedly abused by her husband. It's easy to wonder why someone stays in such a relationship, particularly in a case like hers, where she was well able to support herself and later her children without her husband's help. But that's largely because we think of the relationship as always having been physically violent.

The problem is that abusers don't wear signs, and they don't hit right away. The relationship starts out warm and caring. Usually the only hint that something is not quite right is that the future abuser is fairly controlling, wanting to make the decisions and take the lead. Since most of us aren't trained to look for these behaviors and associate them with potential for violence, we overlook what seem to be annoying personality traits in favor of other fine qualities in the person. After all, no one's perfect.

That's how it happened with Susan. The months she dated her future husband were like the months of most courtships. The couple did fun things together, went places, and talked about their plans and hopes for the future. The only dark spot was a tendency for him to need to be in control. He wanted to decide where they went and with whom. Susan didn't argue because she was so happy otherwise in the relationship. She didn't really notice that gradually they were spending more and more time with his family and friends and less and less with hers. By the time they were married, most of her friends has drifted away.

They weren't married long when the true verbal abuse began. Each episode seemed, by itself, to be small and insignificant. And if any one of them had been the only episode, it probably would have been small and insignificant. Only when you view the pattern of behavior is the trend visible. One of the worst aspects of this trend was that no one outside the relationship understood what was happening; the husband appeared to all to be warm and loving as he slowly and surely chipped away at Susan's self-confidence and independence. She viewed the abuse as her fault; if she could just be a better wife, he wouldn't need to humiliate and demean her. So she worked harder and harder to meet his expectations, feeling like a failure every time she didn't measure up. By the time the hitting began, she was helpless to see that she had a choice. It took years and a developing fear for her children's safety for her to develop the recognition that she needed to leave the marriage.

Verbal abuse is more common than most of us realize, which is one of the problems with it. If you don't know you're being attacked, then you don't have the opportunity to defend yourself from the attack or to simply avoid habitual abusers. Sometimes we view the worst offenders as close friends instead of the abusers they are.

Now we're not talking about the unsophisticated and obvious attacks like, "You fat pig!" here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to spot that as abusive and offensive behavior; most of us learn quickly to avoid the person who engages in this sort of attack; and anyone who observes this sort of attack is generally willing and ready to come to our defense. So, while these sorts of attacks are damaging and hurtful, they're not as difficult to deal with.

The kinds of attacks we will consider are more subtle and difficult to spot. In fact, often--even when the attack is over and you're left feeling awful--we never know we've been attacked at all; we just know we feel very bad. Suzette Haden-Elgin, a sociolinguist who has spent much of her career studying the subject, has collected the typical verbal patterns into a set of Verbal Attack Patterns, or VAPs. These are what we'll examine.

So why do verbal abusers attack? Those with deep-seated psychological problems are beyond my expertise or the scope of this course; but many other, relatively healthy, people engage in verbal abuse from time to time. Why? There can be many reasons. Some people do it sort of for sport; they enjoy exercising their verbal muscles, like to spar with an opponent, and get a kick out of watching you wriggle on their hook. They like to win these encounters and tend to be fairly skilled (and good at picking their victims), so they win a lot. Enjoying this sort of cruel entertainment doesn't strike me as a healthy way to live, but these people may engage in this sort of "fun" throughout their lives; some even start as children.

You all knew the sixth-grade playground bully, didn't you? He was bigger than the other kids and seemed to enjoy pushing the others around, simply because he could. He lived for the excitement generated when another child would get red in the face, sputter at him, and run off crying. This was a kid who did this for sport, because it was fun to see others suffer. Well the verbal abuser is the adult equivalent. He's bigger--that is, more skilled--than the other kids and seems to enjoy pushing others around, simply because he can. He lives for the excitement generated when you get red in the face, sputter at him, and run off crying. He does it because it's fun for him to see you suffer.

Additionally, the habitual abuser gets a kick from exerting power and being in control. At the very least, a successful verbal abuser gets to control your behavior and your time during the attack. This is very rewarding to a bully. Abuse is most often really about dominance and control.

Some people engage in the VAPs simply from habit. These are often people with poor communication and interpersonal skills; they're abusing because they don't have better strategies for getting what they need from a relationship. They often don't realize just what they're doing. These are people who are just getting along, doing the best they can with the resources they have. Their abuse is no less harmful, but their motivations are considerably different. At the bottom though, this is still an issue of dominance and control; it's just that this person doesn't know a better way to take some control in her life, so she tries to control yours.

And others use VAPs only when very upset. There is something about intense emotion--sadness, anger, hurt, frustration--that causes us to stop thinking clearly. Frequently this is when we do hurtful things to others, even people for whom we care a lot. These attacks come from a very different place than those from habitual abusers. But these attacks are also still really about control. Often when our emotions are out of control, we seek to control what we can; sometimes this turns out to be other people.

VAPs consist of two parts, the bait and the presupposition. The bait is the obvious part of the attack pattern; it's the part to which most of us would react--sort of a knee-jerk reaction. Your attacker knows this and has planned for it. The presupposition is the more damaging part of the attack. Remembering what you know about presupposition, this is meaning embedded in the attack that isn't really open to challenge--meaning to which you wouldn't normally respond because it's already established as fact by the verbal pattern used.

In some attack patterns the bait and presupposition are clearly separated; in others they are mingled in complicated ways. No matter; we'll talk about both.

The rules for responding to VAPs are simple and general-purpose; in other words, irrespective of the particular attack pattern initiated, the same rules apply. They are as follows:

1) Ignore the bait.

2) Respond directly to a presupposition.

3) Send the message that verbal attacks don't work on you.

Think of a verbal attack as an action chain. There is a patterned script, with you and your attacker each playing the scripted role. It is an action chain because both of you know the "rules," the way the interaction is scripted; and it can be as difficult to resist playing your scripted role as it is to avoid a handshake when it is offered. The pattern of behavior in action chains is so powerfully ingrained in each of us that it is almost painful to break these social rules. But it is important in this case.

When your attacker uses a VAP on you, she knows just what will happen. You will choose a response from a fairly limited set of possibilities, then she'll make her next move, you'll respond according to the script, and so on. Your initial response is "supposed" to be to take the bait and respond to it, ignoring embedded presuppositions in the attack. In doing this, you're following the script designated by the action chain. We'll look at examples in a minute.

Now think about how it throws another person off when you break one of the other kinds of action chains we've discussed. For example, when you stand there looking at the hand-shaker who introduces himself and offers his hand, he is befuddled. He knew what his next move was, once you took his hand and said, "Pleased to meet you; my name is ___." If you don't do this, he has no idea what to do next. This isn't in the script; and he's not prepared. Now this seems a little unfair to do to someone who simply introduces himself, but when the action chain is one that leads to escalating abuse with you as victim, things are different.

So if you ignore the bait, breaking the action chain, and instead respond to another part of the attack, the presupposition, your attacker is left flat-footed with no idea what to do next. No matter how skilled the attacker, this will be nearly impossible to deal with. This is especially true if the relationship has a pattern of verbal abuse, because you've responded so much out of character. The more unexpected your behavior, the more difficult it is for your attacker to deal with. And that's the your goal.

Simply breaking the action chain is an ideal way to signal to your attacker that this sort of thing doesn't work with you. The more often you do this, the clearer it will become that you're not a good choice for victim. This is a desirable outcome. Just as the sixth-grade playground bully never picks on someone who is bigger than he is, so your attacker will quit picking on you when it becomes evident that you're verbally "big." In fact, a curious thing happens once you've established a healthy pattern of response to attacks. People--all people, not just those who've attacked you in the past--quit trying. Just as a large muscular man is not a good target for a bully, so a skilled communicator is not a good target for a verbal bully. Bullies are expert at spotting likely victims; they don't mess with those they can't beat.

Can you think of someone you just don't think you'd ever attempt to bully verbally? I'm not talking about someone who has power in your relationship, for example, your boss or your parent. I'm thinking of a person who you're pretty sure would or could make mincemeat of you; you just wouldn't go there, would you? Why is that? It is because a skilled communicator looks like a bad choice for this sort of thing. If you present yourself as skilled--someone on whom verbal attacks don't work--then the verbal attacks never happen at all. In other words, the better you are at dealing with verbal attacks, the less often you'll need to use your skills. This is a good goal to set.

There are many forms these verbal attacks can take, but there are only a few common ones. Once you learn to deal with these, then any new ones that present themselves are easily dealt with too. A big step is learning to spot verbal attacks; since they are subtle, often we're victimized without realizing it. As with so many things, knowing what's going on is half the battle. So once again I'm asking you to pay attention, to notice things you're not in the habit of noticing.

The form of this attack pattern is simple and common.

Now you can fill in the blanks in many different ways, based on the relationship's history and the kind of relationship that exists. Let's look at an example:

First thing is to identify the bait. The best way to do this is to consider what your knee-jerk response would be if you heard this attack. That is usually the bait; by definition, bait is something tempting dangling out there in front of you. In this case, the accusation that you waste money is almost irresistible, isn't it? You'll really want to say something like this:

Ah, good. Just what your attacker wanted. What he has in mind is to engage you for the next 15 minutes or so in a battle you can't win. There are some variations possible as to the precise words you and your attacker choose, based on your relationship history, but the general outlines of the battle and its outcome are scripted from the very start if you play along as expected. Here's the general way things are scripted to go:

ATTACKER: I think so. Why we can't get from paycheck to paycheck the way you're spending.

YOU: Well, it costs a lot of money to raise a family these days. Things are expensive, and I can't do anything about that.

This can go on all night long. You could end up fighting about who mows the lawn, who puts the children to bed, the last car you bought--who knows? You usually feel attacked, even when you can't put your finger on the reason for it; and you tend to counterattack, for example, the low blow about how much money your partner makes. And I feel another counterattack coming on. When this conversation ends, you'll almost certainly feel guilty because you acted like a shrew, jumping all over this nice guy who just brought up a simple topic of concern--and in such a nice way. One way to spot verbal attack patterns is by the way you feel when it's all over--rotten--and by the fact that you can't usually figure out just how things got so out of control.

And here's another source of your discomfort: remember that there are two parts to a verbal attack--bait and presupposition? Well, we've identified the bait; what about the other? If you look carefully at the first phrase in this sentence, it says, "If you really loved me . . . ." Every native speaker of English knows that this really means, "You don't really love me." You didn't address that at all, did you? That's the thing with presuppositions; they're presupposed to be true--established fact--unless someone notices one and challenges them, which isn't very likely to happen. And it didn't happen here. What you've done by ignoring this presupposition is that you've permitted it to stand as established fact. You've admitted (whether you feel this way or not) that you don't really love your partner. No wonder you feel so lousy!

On the other hand, how does your attacker feel? Pretty darned good. After all, he got just what he wanted from this little exchange:

1. He wanted your total attention for at least several minutes--and got it.
2. He wanted to provoke an emotional response--and succeeded.
3. His presupposed attack--that you don't really love him--wasn't answered, in fact, wasn't even noticed. That means it is true by default.
4. He has learned that his technique works and practiced his skills. He'll be that much better next time.

It is the nature of the VAP action chain that there must be a winner and a loser in these interactions. No matter who LOOKS like the winner--probably whoever could be louder and nastier, your attacker is always the real winner. And THAT is why you feel so bad: somewhere deep inside you, even though you haven't a clue what just happened to you, you know you're bruised and bleeding; and there's not a doctor in the world who can put a bandage on that.

This is linguistic toxic waste. It is as damaging and sick-making as a can of dioxin in the kitchen. It needs to be dealt with and disposed of just like any other kind of trash.

What happens if you follow the rules for responding to VAPs? Well, let's try it:

What's next? If you attacker wants a fight, he's going to have to try a little harder, isn't he? In fact, he'll have to start over, not a very attractive proposition at this point.

This VAP can take slightly different forms. Here's one:

Same story. You might hear a word similar in meaning to really. For example:

Or this:

You have two choices here. One is to ask a when question.

It's important in choosing a response that you recognize that questions carry their own presuppositions. For example, if you instead ask:

that question carries the following presupposition: you have a reason for thinking so. The problem with this question is you've just invited your attacker to renew the attack:

Right back to the beginning, aren't we? On the other hand, the when question carries only one fairly harmless presupposition, and it is that at some point you started thinking I don't love you. That's already acknowledged by the fact that the original attack was made; it won't further complicate things. So when is a neutral question. And, if there is a reason for your attacker to feel that way, you've now opened the subject for discussion. Let's look at another example:

See? This isn't about your smoking at all; it's about a forgotten birthday. If you'd taken the bait and gone into a long bitter discussion about your smoking, whether you smoke too much, how much smoking is too much smoking, and whether it is any business of your partner's, you'd have never known your partner is really feeling hurt because you forgot his or her birthday. And there would now be a bitter argument to add to his or her list of reasons for feeling resentful and angry.

Remember that not all verbal attackers are cruel and manipulative people; some are people in pain or people who haven't learned good ways to deal with others. For these situations, a when question will open a discussion that probably needs to happen.

One rule to remember though is that you should never ask a question unless you are prepared to hear the answer. If you don't have the time or the patience to listen to your attacker; if the situation is inappropriate, maybe in a restaurant with friends; or if this attack is part of an unhealthy pattern of behavior, then you need to simply stop the attack in its tracks. The best way to do this is with your other possible response, one we've already examined:

Said firmly and calmly, this makes it quite likely you can then go on to some other topic of conversation.

And, don't be fooled by the size of your attacker. Unlike physical bullies, verbal bullies can be smaller and weaker than you. Look at this interaction:

A standard analysis of this interaction would be that the child started out being annoying, progressed from annoying to downright rude, and got just exactly what she deserved--that is, the parent was the winner. That standard analysis would be wrong. Here's what really happened:

1) The child wanted the parent's total attention for at least five or six minutes--and got it.

2) The child wanted to provoke the parent into an emotional response--and succeeded.

3) The child's presupposed attack--You don't really love me--not only wasn't attended to, it was ignored. It therefore stands true by default.

4) The child has learned that this technique works, even on supposedly intelligent and sophisticated adults.

What really happened here is that in the struggle between child and adult, the adult was soundly defeated, and the child was given another lesson in being a skilled verbal abuser. The punishment received is only additional evidence for the child that this language behavior is an effective way to "get to" the parent and demonstrate power over the parent. When this kind of thing happens time and time again, the message received is that this is how you are supposed to deal with disagreements in the real world. More verbal toxic waste. And very instructive for the child. She's had the opportunity to engage a parent in an incredibly undignified does too-does not sort of discussion--the sort we should really try to give up once we get past elementary school; she's learned an important lesson about how to dominate her parents; and she's had some useful practice at verbal abuse, so she'll show even more skill next time.

What if the parent had replied like this?

This response ignores the nonsense about every child in the world having a computer and responds instead to the presupposed you don't really love me. It also stops the action chain. And it demonstrates clearly that you don't play this sort of game; verbal attacks don't work on you. The child handled in this way will soon learn healthier ways to deal with his concerns.

Now let's look at one more variation on the If you really . . . VAP:

There's another layer of presupposed meaning added to this attack; it is that you could, if you really wanted to, control not only your smoking but also your desire to smoke. It puts you in a real double bind because even if you quit smoking, you still haven't proved you love your family--not unless you can also manage not to WANT TO smoke. Ugly! Here's the script:

What a mess! Now you can ignore the part about wanting to smoke and respond to this just as you did to the earlier form of the pattern, by saying "Of course I care about my family," or by asking a when question. Now Dad might say in response to when, "When I saw you smoking after dinner," but that's still an improvement. It interrupts the action chain, it deals with the first presupposition, it's not an emotional response, and it ties the discussion down to a specific incident. You could then say, "Oh, I understand," and wait for Dad's next move. If he wants to go on with a verbal attack, he's going to have to start over.

The other possibility is to look at the new presupposition, the one about being able to control your desires. You could ask, "When did you start thinking people can control their desires by will power alone?" or "The idea that people can control their desires by will power alone is an interesting concept." Either way, the attacker is unable to continue the action chain. Now he'll have to join you in a philosophical discussion about will power and desire or start all over again with a new attack.

The benefit, whichever response you choose is this: you've demonstrated clearly that you won't play this stupid game. And they do so without loss of face for you or your attacker, which can go a long way toward dispelling the tension in the air. In addition, others in your home, especially children, learn that there are other ways to handle conflict than by arguing. That's cutting off violence at its roots.

One more thing needs mention here before we look at other VAPs: don't confuse playful comments with verbal attacks. Every time your partner says (as you head for the kitchen), "If you really loved me, you'd bring me a Coke," this is not a verbal attack. It's in fun. How can you tell the difference? Simple. By how you feel afterward. My grandmother's rule is still a good one: It's only fun if everyone is having fun. That is, if you think this is funny and it leaves you feeling OK, then it wasn't an attack. The outcome is also indicative; I have a hard time seeing this message as leading to the kind of confrontation we've been talking about. So don't become suspicious of everything everyone says to you from now on; simply pay attention and notice things. Abuse feels like abuse. You might not have been good at spotting it up to now, but once you're noticing, you'll be able to tell the difference.

This one's wicked. Here's the pattern:

Once again, there are various ways to fill in the blanks, but whatever goes into the first blank, it will somehow refer to you, the victim. For example:

The pattern established by the words Even an . . . is so powerful that you know whatever follows, in this case old people, is being insulted. There is no neutral way to construct that sentence, once you have the Even an. Try to think of anything you could use to fill in that blank that isn't at least mildly negative. Even when you fill the blank with something generally considered to be a compliment, the implications are negative. Look at this:

Find a way to finish that sentence that doesn't make being a great mathematician somehow a bad thing. Can't be done. That makes this pattern particularly nasty. You can even fill in the blank with you, as in this example:

No doubt about it; there's something wrong just with being you, isn't there? In addition, it's being signaled that this particular question won't take a rocket scientist to answer it. These are the presuppositions in this attack. Here the bait and presuppositions are so tangled, it's almost impossible to sort them out. No matter, we can still come up with an effective response, one that will let your attacker know you don't play this game.

Let's take a look at some possibilities for a response:

This is going to get ugly, isn't it?

How about this?

I don't really like where this is going either. What do we have here? We have the very sort of response your attacker is counting on; you're playing right into her hands. DON'T DO THAT!

Instead, let's take a presupposition and respond to that:

This certainly breaks the action chain; it's not even close to what your attacker expected. That follows the rules for responding to a verbal attack very well. That means your attacker needs to start over if she really wants to engage you in an argument. What's particularly nice about this response comes from the fact that it's doubly difficult to attack someone who's just given you a compliment. Now if the attacker wants to renew the attack, she needs to overcome the powerful cultural expectation that you must be nice to someone who's being nice to you. Game, set, and match to "old person!"

Recognize that this response will work with any Even a . . . attack; the same all-purpose-insult nature of this attack pattern that makes it so nasty also makes it easy to deal with. The only exception to this all-purpose response will occur when the attack is especially direct and nasty. Here's an earlier example:

I suppose you could work with the same response, but it feels weird:

Doesn't really flow, does it? But it doesn't require much modification. How about this?

It's highly unlikely your attacker will say, "Well, I am." If that happens, it's pretty easy to say, "So then, I don't think I'll inflict my company on you any longer," and walk away--firmly and permanently. This is not a person it will be healthy for you to deal with--ever. It's far more likely your attacker will sputter around about how that's not what he meant, and you took it all wrong, and he likes you just fine, and so on. Once again, once that action chain is broken, it's impossible to continue the attack from where he left off. And directly confronting an insult like that one additionally puts the person in a terrible position; in our culture, most people don't go to the source and ask about insults delivered. When someone does, it throws everyone involved out of step. That's OK. He deserves it.

Here's a variation on the use of even as a part of an attack. Note that whenever this word is used, particularly when it has a heavy stress on it in the sentence, there's a chance you're dealing with a verbal attack. Consider what's going on in the rest of the sentence

Clearly none of these are attacks of any kind. You'll have no trouble figuring this out from their context and the absence of any kind of stress on the word, even. Now consider these:

The first one we've already dealt with. The second one is really nasty; the presupposition is that you're sitting around stuffing your face and chortling at all the starving children in the world. Ugly picture, isn't it? You have a couple of possible responses to this one. One is to simply say, "No, why?" Talk about stopping an attack cold; all the things the attacker planned to say to you about whatever it is you've done to demonstrate your indifference are pointless now. Of course, at some point, usually quite a bit later, the attacker realizes she's been had, that of course you must care, but the attack was stopped. That's the point.

Another possible response is to use the when question again.

It puts you on the same sort of track that it did with the first VAP. And you can handle the third attack above in much the same ways. Once you get good at spotting an attack, it's a pretty simple matter to adapt what you already know as a response. Most important to remember is that giving the responses the attacker expects and has planned for comes under the heading of letting him get away with it. You'll come out the loser every time.

This is such a common phrase that I suspect you've never considered it as dangerous at all. But it can initiate a verbal attack. Here's the pattern:

Why don't you ever _______? OR

This is a pattern we all learn early in life. Now it's important to distinguish a neutral request for information from an attack. It's also pretty easy. The use of abnormal stresses is your first clue; tossing in ever/always is another.

may well be simply a request for information. The questioner has noticed you seem to prefer Burger King and Taco Belle and is wondering why. You'll be able to tell because the sentence comes out in a relatively uniform pattern; no one word or syllable is especially stressed. Now every question carries presuppositions. The presuppositions of this question are, you have a reason, and I'm asking you to tell me what it is. The answer may be none of the questioner's business, but this isn't an attack.

Contrast that with this:

This sounds much more like, "You know I prefer McDonald's, but you never go there because you don't want me to have what I want." You can hear the difference. There are different presuppositions here too: you have a reason, I'm demanding you tell me what it is, and I can tell you in advance that it's not good enough.

There are two possibilities here. One is something Dr. Haden-Elgin calls the "Boring Baroque" (bar-OAK) response. It is an all-purpose response that you can profitably use any time you're unsure what else to do. The principle here is to guarantee the failure of the attack by interrupting it and making it impossible for the scripted argument to take place; the purpose is to make sure the attacker has absolutely no fun at all. Here's how it goes:

Well, you get the idea. Be prepared to go on as long as necessary until your attacker changes the subject, goes away, or begs for mercy. Your strategy is to stay away from the bait--that you're a big-mouth all of the time--while letting your attacker know that attacking you isn't going to be all that fun and rewarding. You're responding to the presupposed demand for information in excruciating detail, ignoring the fact that the attacker didn't really want an answer to the question at all.

It's important, when using a Boring Baroque response, that you be prepared to carry on and on without too much stopping to think about it. Practice this at home--really! In addition, you are not striving for a sarcastic or nasty tone of voice; you want to deliver this whole long painful explanation in a pleasant neutral tone, just as you would respond to any polite question--only longer. For the record, you can adapt the Boring Baroque response for other situations, even when no question has been asked. Here's an example:

There are some considerations as to how long you want to go on. If the attacker is someone with power in your relationship, then you need to cut this short, while relying on the same principle. If this was my vindictive boss, I'd reply with, "I think the reason I do that is because of the way we used to eat at my house when I was a kid," or whatever sort of fits with the question asked. But I wouldn't go on forever in this situation. You've still accomplished very important goals; you've refused to take the bait, and you've cut the attack off at the knees.

Another possibility in responding to these attacks is to construct a response that makes the always/never presupposition false. The only thing here is that you then have to be prepared to follow through on your response.

Now your attacker might respond with,

Or he might say, "Oh good. Let's go!" You must cheerfully follow through at this point or you will be simply proving the presupposition that you never go where your attacker wants to go. Which one you choose will depend a lot on the situation, the relationship, and whether the attacker is truly distressed or simply playing with you.

You can strengthen this second kind of response by adding the illusion of choice.

Nice work.

There's a set of common VAPs that are logically absurd. They shouldn't work on anyone, but they do. Here are some examples:

These contain empty logical presuppositions like, "This doctor sees many other patients besides you." No kidding; she'd be out of business if I were her only patient; I don't get sick nearly enough to pay her grocery bill. The other one is that somewhere there are at least a few students who would make an appointment with the Dean each time they received a low grade. This is most likely true as well. Nothing to argue about there. These are statements that have almost zero chance of being false.

The best way to deal with this sort of silly thing is to respond directly to the empty presupposition and agree with it. After all, it's almost certainly true! So you can say, "You're absolutely right." And say it with conviction in your voice. Then wait for your attacker's next move; it might be a little time in coming. This is a particularly difficult kind of attack to renew in the face of such a response.

Well, there you have it. An important thing to remember as you listen in your life for the VAPs you've learned about is that not every sentence that matches the word pattern for a VAP is necessarily an attack. You must pay attention to the situation, the words used, and the pattern of stresses on those words. You'll be surprised how many attacks you hear in a day.