Some of her advice is spot-on. At times she will review all angles to make sure there's no plausible explanation for behaviors of others.

Other times she seems to jump to conclusions and offers only the notion that the letter writer is being used or needs to get out of the relationship.

Used to read her all the time, then I found DCUM.

I haven't read her for years, I think she's a quack.

Anonymous wrote:I think she is smart and honest and human. I always gain something from reading her column.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think a lot of her advice is not very good.

What are some examples?

Hi Carolyn.

Uh no, my name is Linda. I've read Hax for several years. When someone makes a general statement like "her advice isn't very good," I'd like to hear what they mean.

I think she is smart and honest and human. I always gain something from reading her column.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think a lot of her advice is not very good.

What are some examples?

Hi Carolyn.

Anonymous wrote:Her writing style gives me a headache.

+1
She is far too wordy, among other things.

Her writing style gives me a headache.

Anonymous wrote:I actually think a lot of her advice is not very good.

What are some examples?

She gives no quick fixes, mainly because there are none. If I was sum up her subliminal advice in one sentence it would be "Seek therapy to accept that you can only control your own behavior and responses and not the other person or the situation".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think a lot of her advice is not very good.

+1

This. The advice on DCUM is way better.

Anonymous wrote:I actually think a lot of her advice is not very good.

+1

I actually think a lot of her advice is not very good.

Wouldn't it be great if she and other advice columnists were on DCUM giving anonymous advice?

But then I think, why would they do something for free that their already paid to do?