On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:38:10 -0700, Y-Not:: wrote
(in article <280920050638108061%$9+-Y-Not@here.com>):
Snipped....if you want to read the whole flipping thing, re-read Y=Not's
post.
>>
>> Civilized? That might be too much to ask. We are all starring in Lord of
>> the Flies, not just Ralph and Jack.
>>
>> I get a bit worried when a person decides they know what's right or wrong
>> in
>> a social sense. Anyone can (and should) figure for himself what's right
>> and
>> wrong for him. But I don't necessarily want you (small y, you) deciding
>> what's right for me. What gives you that kind of authority. Each of us is
>> just another member of this community.
>>
>> Some have been here longer, some shorter. Some post images, some don't.
>> Some are rational and some are not. Some are trolls and some are not.
>> This
>> is anarchic because there is no authority vested in anyone except through
>> persuasive power or time. There is authority from office or higher
>> authority
>> (e.g. the FCC or Congress).
>>
>> This a big barrier to (for example) interfaith dialogue. Any group who
>> feels
>> that they have 'special authority' from God, is not open to other points
>> of
>> view. They "KNOW" they're right.
>>
>> Deciding who's right and who's wrong is a self-conferred authority. An
>> appeal to common decency or reasonableness has no force. The usenet is
>> neither bound to be decent or reasonable.
>>
>
> I agree. I also see that you don't seem to want to understand my posts.
Perhaps because they are not understandable!!!
>
> Do you deny that is best for people to more fully understand what they
> are doing?
> Have you watched this as closely as I have, and have seen the
> friendships that are dissolving because of this? Another well known
> poster addressed this in the Fort. Do you deny that friendships should
> be supported, and saved, wherever possible?
> Do you deny that doing things that are bound to cause trouble you don't
> want, when there are better ways to do it that won't cause problems, is
> wrong? Or do you think it's right?
> Do you deny that it is wrong to deny mistakes, and repeat them?
> (Well, I can answer that. Yes, you do it with every post to me.)
> Do you deny that is it right to help people to NOT make the same
> mistakes again?
> Do you deny that it is RIGHT for people here to get along and be
> friends, and be as safe as possible?
> THIS is what I work for. All else is to actively support this. Is my
> determination that this is what is right, so wrong for YOU?
A case in point. What the hell are you talking about?? Also a classic
'when did you stop beating your wife' type of questioning. These are all
loaded questions.
>
> You took no positions on ANY of these germane issues, so your post is
> basically a worthless vague rant against ME. You just can't give it up.
It is not a rant, it is not worthless and it is not vague. No ranting takes
place. I take a point on an interesting issue that currently besets the
world. It is clearly written prose.
In fact, my post has almost nothing to do with you. It barely mentions you
at all. How many lies are you going to spew about me? You are the one
painting the bulls eye on your shirt. You call my post a 'rant' (your word).
Clearly it is nothing of the sort. Anyone can read it. Your lie is
obvious. How silly.
>
> What you don't like is that it is ME who does this work. This is
> stupid, because anyone who did this same work, would have to do it
> exactly as I have been doing, to have any hope of useful effectiveness.
> Some tried, and found this out the hard way, and gave up because they
> couldn't take the heat. Some even said this.
> It needs to be done, so I do it. I've been getting a lot of emails
> recently, since I posted the address again, some from people I've never
> heard of, asking me to continue with this work. Actually, that
> surprised me. Yes, that can still happen.
More unfathomable. self-aggrandizing gibberish.
>
> As for what's right for YOU, I don't care at this point, just that you
> don't bother me.
Really?? Even an amateur psychologist like you can see through this remark.
People who don't care, don't care - get it?
So, now your new nic is added to my ignore list. Did
> you think I wouldn't recognize who you are? Not that you tried all that
> much to hide it. It might have worked better if you hadn't posted to
> me, especially in my group, because then your obsession and bias shows
> too much, like a fingerprint. Why do you bother to change nics, when
> you post as the same old incompetent you?
I am not incompetent. I am biased (as are we all). I am not obsessed. I
don't begin to spend the hours on this stuff that you do. Of course, I know
you know who it is....You're right, I made no special effort to hide it (I
could if I wished to...the same way you do). You're a bright guy, I knew
you'd figure it out.
I did it that way for a reason and you bit.
> You just can't help yourself, but I can.
This is one of those things I don't understand.
"You can't help yourself, but I can."
What does this mean??
Does it mean I can't help myself but you can help me??? (no thanks by the
way; I don't go to the plumber if I need surgery). Can't help myself do
what?
Or does it mean, I can't help myself, buy you can help yourself?
Help yourself to do what???
You're right. I don't get it.
What I do get is that it is another attempt to demean me as some sort of
helpless idiot. I am neither an idiot (as you well know) or helpless. More
abuse. It doesn't have to make sense to meet your purpose; only to demean.
So no soup for you!
Isn't this a little punitive? Are you one of those "Tough Love" advocates?
So the main tools for your 'therapy' session with me are to call me
worthless, vague, incompetent and stupid and deny me food....and you say your
are a psychologist and trying to promote harmony? Right.
I thought Cranky's post (reposted below) captured your essence wonderfully.
I thank him for his lucidity and since these posts are in the public domain,
I'm hopeful he won't object to it's re-posting.
Ah, posts.
> Unless you try to cause harm.
>
>
> Y Not
>
>
> PS.
> In discussing you with an IM friend, we wondered when you would next
> post to me and where it would be.
> I'm not going to tell you who won the bet. :-)
As for those who IM with you and seek out your counsel, good luck to them.
BTW do you keep a separate file for each of my nics, or have you combined
them all into one file?? With whom do you share your files? Go ahead, deny
it. That'll be rich.
And finally:
Cranky's Post
>I have read your reply to my last post, and I'd like to say that despite
> the apparent honesty and objectivity behind your latest post it is pretty
> clear that much of what you said was meant to humiliate and manipulate me
> through attacks on my character posing as logical, objective statements.
>
> It's a common attitude in Usenet participants, and it was also the
> favorite tactic of a doctor who used to call himself Adam Selene**. Like
> Bill O'Reilly, it involves a mixture of unapologetic confidence, shameless
> insults and a winning smile. The target is made to feel inferior and is then
> allowed to stand back up thanks to the apparent well-meaning nature of the
> attacker. Make a person feel like shit and give him a chance to redeem
> himself and he'll be putty in your hands.
>
> You're clearly a master manipulator, but I've learned too much from Adam
> Selene to actually fall into the trap of caring too much about the
> opinions of those who treat people like shit while pretending to mean well.
>
> I thank you for taking the time to reply and for those parts of your reply
> which are free of insults, but I'll not be made to feel inferior through
> statements engineered for that purpose.
** From Robert Heinlein's, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (note is my
addition)
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
|