Re: Defining "psycho hose beast" over-reaction (was: re: "Your actions speak louder than your lies")

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:14:05 +0100, Jackson Pillock
<jacksonpillock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:57:08 -0700, Ed <edrhodes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 29, 10:30 am, Jackson Pillock <jacksonpill...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:24:07 -0700, Ed <edrho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >On Sep 29, 2:08 am, Sylvia <syl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >> Ed <edrho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >> >  Sylvia wrote:
>>> >> > >  Ed <edrho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >> > > >  Sylvia wrote:
>>> >> .
>>> >> > > <...>
>>> >> > > > >      "Patients suffering from psychosis have impaired
reality
>>> >> > > > >       testing;
>>> >> > > > >       that is, they are unable to distinguish personal,
subjective
>>> >> > > > >       experience from the reality of the external world."
>>> >> .
>>> >> > > > > Now, Ed, Ray Haddad *insists* to have bombed Hanoi in 974,
long
>>> >> > > > > after the rest of the world agrees that the United States
>>> >> > > > > signed a peace treaty and withdrew from the war in Vietnam.
>>> >> > > > > There is NO record anywhere of the bombing Ray Haddad
claims.
>>> >> > > > > Not even in Hanoi.
>>> >> .
>>> >> > > > I don't think there <was> a Hanoi <or> a United States in
974... Ray
>>> >> > > > may have been around though.
>>>
>>> >> > >         "Sorry, I type quickly and don't catch many errors.
[...]
>>>
>>> >> > That actually happens to be a major problem with me too! Still
fun to
>>> >> > make fun of though!
>>>
>>> >> Hello? I'm quoting *you*.
>>>
>>> >I thought you were explaining why you dropped the "1" Oh well.
>>>
>>> >> > >         "I've noticed that in picking apart my post's spelling
flaws,
>>> >> > >           you've ignored once again its main point."
>>>
>>> >> > >                         -- The Hypocrisy of Ed Rhodes
>>> >> .
>>> >> > Sorry if I didn't provide a case by case scenario that could be
peer
>>> >> > reviewed in an appropriate journal.
>>>
>>> >> I did not say that, Ed. Those are *also* your words.  
>>>
>>> >You ask me to "prove" why your posts are scary and obsessed. I am
>>> >unable to "prove" a personal opinion. That doesn't make the opinion
>>> >any less valid.
>>>
>>> Yes it does. It makes it far less valid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> > It was just a snarky comment inspired by an impression upon going
>>> >> > through these threads.
>>>
>>> >> So, Ed, is "just a snarky comment" going to be your standard
response to
>>> >> avoid admitting you've been repeatedly making unfounded accusations
or
>>> >> to avoid facing that you've been defending Haddad's lies?
>>>
>>> >Probably. Sometimes you just can't take this crap so seriously.
>>> >I haven't made "unfounded accusations." I don't believe I've accused
>>> >you of anything. I've simply stated my opinion that, in following
>>> >these many threads you've developed, your persona is scary, obsessed
>>> >and disturbing.
>>>
>>> Well, how can you tell it's not frivolous, silly, and delighful? You
>>> must have something to base your opinion on. Do you just go around,
>>> forming random opinions?
>>>
>>> 'In my opinion, cats are dogs.'
>>>
>>> Valid.
>>
>>I'm going to misspell this, I'm sorry. Did you ever see (or read) the
>>play "Rinoscerous?"
>
>I did, actually. 
>
>>There's a philospher who's a strict logician in the opening who you
>>would appreciate.
>
>I see. Because I don't consider all opinions equally valid, whether or
>not they are sup****ted by any kind of argument or example, I must
>therefore be exactly the same as an absurd logician. 

Reminds me of an argument I had with Stan. He insisted in the
patronizing superior know-it-all voice that he adopts when he's about
to say something particularly silly that an opinion couldn't be wrong.

Well, in my opinion, Stan was born of a diseased one-legged strumpet
who mated with a marmoset.

I now cede the point.

Anyway, for what it's worth, it seems to me that it's a lot easier to
form a reasonable opinion than it is to explain it to someone else.
One might, for example, try to demonstrate obsession by figuring the
ratio of Sylvia's words about Ray to Ray's about Sylvia, but who wants
to do that? It's apparent to anyone who's been hanging around here
that she's been haranguing the guy for months.

-- 
Josh

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ By
1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ -- that hurts you. Backfires. So
you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff.
You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes,
and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things,
and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites."

- GOP Strategist Lee Atwater on the Republican Southern Strategy