>> Of course there is variance in application of standards across
>> individuals and situations. Of course this isn't a black and white
>> issue. Very few things are. But what the **** does that have to do
>> with the double standard I identified?
>>
>> Again: the kook crew here feels free to netkop somebody about the BI,
>> but if you contact an ISP about TOS violations re content, that's
>> verboten. If I were to contact Snarky's provider about his insults,
>> suddenly I'm a netkkkopper. It's freaky stupid is what it is. Yet
>> nearly everybody here has bought into it.
>>
>> These mores are adopted to insulate those who engage in ****ty
>> behavior from the consequences of their behavior. It's the same with
>> taking usenet to real life. Suppose somebody hides behind their keyboard
>> calling an enemy all sorts of rancid names and making all sorts of
>> outlandish claims. It's considered kooky to drag that person's ass
>> from behind his keyboard and kick the **** out of him. The reason
>> this standard exists is merely to protect that cowardly ******* that
>> engages in this behavior. Such a standard exists nowhere else. What could
>> possibly justify this standard?
>>
>> Well, psychology isn't a real science, so I understand your
>> inferiority complex and your need to sound like you're educated.
>>
>> What's next? Suggesting I need anger management?
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> Also, your pants are on fire. By the next post I'm quite sure
>> they'll be hanging over the telephone wire.
>>
>> There is a difference between "presume" and "assume." One with your
>> academic credentials should surely understand this.
>>
>> A real scientist would recognize that curves tend toward steep or
>> flat. Curves aren't slow or fast. But you are a psychologist so this
>> is probably new to you. Since you are so proud of your advanced
>> database of knowledge perhaps you should add this little factoid to
>> it. Next time you want to insult somebody by referencing his or her
>> learning curve,
>> the more precise (and precision is your paramount desire, we know)
>> way to do it would be to suggest that they have a flat learning curve.
>> Mathematically you could represent this as Y=0. This is,
>> incidentally, Joan GriffinTHAL's learning curve.
>>
>> This is about as hard as doing reverse psychology on my grandson.
>> When he was two.
>>
>> Well, are you?
>>
>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>
>> Tick tock.
>>
>> Feel free to flesh out your claim with examples.
>>
>> Tick tock.
>>
>> Feel free to provide them.
>>
>> Tick tock.
>>
>> Not true. Your first less than friendly act was to respond with
>> feigned politeness to my original question. I responded to that with
>> equally feigned politeness, mirroring yours. Next, you asked your
>> loaded, er, pointed question that implied your belief I was paranoid
>> -- definitely kookbait. I responded pedantically in order to return
>> the insult. We've traded insults pretty equally from there, although
>> in my opinion I'm certainly winning on points because mine are so
>> much more clever, witty and cutting than yours.
>>
>> Sniggler^wSchoolmarm please!
>>
>> Your tendency to project disliked parts of yourself onto me is well
>> evidenced in this thread.
>>
>> tee hee!
>>
>> miguel
>>
Reply With Quote