>>>>> 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