> 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