>>>> 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