>>>>>>>> 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