>>>>>>>>> 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