when people band together AS a stereotype (such as "Republicans"),
it is all too easy to start seeing them as THEM. :)
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:17:08 -0000, slider <slider@anashram.org>
wrote:
lacking in objectivity/so always has to make it personal wrote...
You don't really deserve a song that nice -
since it may be the most charming negative song ever. :)
And sure, it's everyone's song here - mine too.
However, I apologize for dinging you over 'ratings'.
Upon reflection I've decided that's silly.
Especially when I should have been dinging you for leaving
your own kids as if they're merely 'something you did once'.
That's probably where your true character is most evident.
Even if it may be more that they left you...
Is it alright if I switch over to criticizing you for that, instead?
A late-game substitution if you will.
LOL. :D
### - lol how old are you??
all you're doing is making yourself look completely ridiculous jeremy
deranged :)
What's this shit Slider? The implication here is that you abandoned
your children in some way. Surely that's not true?
Here's what Slider said quite recently (to you, actually):
"been married, had kids, the whole nine-yards...
don't really need to do it all again?"
That's virtually all he's ever had to say about his kids in 15 years.
As if they are just 'something he did once' and then left behind
(or perhaps got left behind).
Thang, for example, you take some pride in your children and
grandchildren, implying there are actual relationships there.
I often post things my son or Vicki's daughters are doing.
Slider never has. So ... does he have any significant relationship
with his kids? By his own words, and lack thereof, I doubt it.
I also don't think it's at all hard to surmise why. :)
***
As for all the "loner" stuff you guys love to throw around...
I delved into such views extensively, beginning back in adolescence,
and had gone well beyond any such "black and white thinking"
when I was still a relatively young man. Or, so I thought...
Neither of you have said a word about it that seemed even slightly >interesting in all the years I've been listening to you yammer.
Let's see, the earliest book I read related to the subject that
influenced me was at around 14, when I read Demian by Herman Hesse,
at a time when that book seemed to parallel my own friendships
and experiences. My primary group of friends at that time was one
which in general regarded itself as being well outside all the
norms of society. In fact, it was almost like a small cult itself,
In truth, it wasn't very far outside the norms of society,
but that's how most of us perceived ourselves nonetheless,
and we self-identified as being more-or-less "outsider" individuals.
That was age 14.
As an aside, that is also true right now of both you and Slider, thang. >Neither of you are truly very significantly outside the norms of society.
You just love to imagine otherwise and talk about it on and on.
Here's a review of that book in case you never read it. As an adolescent,
for a couple of years, it was important to me.
http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Demian-Hermann-Hesse-review-umotorppo
In any case, I was largely done with being attached to a limited
self-concept like "outsider" by around age 18. And in the counter-
culture, it was almost like all the "outsiders" had themselves
become the true "insiders". The "freaks" were everywhere and the
irony of this wasn't lost on me. :) I was by then already more like
a "chameleon" who could be almost anything as needed (I could go
anywhere I chose, "inside" or "outside" or wherever), and I saw
myself as being something so flexible that I'd never do myself the
disservice of limiting myself to any labeling. Or so I believed...
As one more example, I first read Dostoevsky's 'Notes from Underground'
when I was about 21, and then later (around 27, wrote a college paper
for an honors class on it). It is a more serious exploration of some
of the issues surrounding "being a loner".
Here's a New Yorker article on that book: >https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/can-dostoevsky-still-kick-you-in-the-gut
Bottom line is that "being a loner" can yield anything from
a beneficial genius to a dangerous moron, depending on exactly
how one thinks and on how one proceeds to live. In general,
as an arbitrarily assumed "position", I'd call it limiting.
But then... I began dreaming, and in the context of Castaneda.
From the viewpoint of that reality (before I had ever read
anything about lucid dreaming from a more standard perspective
like that of LaBerge), I began to conceive of myself as something
more like "the ultimate loner", to the point that I believed
I was really doing things very few if any other humans could do
(living under the auspices of 'the spirit'). My self-label then
became more of "an aspiration" than "an identity", and it was
to be "a solitary warrior". But trust me, if you come to actually
fervently believe you are independently as an individual following
'the guidelines of the spirit', then you have indeed become
something of "an outsider". I did, and I was. Or so I thought...
That belief turned out to be delusional. Importantly, the real
lesson is that pretty much ALL such beliefs are. As another even
more obvious example, trust me when I tell you that most of the >Scientologists consider themselves to be well beyond ordinary
human beings in every way. In fact, they believe that almost all
ordinary humans are insane. They very much consider themselves
to be "outsiders" in that sense. Yet the perpetual joke is that
almost every "outsider" really thinks he's got "the inside scoop"
on reality.
They are delusional too, of course. Over the years, I've actually
encountered many different individuals who considered themselves
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"wrote:
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:17:08 -0000, slider <slider@anashram.org>
wrote:
lacking in objectivity/so always has to make it personal wrote...
You don't really deserve a song that nice -
since it may be the most charming negative song ever. :)
And sure, it's everyone's song here - mine too.
However, I apologize for dinging you over 'ratings'.
Upon reflection I've decided that's silly.
Especially when I should have been dinging you for leaving
your own kids as if they're merely 'something you did once'.
That's probably where your true character is most evident.
Even if it may be more that they left you...
Is it alright if I switch over to criticizing you for that, instead?
A late-game substitution if you will.
LOL. :D
### - lol how old are you??
all you're doing is making yourself look completely ridiculous jeremy
deranged :)
What's this shit Slider? The implication here is that you abandoned
your children in some way. Surely that's not true?
Here's what Slider said quite recently (to you, actually):
"been married, had kids, the whole nine-yards...
don't really need to do it all again?"
That's virtually all he's ever had to say about his kids in 15 years.
As if they are just 'something he did once' and then left behind
(or perhaps got left behind).
Thang, for example, you take some pride in your children and
grandchildren, implying there are actual relationships there.
I often post things my son or Vicki's daughters are doing.
Sure do, but there are and have been and always will be roadbumps of
varying heights. Achievements are relative - a cognitively challenged
child reading for the first time at age 15 may be more impressive than
a well nurtured and genetically lucky child who attains a degree at
age 20. There are many things I would not post ever about my children
or theirs, and nor would they post a lot of things about me. Many
matters are for retention in the family closet only to be aired intrafamilially never externally.
There's a tendency, probably innately human, to gloss over things and
present the best but never the counterpart worst. This is evident in
every post here by all. Chris about his policewoman daughterwho
carries a gun, you and your son and his exploits with his gang but
never your wife or his mother or your past, me and my chosen posts but
never those which would display a little more than I want.
Slider has secrets about his past but don't we all.
Slider never has. So ... does he have any significant relationship
with his kids? By his own words, and lack thereof, I doubt it.
I also don't think it's at all hard to surmise why. :)
It's probably as private to him as your relationship with your son's
mother and your son's girlfriends and your past and mine and my
children and their children. He's just being offhand about his
privacy.
As for all the "loner" stuff you guys love to throw around...
I delved into such views extensively, beginning back in adolescence,
and had gone well beyond any such "black and white thinking"
when I was still a relatively young man. Or, so I thought...
I never use the term loner unless it's been used first by someone
else. I prefer outsider or just individualist. Perhaps even
"non-sheep" or "non-cattle". So, if I never use it (that I can
recall), when do I "love to throw (it) around"?
You've never delved, as you put it, at least not into what my personal philosophy is all about. It's a mix of stoicism, durability, fear
control and complete personal freedom. For this to be real for me, I
never post anywhere any personal details. I don't use social media, especially Zuckerberg's creation. I don't leave breadcrumbs. I desire
little from the world apart from suffcient wealth to support me if the balloon goes up. It's part survivalist, part situational awareness.
Part self-betterment and part perpetual honing of an ultimately
unfinished work - my mind.
No, I don't think you've ever "delved into such views extensively".
Just one proof of that is your continual need to splash your exploits
all over social media. A person who had "delved into such views
extensively" would never betray their own interests in self betterment
and true independence like that.
Neither of you have said a word about it that seemed even slightly >interesting in all the years I've been listening to you yammer.
Really? And you are...who? And your opinion matters ... because?
Let's get to tin tacks here. You are a very pompous man, but your
arrogance is part of a carefully constructed construct to defend you
against grave hurt. That hurt will never be discussed by you, posted
by you or even perhaps revealed in truth to your innermost self. It's wrapped up in layers of tissue thin fabric which is so complex you
yourself cannot find it. But it's there. It shows Dave. In your
posting style, in your assumed disdain for other people and their
personal beliefs. What you don't realise is that your words which
sound so robust to your (inner) ears sound hollow to those to whom
they are directed. It's not a technical issue - superficially these
put downs and veiled insults seem to make sense and they're parsed
correctly - it's just that it's so clear that they are part of this
construct you've put together over the decades to shield you from ever
being hurt like you were, ever again.
You should take some time to consider what I've said above. It could
be the most valuable time you ever commit to.
Let's see, the earliest book I read related to the subject that
influenced me was at around 14, when I read Demian by Herman Hesse,
at a time when that book seemed to parallel my own friendships
and experiences. My primary group of friends at that time was one
which in general regarded itself as being well outside all the
norms of society. In fact, it was almost like a small cult itself,
In truth, it wasn't very far outside the norms of society,
but that's how most of us perceived ourselves nonetheless,
and we self-identified as being more-or-less "outsider" individuals.
That was age 14.
See what I mean?
As an aside, that is also true right now of both you and Slider, thang. >Neither of you are truly very significantly outside the norms of society. >You just love to imagine otherwise and talk about it on and on.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "...truly very significantly outside the norms of society". Do you mean that
speaking about myself (slider can make his own noises) I *am* outside
the norms of society but I'm *not* significantly so, or that I'm not a significant influence even though I'm outside of those undefined
norms? In any case, how would you know any of this? You know nothing
about me apart from what I post here. I tend to know a lot more about
you than you about me because you've spattered choice bits of your
actions in life all over the internet and interwebs.
This shows some poverty of logic. But grandiose people of your ilk
whose grandiosity is part of the psychological armour installed in
formative years often lack the capacity to reason.
An example - say I had a history of major fraud amounting to many
millions of dollars coupled with a personality profile which ranged
from narcissism through to antisocial (DSM V definitions). This would
be both significantly outside the norms of society and significantly influential on the people who exhibit those norms of society. Yet, I
have never posted here about that, and in absence of my real name,
which you still do not know, you would have no possible means of
determining this significant extranorm history.
In light of that hypothetical (it isn't true by the way) example, how
can you reason and then state that "Neither of you are truly very significantly outside the norms of society"?
You have a mind, and as you keep saying, it's sharp. So use it
properly in future.
Here's a review of that book in case you never read it. As an adolescent, >for a couple of years, it was important to me.
http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Demian-Hermann-Hesse-review-umotorppo
In any case, I was largely done with being attached to a limited >self-concept like "outsider" by around age 18. And in the counter-
culture, it was almost like all the "outsiders" had themselves
become the true "insiders". The "freaks" were everywhere and the
irony of this wasn't lost on me. :) I was by then already more like
a "chameleon" who could be almost anything as needed (I could go
anywhere I chose, "inside" or "outside" or wherever), and I saw
myself as being something so flexible that I'd never do myself the >disservice of limiting myself to any labeling. Or so I believed...
What your limited intellectual capability is failing to show (you) is
that being an outsider is binary and a combination of genetic and environmental influences. You either are, or you aren't.
It's not
something you read a book about, join a club to experience or as you
say above "being attached to a limited self-concept". If you're born
an outlier, or your childhood environment makes you one, you would
laugh at efforts to explore being such by one, like yourself, who
never can be one. Who thinks you can just dabble in being an outlier.
You discredit yourself by silly arguments like the above. An example presently in my city is a trial of a young woman of above average
intellect who lured a disabled boy into her home and killed and buried
him. She had always wanted to experience the thrill of killing a
human and wanted to achieve this by 25. While this is part of the
criminal milieu and a clearly dysfunctional mind, this person is a
true outsider, probably genetic but if not, environmental in
childhood.
The physicist Richard Feynmann in my view was an outsider
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 6:25:25 PM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 8:53:26 PM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:17:08 -0000, slider <slider@anashram.org>
wrote:
lacking in objectivity/so always has to make it personal wrote...
You don't really deserve a song that nice -
since it may be the most charming negative song ever. :)
And sure, it's everyone's song here - mine too.
However, I apologize for dinging you over 'ratings'.
Upon reflection I've decided that's silly.
Especially when I should have been dinging you for leaving
your own kids as if they're merely 'something you did once'.
That's probably where your true character is most evident.
Even if it may be more that they left you...
Is it alright if I switch over to criticizing you for that, instead? >> >> >> A late-game substitution if you will.
LOL. :D
### - lol how old are you??
all you're doing is making yourself look completely ridiculous jeremy
deranged :)
What's this shit Slider? The implication here is that you abandoned
your children in some way. Surely that's not true?
Here's what Slider said quite recently (to you, actually):
"been married, had kids, the whole nine-yards...
don't really need to do it all again?"
That's virtually all he's ever had to say about his kids in 15 years.
As if they are just 'something he did once' and then left behind
(or perhaps got left behind).
Thang, for example, you take some pride in your children and
grandchildren, implying there are actual relationships there.
I often post things my son or Vicki's daughters are doing.
Sure do, but there are and have been and always will be roadbumps of
varying heights. Achievements are relative - a cognitively challenged
child reading for the first time at age 15 may be more impressive than
a well nurtured and genetically lucky child who attains a degree at
age 20. There are many things I would not post ever about my children
or theirs, and nor would they post a lot of things about me. Many
matters are for retention in the family closet only to be aired
intrafamilially never externally.
There's a tendency, probably innately human, to gloss over things and
present the best but never the counterpart worst. This is evident in
every post here by all. Chris about his policewoman daughterwho
carries a gun, you and your son and his exploits with his gang but
never your wife or his mother or your past, me and my chosen posts but
never those which would display a little more than I want.
Are you fucking kidding me? I posted an enormous amount here about
my ex-wife (my son's mother). But most of it was before you came.
Slider has secrets about his past but don't we all.
Slider never has. So ... does he have any significant relationship
with his kids? By his own words, and lack thereof, I doubt it.
I also don't think it's at all hard to surmise why. :)
It's probably as private to him as your relationship with your son's
mother and your son's girlfriends and your past and mine and my
children and their children. He's just being offhand about his
privacy.
All that's for sure is that we'll never hear the truth about his kids.
As for all the "loner" stuff you guys love to throw around...
I delved into such views extensively, beginning back in adolescence,
and had gone well beyond any such "black and white thinking"
when I was still a relatively young man. Or, so I thought...
I never use the term loner unless it's been used first by someone
else. I prefer outsider or just individualist. Perhaps even
"non-sheep" or "non-cattle". So, if I never use it (that I can
recall), when do I "love to throw (it) around"?
Individualist might be the best term. Even that needs to be
carefully defined and described to be meaningful.
You've never delved, as you put it, at least not into what my personal
philosophy is all about. It's a mix of stoicism, durability, fear
control and complete personal freedom. For this to be real for me, I
never post anywhere any personal details. I don't use social media,
especially Zuckerberg's creation. I don't leave breadcrumbs. I desire
little from the world apart from suffcient wealth to support me if the
balloon goes up. It's part survivalist, part situational awareness.
Part self-betterment and part perpetual honing of an ultimately
unfinished work - my mind.
Shrug. I could turn your usual gambit around on you and ask how you
know I haven't delved into stoicism, or fear control, or freedom, etc.?
How do you think posting details about yourself would curtail
your personal freedom, anyway? It doesn't curtail mine...
No, I don't think you've ever "delved into such views extensively".
Well, I wasn't really talking about survivalism or stoicism, etc.
You kind of changed the subject to some of your own choosing.
Just one proof of that is your continual need to splash your exploits
all over social media. A person who had "delved into such views
extensively" would never betray their own interests in self betterment
and true independence like that.
I don't "need to" do it. :) I decided to use it as a historical
archive. It has zero effect on my 'independence' or 'self betterment'
as nearly as I can tell.
Again, we're almost totally off the subject I was on before.
(Based on your incessant need for personal attacks.)
Neither of you have said a word about it that seemed even slightly
interesting in all the years I've been listening to you yammer.
Really? And you are...who? And your opinion matters ... because?
I didn't claim any great position. This is a discussion group,
so my opinion ought to matter to anyone who wants to think clearly.
Let's get to tin tacks here. You are a very pompous man, but your
arrogance is part of a carefully constructed construct to defend you
against grave hurt. That hurt will never be discussed by you, posted
by you or even perhaps revealed in truth to your innermost self. It's
wrapped up in layers of tissue thin fabric which is so complex you
yourself cannot find it. But it's there. It shows Dave. In your
posting style, in your assumed disdain for other people and their
personal beliefs. What you don't realise is that your words which
sound so robust to your (inner) ears sound hollow to those to whom
they are directed. It's not a technical issue - superficially these
put downs and veiled insults seem to make sense and they're parsed
correctly - it's just that it's so clear that they are part of this
construct you've put together over the decades to shield you from ever
being hurt like you were, ever again.
LOL. What a crock. :)
Do you not realize that you have attempted to put some crappy
'psychological arm-bar' like this on literally EVERY other person
who posts to this little newsgroup? Well, you have, and it
neither impresses nor fools me for a second.
You should take some time to consider what I've said above. It could
be the most valuable time you ever commit to.
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 8:00:42 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 17:59:34 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:19:41 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 12:30:37 AM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 21:06:00 -0700 (PDT), whisperoutloud
<allreadydun@gmail.com> wrote:
work on your self instead.
there's where change begins.
Forget about tryin' to change other people.
They will be just fine.
Fair comment. But Dave is so patronising sometimes...
Thang, you don't have the slightest idea how to help or change me.
You don't get what I've done in the past, or see where I am now.
Yet your arrogance and presumption is far worse than mine.
It's totally not worth it to even talk with you.
I don't need you to talk with me. I've said all that I want to say
and silence would probably be a suitable ending for our interaction.
Definitely more suitable than that complete bullshit you tossed out
and absolutely INSISTED on. Unbelievable arrogance and blindness.
Yep, except it was accurate. Your response demonstrates that. You
should treat it as a learning exercise. As for insistence, you ain't
seen me in insisting mode :)
You're still insisting. Little respect for another's life or word.
If any of our three kids told me some businessman on the net was
plastering little snippets of DSM all over them, I'd just tell them
to stay the hell away from that person.
Dude, you pull every nasty trick in the book, like: attack the shit
out of someone and then turn around and call them 'defensive'. :)
This is just a NG. Chill out.
Given what you've attempted and how Slider takes this all so
seriously he acts like he's running a black PR campaign :),
I'm the most level-headed person around here by a long shot.
You have considerable room for improvement and should not cast stones
when abiding in a house of glass. But, then, so do I. And Slider.
None of us could ever be improved by anything like this, obviously. :)
Like what? My observations about your motivations? It was meant in a
curative fashion. If you didn't take it that way, your loss.
It's so terribly arrogant to act like you can "cure" virtual strangers
on the net, especially given how about half of DSM is barely less >pseudo-scientific than some cults, even with qualified practitioners.
If you need proof, merely notice how many times it's been seriously
revised in the last 30 years. Then add in that you're not qualified.
At the end of the day we're all in the same boat and it's as leaky as
hell. You would do well Dave to recognise that fact. Call it
personal growth.
Mistaken assumption: that I didn't realize that long ago.
And knowing the boats are leaky doesn't mean you have the 'cure'.
I've aspired practically forever to what *I* consider personal growth.
Perhaps the most unassuming of all here is Chris who, admirably, tries
to mellow things out.
You've attacked him viciously and absurdly several times too.
I wouldn't say absurdly. Actually, I wouldn't say viciously either.
I would, and did say both. As for absurd, you'll attack people over
almost anything, from merely being on Facebook to getting a little
bit into baseball. Absurd is pretty accurate. :)
He gave as good as he got and that too, for both "sides", was
ultimately positive.
He doesn't hold grudges. Nor do I. I don't think I can say that for
you.
See, I don't think you can say *anything* "for me". Nothing could be
more arrogant or less respectful of others' lives than believing you
can 'speak for them'. And no one else here attempts to do that nearly
as often as you do.
Here's a book I've just uploaded for you - a nice amalgam of Buddhism
and psychoanalysis to fill that nasty empty void we all have. The
writer is a psychiatrist who is also an accomplished Buddhist...
https://ufile.io/rjlo6
Excerpt:
"In the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism, those moments of unknowing when
the mind is naturally loosed from its moorings are said to be special
opportunities for realization. During orgasm, at the moment of death,
or while falling asleep or ending a dream are times when the veils of
knowing are spontaneously lifted and the underlying luminosity of the
mind shines through. But we have a powerful resistance to experiencing
this mind in all of its brilliance. We are afraid to let ourselves go
all the way. To set ourselves adrift requires a trust that for most of
us was lost in childhood."
Yeah, Buddhism and psychoanalysis. Like I've never read any Buddhism.
Like it's still the dark ages and all we need is yet another cult. :)
I experience this "mind adrift" all the time. Like... yesterday most
recently. I don't need a guide. And if I did, it's sure as hell not you.
See you took that little gesture as an attack on your self as well.
For someone as well travelled along those esoteric paths you still
have a very fragile ego.
Another one of your presumptions. Actually, I'm well-traveled and
well-read enough on 'esoteric paths' by now that my knowledge of
that stuff is borderline encyclopedic, and for that very reason
such material is the LAST thing anyone should ever recommend to me.
I have personal friends today who have not only already recommended
(and gifted me with) numerous similar books, and personal friends
who even *practice* similar strategies. :) You do not know me nearly
well enough to make any suitable recommendations of that nature.
You obviously don't even know the basics of Castaneda,
even as you badger all these people posting to a CC newsgroup. :)
If you think Mr. Buddha/Psychoanalyst is so wise then YOU go let
him practice on YOUR head awhile, then come back and tell us all
what you believe you have learned. And good luck... :)
I didn't mean this as some sort of subtle
contempt or cynical attack on you in any way, the book is very
interesting and I thought you might gain from it. I am.
I recognize that you were being sincere. But it didn't matter,
not only because of what I just said above, but also since you
have already made *so many* presumptuous, contemptuous, and cynical
attacks on people here that you probably won't ever be trusted.
For all your amateur accusations re: narcissism, you don't seem
to get how after you've unloaded on people 10 times in toxic and
obnoxious ways, you aren't about to then gain their future trust.
At least, not with people who are mostly sane. :)
This guy is a practising psychiatrist who is also an accredited
psychoanalyst - he's a medical doctor with a specialty and a lot of
study and practice in eastern religious thought. It's not a "cult".
You're taking the "once bitten twice shy" thing way too far.
I don't think I am. First, I've already read other similar books.
This isn't the first professional or philosopher to get sucked into
Buddhism. Don't forget, Castaneda was a Ph.D. Anthropologist.
Everyone touts credentials.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 6:30:58 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:01:01 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Donovan"
<jeremyhdonovan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 8:00:42 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 17:59:34 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"
wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2017 at 5:19:06 PM UTC-8, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 09:19:41 -0800 (PST), "Jeremy H. Denisovan"Definitely more suitable than that complete bullshit you tossed out
wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 12:30:37 AM UTC-7, thang ornerythinchus wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 21:06:00 -0700 (PDT), whisperoutloud
<allreadydun@gmail.com> wrote:
work on your self instead.
there's where change begins.
Forget about tryin' to change other people.
They will be just fine.
Fair comment. But Dave is so patronising sometimes...
Thang, you don't have the slightest idea how to help or change me.
You don't get what I've done in the past, or see where I am now.
Yet your arrogance and presumption is far worse than mine.
It's totally not worth it to even talk with you.
I don't need you to talk with me. I've said all that I want to say
and silence would probably be a suitable ending for our interaction. >> >> >
and absolutely INSISTED on. Unbelievable arrogance and blindness.
Yep, except it was accurate. Your response demonstrates that. You
should treat it as a learning exercise. As for insistence, you ain't
seen me in insisting mode :)
You're still insisting. Little respect for another's life or word.
If any of our three kids told me some businessman on the net was
plastering little snippets of DSM all over them, I'd just tell them
to stay the hell away from that person.
Dude, you pull every nasty trick in the book, like: attack the shit
out of someone and then turn around and call them 'defensive'. :)
But you're eminently attackable, don't you know? You sit so high on
that horse of your own construct that patronisation of everyone else
is inevitable. Then, when you're called out, it's something like
"don't be so nasty" or "don't attack me" (paraphrased). I mean what I
said - you need to take a long objective look at your behaviour.
Others are human as well as you.
Others are human. No argument there.
But I don't accept your hostile characterizations of my behavior.
To cite: you said something recently about Slider having abandoned
his kids or somesuch; you called me a narcissist. However, when
Slider reacted fairly robustly to that you took offence and now you're
taking offence to me referring to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual in
my own defence.
You said this about Slider in this thread:
"Especially when I should have been dinging you for leaving
your own kids as if they're merely 'something you did once'.
That's probably where your true character is most evident.
Even if it may be more that they left you..."
Are you telling me that this is not a form of "attack the shit" or one
of "every nasty trick in the book"? Seems a bit below the belt to
me...
I think it goes to one of the probable serious flaws/consequences
of Slider's avowed "loner/outsider" identification. I merely referenced
his own words and concluded accordingly. He hasn't even denied it,
so no, it hardly amounts to a "nasty trick".
Here's what I said referring to the DSM:
"An example - say I had a history of major fraud amounting to many
millions of dollars coupled with a personality profile which ranged
from narcissism through to antisocial (DSM V definitions). This would
be both significantly outside the norms of society and significantly
influential on the people who exhibit those norms of society. Yet, I
have never posted here about that, and in absence of my real name,
which you still do not know, you would have no possible means of
determining this significant extranorm history."
I was using the DSM as a basis for an example, a hypothetical. I was
^not^ " plastering little snippets of DSM all over them" as you say.
That isn't how or where you did that. As you probably realize...
It's a shame you don't refer to the DSM V in your aspersions you make
about others in this NG, there might be some authenticity then to what
you say, even though the conclusions might still be flawed.
Actually I know quite a bit about the DSM. What makes my aspersions >significantly more potent is knowing the full history of DSM,
rather than merely looking at its most current version.
I have also made reference to it otherwise and will again, it's the
definitive psychiatric diagnostic manual, bar none.
Yes, yet it's still filled with lots of controversial material.
For example, psychiatrist Allen Frances warned in Psychology Today
that DSM 5 "will medicalize normality and result in a glut of
unnecessary and harmful drug prescription". He called DSM 5:
"the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing,
and teaching psychiatry". He encouraged people to "be skeptical
and don't follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to
massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication".
You might want to consider such consequences before you lap up
all of that shit. Then again, you seem to love trying to beat down
people with phony diagnoses, so maybe you'd enjoy such a world.
Conversely, a cherished member of our household grew up - all through >childhood and adolescence - being diagnosed as something that now,
as of DSM 5, no longer even exists. :o
Can you imagine that? You grow up believing "I'm a this" because
important doctors said so, and then when you become an adult they
come back saying "sorry, um, never mind that one." And do you then
believe them if they say: "well, now you're a that", instead?
Fortunately, this person is now doing *great* without a "label". :)
Here are additional comments Frances made:
"More than fifty mental health professional associations petitioned
for an outside review of DSM 5 to provide an independent judgment
of its supporting evidence and to evaluate the balance between
its risks and benefits. Professional journals, the press, and the
public also weighed in - expressing widespread astonishment about
decisions that sometimes seemed not only to lack scientific support
but also to defy common sense... Fortunately, some of its most
egregiously risky and unsupportable proposals were eventually
dropped under great external pressure."
But he proceeds to identify 10 diagnoses areas he thinks are bad.
This shit is only just barely becoming scientific, and I stand by
my skeptical view that a great deal of it is still pseudo-science.
But at least you're protective of your three children :)
This is just a NG. Chill out.
Given what you've attempted and how Slider takes this all so
seriously he acts like he's running a black PR campaign :),
I'm the most level-headed person around here by a long shot.
Nope. Not even close. Let me borrow from the DSM again, seeing as
you like it so much:
Nope, you're just being aggressive, as usual.
"Seeing as you like it so much"...
You literally grabbed up DSM during an argument to 'diagnose'
a person you've never met, and you are not a qualified professional,
yet I'm supposedly the grandiose one? :)
"Delusional Disorder - Diagnostic Criteria 297.1 (F22)
A. The presence of one (or more) delusions with a duration of 1 month
or longer.
C. Apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications,
functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously
bizarre or odd.
Interesting choice. That may be one of the passages those bastards
use to over-diagnose and over-medicate half the fucking world.
Questions: is belief in invisible deities a delusion?
Is the belief that one can function as a qualified psychiatrist
without any credentials in an internet argument a delusion? :)
Specify whether:
Grandiose type: This subtype applies when the central theme of the
delusion is the conviction of having some great (but unrecognized)
talent or insight or having made some important discovery."
Should we be calling you "grandiose" mein herren?
Gosh, whatever you decide, Nurse Ratched. :)
Grandiose delusions are supposed to be things like: you think
you're President of the United States, or you believe you invented >penicillin, or think you are God (watch out Hindus) or have
a special relationship with God (watch out Republicans). etc.
Take a careful look at that text - at how broad it is.
So now anyone who believes themselves talented or insightful
could be labeled 'grandiose' in a pinch? You think that's great?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 34 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 94:09:56 |
| Calls: | 2,104 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,145 |
| Messages: | 949,423 |
| Posted today: | 4 |