[meteorite-list] [off-list]<--NOT WHATS WITH THE ATTACKING

From: John Gwilliam <jkg2_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:02:29 -0700
Message-ID: <20090723210239.QHMV20430.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net_at_fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>

Jason,
Sounds to me that you've taken several semesters of BLATHERING at Berkley.

John Gwilliam...a man of few words

At 01:04 PM 7/23/2009, Jason Utas wrote:
>Elton,
>
> > Jason wrote: "Posting messages that were intended to be kept
> private to the list is wrong - unless they are necessary in proving
> a situation such as a deal gone wrong, or cheating having taken place,"
> >
> > So Jason which of your listed situations applies to what you've just done?
>
>You're the one who supported Tom's post. How's it feel to have the
>same done to you? Given your response, I don't think you liked it.
>It proves my point. If I'm wrong for doing it, Tom was wrong for
>doing it. Transitivity.
>
>a = b
>b = c
>ergo
>a = c
>
>(!)
>
> > Were you drunk or has that testosterone problem flared up again?
>
>Yeah, I may be in college, but not all of us do rubbish like that.
>Maybe the fact that it's Berkeley has something to do with it. There
>are at least a few smart-ish people up here.
>That said, given your response, I think it's a bit odd for you to be
>bandying about testosterone as a cause for anything; unless your balls
>have dropped off, it's as much a cause for your writing as it is for
>mine.
>Unless you're going senile, of course.
>
> >You are so predictable-- You attacked Tom, for posting private
> emails to the list and within 6 hours you've done the same thing.
>
>Yes, because I've done this in the past....not. It proved my point,
>at any rate. If I'm wrong for doing it, then Tom was wrong for doing
>it. Tom is still wrong. And if you learn that, and Tom learns that,
>then this won't ever happen again.
>
> >You've really let me down--I expected it within no more than 4
> hours! Just as predictable, you didn't have the guts to mail me a
> copy directly.
>
>Emailing directly means nothing when you send a copy to the list, FYI.
> You posted this message to the list as well as myself - I got only
>one copy, as gmail consolidates things like that into one message.
>Maybe your email works differently, but the messages should still
>arrive at the same time, give or take a few minutes (at most), so it's
>a moot point, regardless.
>
> > You've proved what I said about you was right on -- you are
> incapable of having a man-to-man direct discussion, so you have to
> enlist the entire list hoping someone will help take the heat off
> your hypocrisy.
>
>Yeah, just look at everyone stepping in to help. Oh, wait. No one
>ever steps in. Check the archives.
>I did get a number of private emails though. All supportive save two
>(those two = 1/4 of the messages received).
>Maybe I just want them to see what kind of a person you are.
>I wonder why that would work to my advantage, eh?
>
> >Put up or shut up.
>
>After your last spew of psychological BS, I think you're really not in
>a place to be saying anything along these lines at the moment.
>
> >Show me you've got a pair and address me directly and off
> list. Stop bothering the list with your co-dependency crap.
>
>Hardly. If you insist on propagating this anti-Steve/'I'm better than
>you' rubbish, it's staying here. I'm not letting you get away with
>bullying me in private, undoubtedly ignoring the issue in the process.
>
>After all, we're still talking about your conduct with regards to the
>Steve issue, which is...kind of a list issue, assuming, at least, that
>you're not as stubborn as Steve is, and might change your ways.
>After all, the only reason I say take the Steve stuff off-list is
>because its being on-list doesn't serve any purpose; he doesn't care.
>You say you do care. Maybe you'll shut up.
>
> > Your discourse started me reflecting. I've 186 or so semester
> hours, postgrad Clinical psych, plus 6 months of internships with
> sex offenders in southern prisons, state mental hospitals,
> Alzheimer victims and Chronic DUI offenders so if you want to
> debate such content, lets form a group at yahoo and have at it but,
> this isn't the place for it. (NOTE: I have grounds a plenty to
> justify my preference for meteorites over that for humanity). Oh
> and you've had what...a self awareness class? Did you pass?
>
>First- off, I guess I'm glad that you're so accomplished in the field
>of psychology, but it seems that you've forgotten some of the basics.
>Back to the textbook, eh? I'm assuming it's been a while since you
>learned the stuff.
>
>I've only taken Psych 1 at Berkeley and some research work on five or
>so studies. Just the standard pre-major (not the other one) general
>psychology class. Of course, if any of my points were incorrect, you
>may by all means quote me to point out which of my statements
>regarding the psychological aspect of our discussion was in fact
>wrong.
>
>By all means.
>
>I mean, just saying "you're wrong" without saying how or why doesn't
>get anyone anywhere, especially when I refuted every one of your
>points - it sounds like you're copping out.
>
>But looking at your actions from a psychological perspective, I mean,
>honestly - you were just trying to use the vocabulary of a subject
>about which you assumed I knew nothing in order to make me seem the
>weaker person. The trouble is that I knew/know enough to throw your
>BS back in your face, and now you're circumnavigating your previous
>point because you know you can't win if you try to keep it above
>water. Classic bullying technique.
>Attack until the person is down and then kick 'em while you can.
>But I fought back, and held you off, so now you're completely changing
>the subject and coming at me with something else.
>This is just going to be like every other thread we've had where you
>make some stupid statement, I refute it, and then you just go on
>arguing some new idiocy.
>
>In other words, you're a Troll.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
>
> > Oh! and even though you try to bait me out with false statements
> here, recheck your claims next time you do post to the list...
>
>Really? Which one(s)?
>
> >Other than ask in a general way for us all to avoid list
> confrontations over personalities and keep to collecting or
> commerce issues (which YOU projected to be a post solely about
> Steve), I've posted nothing to the list about Steve since the
> temporary eulogy when he "left" last time.
>
>Right, as I would expect. Steve's leaving meant no more issue with
>Steve, for you. Now he's back. Why on earth would you have posted
>malicious thing about him after he was gone? It wouldn't have served
>your purpose of demonizing him, because then people would have thought
>you the worse man - if they didn't/don't already.
>
> >Put up or shut-- show me the specific post you ramble on about; I
> know you keep all mine in your scrapbook.
>
>Which post(s)? We've had this argument several times, and you know
>it. You can get to the archives just as easily as I can, if your
>memory is still failing you.
>
> > Seems clear that now it is you doing the "Steve postings" just
> like he likes it to happen and tying to make trouble by
> deliberately distorting reality.
>
>But from a psychological perspective, your posts do the same thing.
>You have your point, I have mine, and we're arguing about who's right.
> The situation we're discussing is the same, but we see it in
>different ways (hence the distortion). If anything, your pointing
>this out is ironic because, as a psychologist, you should know how
>arguments work, and yet you're trying to use the point that I'm
>distorting things to make it sound as though I'm the only one doing it
>in order to profess my point of view.
>Ahhh, the irony!
>Or maybe it's just you being hypocritical again - I think this is a
>grey area, but it depends on whether you're pointing out that I'm
>distorting reality versus if you are directly making an accusation.
>If you're accusing me of doing it, then you're a hypocrite because
>you're doing it too. If you're just pointing it out...well, you're
>just pointing out that I'm doing something that we're both doing.
>Ironic when your point is that I'm being the worse person for doing
>it.
>
> >Your post speaks for itself and you've done an excellent job of
> illustrating the validity of what I wrote (off list) to you--about
> you. I rest my case.
>
>And the fact that you consider it such a horrible thing simply proves
>my point that Tom was wrong in doing it in the first place.
>
>Ergo: Win.
>
>Jason
>______________________________________________
>http://www.meteoritecentral.com
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

John Gwilliam

Too many people were born on third base
and go through life thinking they hit a triple.
Received on Thu 23 Jul 2009 05:02:29 PM PDT