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

[michael cottingham]

Hey,

There has to be some limmericks that you guys can right instead
On Jul 23, 2009, at 1:04 PM, 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