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

[michael cottingham]

Sorry,

But limerick has only one "m" not two like my previous post...
I won't make that mistake ever again!

Best Wishes

Michael Cottingham

On Jul 23, 2009, at 1:16 PM, michael cottingham wrote:


> 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

>

> ______________________________________________

> http://www.meteoritecentral.com

> Meteorite-list mailing list

> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list