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

[John Gwilliam]

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.