I think now would be a good time to start talking about psychosis, Ball
Rupert
matter of public record and still fresh in everyone's memory".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/6fbc489a89fd16a3?dmode=source
I write:
"You stupidly told Rupert a math term he used wasn't a real word" -
Ronny
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/e6446e0474d0e32f?dmode=source
"No" - Jonathan Ball
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/c71e96c3858cbdf3?dmode=source
Refutation:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.christnet/msg/3126ba558ae1e0f1?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/91b8632a7340bc86?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/22d0b79832d1be8c?dmode=source
Direct quotes from the last three links:
"Rupert wrote:
[...]
> So, Rudy, "axiomatizable" is not a real word.
I knew you'd eventually get around to admitting it, you gutless little
fuck." - Jonathan Ball
"Enough of it. But I don't need to understand it,
because I'm not trying to understand his thesis. I can
recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
"axiomatizable" is such a word. It's not a real word,
even though it serves a real and useful purpose to
mathematicians." - Jonathan Ball
"Yes, quite. rupie the skirt-boy used a made-up word." - Jonathan
Ball
In response to this, Ball changes the title to "rupie stupidly falls
into runny's sloppy reading habits" and writes:
"No." - Jonathan Ball
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/msg/ec163cbd711a961e?dmode=source
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
> > I post a message
>
> You should talk with your doctor instead.
My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
This has to be your greatest hit ever.
What do you suggest I say to my doctor, Ball?
"Um, I was posting on this newsgroup and this man said that
'axiomatizable' wasn't a real word because he couldn't find it in
online Merriam-Webster. Someone pointed out that he said this, and he
denied it. I refuted him, and he denied that I'd refuted him. I
pointed out that what he was saying flew in the face of the plainly
observable facts, and he told me to go and speak with my doctor."
Then what do I say?
Rupert
Please don't leave me hanging here, Ball. Make me laugh some more
before I go to bed. Please.
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 6, 10:20 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> I post a message
> >> You should talk with your doctor instead.
>
> > My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
>
> clearly more than halfway over the cliff.
Yes, thanks for the extra laughs, Ball, but you didn't answer the
question. What do I *say* to my doctor?
I haven't made contact with a mental health professional here in
Shanghai, actually.
But when I go back to Sydney, I book an appointment and I say "Okay,
I've been taking the 200 mg of Solian as you suggested. Now, I was
chatting with this guy on a newsgroup, and he claimed that
'axiomatizable' wasn't a real word because he couldn't find it in
online Merriam-Webster. Then, a bit later, someone pointed out that he
made this claim and he denied it. I posted evidence that he had in
fact made the claim, and he claimed that I had sloppy reading habits.
I pointed out that what he was saying flew in the face of the plainly
observable facts, and he suggested I speak with my doctor. So, what do
you think about that?"
Is that what you suggest I say?
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 6, 10:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 6, 10:20 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
> >>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>> I post a message
> >>> You should talk with your doctor instead.
> >> My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
>
> >> This has to be your greatest hit ever.
>
> >> What do you suggest I say to my doctor, Ball?
>
> >> "Um, I was posting on this newsgroup and this man said that
> >> 'axiomatizable' wasn't a real word because he couldn't find it in
> >> online Merriam-Webster. Someone pointed out that he said this, and he
> >> denied it. I refuted him, and he denied that I'd refuted him. I
> >> pointed out that what he was saying flew in the face of the plainly
> >> observable facts, and he told me to go and speak with my doctor."
>
> >> Then what do I say?
>
> > Please don't leave me
>
>
Since you are the author of that sentence which you misattribute to
me, the designation "sick little puppy" would be best reserved for
you.
> Now call your doctor, immediately.
Look, Ball, let's be serious here.
Ronny wrote "You stupidly told Rupert a math term he used wasn't a
real word".
You wrote "No".
I quoted you saying the following:
"Rupert wrote:
[...]
> So, Rudy, "axiomatizable" is not a real word.
I knew you'd eventually get around to admitting it, you gutless little
fuck."
"Enough of it. But I don't need to understand it, because I'm not
trying to understand his thesis. I can
recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and 'axiomatizable' is
such a word. It's not a real word,
even though it serves a real and useful purpose to
mathematicians."
"Yes, quite. rupie the skirt-boy used a made-up word."
You accuse me of sloppy reading habits and write "No" again.
Now apparently I'm the one who needs to go and see a doctor.
You are not well.
You've got to get some help.
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 6, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On May 6, 10:20 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> I post a message
> >>>> You should talk with your doctor instead.
> >>> My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
> >> Really - talk with your doctor. "My God, my God, my God" - you're
> >> clearly more than halfway over the cliff.
>
> > Yes, thanks
>
Well, Ball, we have yet another new candidate for Ball's greatest hit
of all time. Much appreciated. We'll remember this one for a long time
to come. It's really mean of you not to leave these posts in the
archives, by the way.
I'm off to bed now.
Mr.Smartypants
And that's the real reason Boobs is screaming "NO" all the time in
spite of the evidence. He's hoping to play out the clock when his
gibberish will disappear from the archives.
Unfortunately for Boobs his words will live on in the archives in the
posts we make in reply to his nonsense.
Mr.Smartypants
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 1:14 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 6, 11:01 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
> >>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>> On May 6, 10:43 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> On May 6, 10:20 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I post a message
> >>>>>>> You should talk with your doctor instead.
> >>>>>> My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
> >>>>> Really - talk with your doctor. "My God, my God, my God" - you're
> >>>>> clearly more than halfway over the cliff.
> >>>> Yes, thanks
> >>> It's the advice any decent person would give.
> >> Well, Ball, we have yet another new candidate for Ball's greatest hit
> >> of all time. Much appreciated. We'll remember this one for a long time
> >> to come. It's really mean of you not to leave these posts in the
> >> archives, by the way.
>
> > And that's the real reason
>
>
> You admit to being a stupid, do-nothing jerk-off. Too fucking funny.-
Even when Rupert proved to you the word he used was REAL, you insisted
he made it up and then to put the cherry on the sundae you insisted he
had used "axiomatizable" inappropriately..........even though you had
(and still have) no clue what the word actually means or what context
it should be used in.
You are absolutely PRICELESS, Boobs!
Rupert
> Rupert wrote:
> > On May 6, 10:44 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On May 6, 10:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On May 6, 10:20 pm, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> I post a message
> >>>>> You should talk with your doctor instead.
> >>>> My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
> >>>> This has to be your greatest hit ever.
> >>>> What do you suggest I say to my doctor, Ball?
> >>>> "Um, I was posting on this newsgroup and this man said that
> >>>> 'axiomatizable' wasn't a real word because he couldn't find it in
> >>>> online Merriam-Webster. Someone pointed out that he said this, and he
> >>>> denied it. I refuted him, and he denied that I'd refuted him. I
> >>>> pointed out that what he was saying flew in the face of the plainly
> >>>> observable facts, and he told me to go and speak with my doctor."
> >>>> Then what do I say?
> >>> Please don't leave me
> >> I was never with you, sick little puppy.
>
> > Since you are
>
I think you should speak with your doctor about your belief that you
can change what people have written by deleting everything except the
first three words.
Rupert
> God, my God, my God.")
Saying "My God, my God, my God" strikes me as a pretty natural
response to your behaviour.
It's true that I've was diagnosed as having a psychotic illness in
2001 and 2002. I'm afraid that doesn't mean I'm the one who's having
problems staying in touch with reality at the moment.
Rupert
>
> - Show quoted text -
We could ask a mental health professional to give us feedback on this
conversation, if you like. We'd have to go halves on his of her
consultation fees and you'd have to give permission for his or her
professional opinion about your condition to be posted here. (I'd be
happy to give my permission for anything he or she has to say to be
posted here). It would be interesting.
pearl
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Well, another one has come and gone, or pretty close to
> it: the moronic Aussie windbag "---- -----". We're
> getting pretty close over in alt.food.vegan with some
> fuckwit going by "---_-------", too.
>
> Dump has often raged (impotently) at me for driving
> "new posters" away. In fact, it isn't something I set
> out to do; certainly not as an end in itself. Rather,
> there's a certain type of new poster, of which the
> unlamented "---- -----" is - excuse me, WAS - an
> excellent example, that I just KNOW, at the outset,
> will not be able to stick around. When I spot the
> twits for that kind of poster, THEN it does become a
> game to try to drive them, preferably in tears, from
> the newsgroups. I know they're going; the game is in
> trying to get them by the nape of the neck and propel
> them through the doors of the saloon. (Why IN THE F*CK
> do the idiot Brits refer to a large luxury sedan as a
> "saloon" car?)
>
> So, we've made pretty short work of "---- ------", just
> as a couple of weeks ago we made short work of "-----".
> This other fuckwitted troll who keeps changing his
> name every other day (but not his dull plodding style),
> most recently "---- -------", isn't long for the groups,
> either. He's a little more persistent than others, but
> he has "short-timer" written all over him in indelible ink.
>
> Start crying, Dump.
Yep -- nice, but not surprising, to see you come clean about your
sadistic game of "My newsgroup, MINE...waaah, someone doesn't
think I'm God; get rid of him 'in tears'." It's not the subject,
or even the pleasure of rational debate, with you, jonnie. It's
the evil sense of power, control, and cruelty. There's a sick streak
of viciousness and pettiness in you which is obvious to everyone,
and extremely unattractive and disturbing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'The great psychiatrist C. G. Jung continually pointed out the importance
of recognizing the deeper archetypal, mythic process that was getting
enacted through life, be it in the life of an individual or of the collective
species. Jung saw that recognizing the deeper archetypal pattern that was
unconsciously playing itself out was the key to transforming it. Jung felt
that the major archetypal, mythic process that is happening in our world
today is the death and transformation of the old king, the senex.
Symbolically, the aging, sick and dying king is the negative patriarchy,
the dark father (darth vader). This figure of the mythic terrible father has
become egocentric, and abuses its power over others so as to protect
itself and feed its own narcissism.
..
[Ball] has fallen into a state that is the embodiment of arrogance.
Succumbing to the temptation of power, [Ball] has become corrupt,
which is the inevitable consequence when one prefers power over truth.
He has fallen into a vicious cycle where he has become addicted to
power. [Ball] and his regime are compulsively driven to do everything
and anything they can to hold onto the position of power they find
themselves in. Not only do they not see the depraved nature of the
situation they have fallen into, they don't want to see it. Being in the role
of having power, there is a counter-incentive to self-reflect, which just
reinforces their addiction to power in an endlessly self-perpetuating cycle.
Al Gore describes exactly this situation, pointing out that people who
are seduced by dominance and power "satiate their hunger for more
power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens-
sooner or later- to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out
too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul." Jung
expresses the same idea when he says that "whoever prefers power is
therefore, in the Christian view, possessed by the devil. The
psychologist can only agree."
Interestingly, as Freud pointed out, the Devil is symbolically related
to the archetypal figure of the negative father. The negative father is a
power-intoxicated devil, so to speak, that wants to control, dominate
and dictate to others. Like a bully who is in a position of power and
privilege, this figure abuses its power simply because it can. The figure
of the dark father is traumatizing to others, as it traumatizes everyone
under its dominion. Because it is attached to the position of power it
finds itself in, this figure is not interested in change, and therefore has
become calcified and rigid. As Bush told Tim Russert of Meet the
Press, he knows he's right (no matter how much the evidence indicates
otherwise) and he's not going to change his mind. There is simply no
arguing with the figure of the negative father. This figure is an expression
of an old paradigm, macho ("bring 'em on") mentality whose MO is
force. It does not learn from its mistakes, and has wounded, tortured,
terrorized and killed millions over centuries. The terrible father secretly
and sadistically enjoys sending others to their death. The terrible father
is a criminal and a real 'murderer,' which is one of the inner meanings
of the word 'Devil.' Seemingly strong and powerful on the surface, at
the root of the figure of the terrible father is extreme fear and
weakness, as it is threatened by anyone who challenges its dominance.
This figure of the terrible father is dissociated from and threatened by
eros, from feeling, from the feminine, from the heart, from relatedness,
even from mother nature and the environment (which it objectifies and
tries to dominate, instead of being in relationship with), and from love.
Concerned about nothing other than itself, this figure is indifferent to
other people's suffering, all the while professing its compassion.
...'
http://sandbox.cedarconedesign.com/bush_articles/bushfather.html
Rupert
>
Well, look, Ball, I'll probably be having a chat with my psychiatrist
when I'm in Sydney in July. What do you suggest I discuss with her? Do
you think I should show her a transcript of this conversation? Or
perhaps you feel the matter is more urgent than that and that I should
try to locate an English-speaking psychiatrist in Shanghai? I have
been trying to do that but it's difficult. I could have another try if
you like.
dh
>Rupert wrote:
>> On May 6, 10:44 pm, Goo wrote:
>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>> On May 6, 10:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 6, 10:20 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> I post a message
>>>>>> You should talk with your doctor instead.
>>>>> My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
>>>>> This has to be your greatest hit ever.
>>>>> What do you suggest I say to my doctor, Ball?
>>>>> "Um, I was posting on this newsgroup and this man said that
>>>>> 'axiomatizable' wasn't a real word because he couldn't find it in
>>>>> online Merriam-Webster. Someone pointed out that he said this, and he
>>>>> denied it. I refuted him, and he denied that I'd refuted him. I
>>>>> pointed out that what he was saying flew in the face of the plainly
>>>>> observable facts, and he told me to go and speak with my doctor."
>>>>> Then what do I say?
>>>> Please don't leave me
>>> I was never with you, sick little puppy.
>>>
>>
>> Since you are
>
>No, I'm really not with you, rupie.
You're a lost moron Goo, lost by the intense clutter of lies that
dominate the tiny crumb of turd you try using as a brain.
>Now call your doctor.
What does YOUR doctor say Goob? You have most likely
been declared hopeless and all you see is your nurses any more,
so what they say will do okay. What do they say about your
dishonesty, Goo? Don't lie (LOL). GO:
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker - lied:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 May 2008 Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On May 6, 10:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I post a message
> >>>>>>> You should talk with your doctor instead.
> >>>>>> My God, Ball. My God, my God, my God.
> >>>>>> This has to be your greatest hit ever.
> >>>>>> What do you suggest I say to my doctor, Ball?
> >>>>>> "Um, I was posting on this newsgroup and this man said that
> >>>>>> 'axiomatizable' wasn't a real word because he couldn't find it in
> >>>>>> online Merriam-Webster. Someone pointed out that he said this, and he
> >>>>>> denied it. I refuted him, and he denied that I'd refuted him. I
> >>>>>> pointed out that what he was saying flew in the face of the plainly
> >>>>>> observable facts, and he told me to go and speak with my doctor."
> >>>>>> Then what do I say?
> >>>>> Please don't leave me
> >>>> I was never with you, sick little puppy.
>
> >>> Since you are
> >> No, I'm really not with you, rupie.
>
> > You're a lost moron
>
>
> >> Now call your doctor.
>
> > What does YOUR doctor say
>
So Boob's would it be alright if Rupert showed his doctor a transcript
of this entire thread?
Could you stand the scrutiny, Boobs?
Mr.Smartypants
> You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
>
>
>
>
So why exactly don't you want *your* doctor involved?
>
> You are *such* a stupid, do-nothing jerk-off.- Hide quoted text -
Rupert
Here's the situation.
You recently made a false statement about a matter of public record
and recent memory. I gave an absolutely clear-cut refutation, and you
claimed I had "sloppy reading habits" without explaining further and
changed the topic of conversation to the question of whether I should
see a doctor.
I confess to being somewhat curious about how a professional
psychiatrist would view this behaviour. I am assuming that they would
say that it is not possible to determine whether you meet the
diagnostic criteria for any mental illness, but it would be
interesting to see if they would make any other comments.
However, I would be reluctant to waste my psychiatrist's valuable time
by getting her to read silly conversations which I've been having on
the Internet. As a good libertarian I'm sure you would agree that I
shouldn't put Australia's Medicare system to frivolous uses.
However, you are claiming that you have the view that I am in need of
mental health care. I don't think I'm in need of mental health care.
However, if you offer some tangible advice about what to do about my
alleged need for mental health care, along the lines of "find an
English-speaking psychiatrist in Shanghai and take a transcript of
this conversation along", or "take a transcript of this conversation
along next time you see your psychiatrist in Sydney", then I will
seriously consider acting on this advice, purely for the sake of
satisfying my curiosity about how a professional psychiatrist would
view your mental state.
If you decline to offer advice along these lines, we'll just leave it
there.
Rupert
You snipped this question, Ball.
All you have to do is say the word. Say "I recommend you show your
doctor this conversation" and next time I see her I will say "Look, I
am sorry to bother you but someone with whom I was talking on the
Internet recommended I show you this conversation."
Mr.Smartypants
translation from Boob-babble: "I'm afraid to let a shrink read my
lunatic ravings for fear I'll be hunted down, tranked, and locked up."
>
> You are *such* a stupid jerk-off.-
dh
>translation from Boob-babble: "I'm afraid to let a shrink read my
>lunatic ravings for fear I'll be hunted down, tranked, and locked up."
You may have it backwards, and he doesn't want his internet
priveleges taken away again. Letting him play with us keeps him
from bothering people around him in the care center, so as long
as he doesn't get too carried away the nurses let him online.
dh
>On May 7, 11:18 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com> wrote:
>> On May 8, 12:21 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>> > dh pointed out:
>>
>> > > On Tue, 06 May 2008 Goo wrote:
>>
>> > >> Rupert wrote:
>> > >>> On May 6, 10:44 pm, Goo wrote:
>> > >>>> Rupert wrote:
>> > >>>>> On May 6, 10:27 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you're paying someone trained to evaluate mental disorder,
then you might as well get her opinion since that's what you're
paying for. Either you or the Goober is taking a disordered
approach. I believe we all--with the *possible* exception of
Goo that is--know you clearly appear to be in the good on that
one. So it would be fun to take some choice Goobal idiotics
to see what a pro has to say about it. Maybe there's a name
for such stupidly blatant dishonesty, and a field of study around
it. Some sort of "boss" syndrome sounds possible...if Goo has
been in the position of being in charge too much, to the point
that no matter how stupid his mistakes, and how much they
ruin things for other people, and how grotesquely clueless and
inefficient etc, the Goober could still get away with them because
of his position, and lie about them without being disputed. Goo
gives the appearance that that's the position he thinks he's in.
dh
>Mr. Smartypants wrote:
>> On May 8, 12:21 am, the maundering Goober whined:
>>> dh asked:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now call your doctor.
>>>> What does YOUR doctor say
>>> We're talking about the aussie fruit's doctor.-
>>
>> So
>
>So, there is no point in mentioning my doctor.
Of course there is Goob. I figured you had been given up on
and only your nurses had anything to do with you any more...
considering your doctor may still have hope is a tough one, Goo.
What would he say if he knew you were lying on the internet
again? We know. He'd say you're being a bad Goober, *again!*,
and you're never going to get any better if you keep on lying
and acting such a fool online...
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
> presented no challenge:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 07 May 2008, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
> >> the do-nothing jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
>
> >>> On May 8, 12:21 am, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Now call your doctor.
>
> >>>>> What does YOUR doctor say
>
> >>>> We're talking about the aussie fruit's doctor.-
> >>> So
> >> So, there is no point in mentioning my doctor.
>
> > Of course there is
>
>
> Your system date is wrong, you stupid fucking incompetent cracker. Fix it.-
It's a good thing Boobs has system times to fall back on otherwise
he'd have NOTHING.
It's obvious he fears psychiatric professionals examining his "body of
work."
Mr.Smartypants
> You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
> >> presented no challenge:
>
> >>> On Wed, 07 May 2008, Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
> >>>> the do-nothing jerk-off cunt runny hamilton lied:
> >>>>> On May 8, 12:21 am, Rudy H. Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 Rudy G. Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Now call your doctor.
> >>>>>>> What does YOUR doctor say
> >>>>>> We're talking about the aussie fruit's doctor.-
> >>>>> So
> >>>> So, there is no point in mentioning my doctor.
> >>> Of course there is
> >> No.
>
> >> Your system date is wrong, you stupid fucking incompetent cracker. Fix it.-
>
> > It's a good thing
>
> in the newsgroups.
LOL!!
You stupid little Boob!
Anyone replying to any post is in "order" irrespective of what their
system time says.
That *you* would be confused by system times should surprise no one.
It's typically stupid GooFuckwit juvenile
> disruption. In fact, it's just like stupid do-nothing jerk-off runny
> hamilton's juvenile disruption. You two fucking zeros only disrupt.-
You have to be the only anal retentive on the over 70,000 newsgroups
who worries about posters' system times.
*That* distinction certainly merits some consideration by a trained
mental health practicioner.
Mr.Smartypants
What kind of a fool worries about the system time of a computer that a
post was made from?
Any idea what kind of a fool would do that, Boobs?
>
> >> It's typically stupid GooFuckwit juvenile
> >> disruption. In fact, it's just like stupid do-nothing jerk-off runny
> >> hamilton's juvenile disruption. You two fucking zeros only disrupt.-
>
> > [snip runny hamilton stupid, do-nothing jerk-off bullshit]
>
> Over 15 years worth of stupid, juvenile bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
samvaknin
These may be of interest - click on the links:
Narcissism of leaders and authority figures
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/15.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq11.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal79.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal70.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/corporatenarcissism.html
Celebrity narcissists
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq19.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal73.html
Serial and mass killers
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/serialkillers.html
Narcissism and Religion
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html
For a more detailed view of pathological narcissism and the
Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD) - click on these links:
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html
Other Personality Disorders
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faqpd.html
Pathological Narcissism and Other Mental Health Disorders
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq82.html
NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and AsPD (Antisocial
Personality
Disorder, Psychopathy, or Sociopathy)
http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders16.html
http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders15.html
Take care.
Sam
Rupert
I think that the evidence for a diagnosis of psychopathy based on his
usenet activities alone would be pretty weak in Ball's case, but I
once read this passage from a book about psychopathy which I thought
had a certain resonance with some of my experiences with Ball:
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley.pdf
"Oh no," said Stanley in tones of strong and almost indignant
convicion. "My wife knows I'd never be unfaithful to her."
He then went into some detail about her unassailable confidence in his
sexual loyalty. "Why," he said, as if in real pride, "I promised that
if I ever did that with another woman, I'd let her know about it right
away."
I then brought up the point that he had given me plainly to understand
that he and Marilyn had been indulging in sexual relations freely and
regularly up to the time when he made his request for her
intercession. Stanley seemed in no way dismayed. "But my wife," he
said confidently, "She doesn't know about that."
In this discussion, I thought at moments I sensed some points about
Stanley's inner being that I could never formulate adequately, even to
myself. I did not, of course, find it remarkable that such a man as he
would be unfaithful to his wife, or that he made and broke promises of
the sort just mentioned. Something in his attitude seemed to give
fleeting and imperfect hints of a difference far within that
distinguished him in a very special way from the ordinary human being
who is unscrupulous and unconcerned about veracity or honour. When
Stanley said, "My wife knows I'd never be unfaithful", there was in
his tone what seemed to be the very essence of truth and sincerity.
There was pride in his voice that seemed rooted in this essence. Could
it be that for the moment he lost awareness that he was lying? Perhaps
even awareness of what truth is? If so, I think this oversight might
have occurred because to him it mattered so little. Whether his sworn
fidelity was real or not was apparently no more than an academic
question empty of substance. The only tangible issue was whether or
not it contributed toward gaining his ends.
Mr.Smartypants
"Could it be that for the moment he lost awareness that he was lying?
Perhaps
even awareness of what truth is? If so, I think this oversight might
have occurred because to him it mattered so little."
I think that might describe Boobs PRECISELY.
dh
. . .
>When
>Stanley said, "My wife knows I'd never be unfaithful", there was in
>his tone what seemed to be the very essence of truth and sincerity.
>There was pride in his voice that seemed rooted in this essence. Could
>it be that for the moment he lost awareness that he was lying? Perhaps
>even awareness of what truth is? If so, I think this oversight might
>have occurred because to him it mattered so little.
The truth apparently matters extremely little if at all to Goo, and
amusingly he seems to feel it should be that way for everybody else
too. Actually the truth does matter significantly to Goo very frequently
since the fact that it works against his claims is what causes them
to be the blatant lies we laugh at and scorn. The truth just gets in
Goo's way. So does the truth really matter to Goo or not? Since he
so often tries to generate impressions which conflict with it, and does
so apparently deliberately, I guess in a way that is a form of caring
about it.
Mr.Smartypants
Boobs acts as though truth and he are complete strangers and nothing
could be further from the truth. The truth has been savaging Boobs'
ass for over ten years so he should be familiar with it.