Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The End of M Wicks
63 views
Skip to first unread message
M Wicks
Oct 5, 2012, 5:23:38 PM10/5/12
to
I think it's time to fess up. M Wicks is (or rather was) a parody of a
psycholist. Basically my real opinions are pretty much the polar
opposite of M Wicks'. The original purpose of M Wicks was to gain the
trust of the psycholists in order to get some information, but in the
end this didn't happen for various reasons, and so M Wicks simply
became a pastime of sorts, becoming ever more ludicrous (hence the
Christianity, the repulsive homophobia (sorry about that...I probably
shouldn't have gone that far!), the "swearing" business, the capital
letters, etc). Even though he's obviously a dick, I must admit I got
quite fond of him at times...he doesn't mean to be a complete and
utter wanker, he's just very misguided, slow to learn, and reluctant
to change his mind about anything (remember, he is a psycholist).
It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
that I learnt that term until just now. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
states that it's difficult to distinguish between parodies of
fundamentalist extremism and fundamentalist extremism itself (which of
course psycholists exhibit in spades), since they're both equally
insane. I think M Wicks has demonstrated that this is the case: I set
out to be as much of a nutcase psycholist as possible (within reason),
and yet it was a while before anyone started claiming it was a wind-
up, and not everyone did. Also, even those who did think it was a wind-
up seemed to think it was actually a real psycholist (e.g. Mason)
pulling the strings, rather than an "anti-psycholist". So it seemed
that they thought M Wicks was just a sock rather than a piss-take
(oops...I shouldn't be swearing! Children read this newsgroup!)
I thank those who (rightly!) argued with M Wicks, and I apologise to
those who feel that their time has been wasted by remonstrating with
him (but one could argue that any posting on uk.rec.cycling is a waste
of time!) I also thank those posters who were in on M Wicks and who
played along so convincingly. I must admit it was quite a novelty
arguing with people who I'd never normally disagree with, like JNugent
and Judith. And I confess that I did somewhat enjoy winding up the
likes of Dave and NM at times. Sorry Dave/NM: I guess it was a novelty
being able to spew out so much utter bollocks, and a little utter
bollocks goes a long way in irritating those who are rational!
That's so much the case that I can imagine that people like Phil Lee
know (possibly only subconsciously) that what they're saying is
ridiculous rubbish, and they've just become addicted to saying it
anyway because they know it winds up reasonable people. After M Wicks
I can see the attraction of lobbing a grenade of carefully crafted
utter nonsense at a load of rational posters and then gleefully
watching as they loudly complain! This, of course, is what the
psycholists claim that their opponents do; god only knows whether they
are conscious that it is in fact their "side" which do that, time and
time again, with the result that M Wicks didn't exactly stick out as
not being "one of them", whereas I'm sure it would be much harder to
parody an "anti-psycholist" (any psycholist is of course welcome to
try to prove me wrong, but I should think they know better than to do
so!)
(Talking of Phil Lee, I did enjoy the time when I came up with some
random anti-motorist bollocks and then decided to add "Was it Phil Lee
who came up with that?" Sure enough, he replied "Not quite, but the
idea has merit"! Ha ha! Aren't I good? Well actually, I'm not
particularly, yet people still believed that M Wicks was a real
psycholist...Poe's Law indeed!)
Anyway, I don't know whether I'm going to get flamed now, or
congratulated, or a bit of both. I guess it'll probably be mostly the
psycholists (particularly those who agreed with M Wicks!) who'll
display annoyance if anyone does. But to anyone on either "side" who
replied or referred to M Wicks, thanks: I couldn't have done it
without you. :-)
(I wonder if M Wicks will still get his posts approved on URCM now
that he's fessed up to being from the "dark side"? If what the
moderators repeatedly claim is true then I shouldn't get treated any
differently on that newsgroup just because of this post. But we all
know by now that what they say can be taken with a large pinch of
salt, to put it kindly....)
psycholist. Basically my real opinions are pretty much the polar
opposite of M Wicks'. The original purpose of M Wicks was to gain the
trust of the psycholists in order to get some information, but in the
end this didn't happen for various reasons, and so M Wicks simply
became a pastime of sorts, becoming ever more ludicrous (hence the
Christianity, the repulsive homophobia (sorry about that...I probably
shouldn't have gone that far!), the "swearing" business, the capital
letters, etc). Even though he's obviously a dick, I must admit I got
quite fond of him at times...he doesn't mean to be a complete and
utter wanker, he's just very misguided, slow to learn, and reluctant
to change his mind about anything (remember, he is a psycholist).
It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
that I learnt that term until just now. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
states that it's difficult to distinguish between parodies of
fundamentalist extremism and fundamentalist extremism itself (which of
course psycholists exhibit in spades), since they're both equally
insane. I think M Wicks has demonstrated that this is the case: I set
out to be as much of a nutcase psycholist as possible (within reason),
and yet it was a while before anyone started claiming it was a wind-
up, and not everyone did. Also, even those who did think it was a wind-
up seemed to think it was actually a real psycholist (e.g. Mason)
pulling the strings, rather than an "anti-psycholist". So it seemed
that they thought M Wicks was just a sock rather than a piss-take
(oops...I shouldn't be swearing! Children read this newsgroup!)
I thank those who (rightly!) argued with M Wicks, and I apologise to
those who feel that their time has been wasted by remonstrating with
him (but one could argue that any posting on uk.rec.cycling is a waste
of time!) I also thank those posters who were in on M Wicks and who
played along so convincingly. I must admit it was quite a novelty
arguing with people who I'd never normally disagree with, like JNugent
and Judith. And I confess that I did somewhat enjoy winding up the
likes of Dave and NM at times. Sorry Dave/NM: I guess it was a novelty
being able to spew out so much utter bollocks, and a little utter
bollocks goes a long way in irritating those who are rational!
That's so much the case that I can imagine that people like Phil Lee
know (possibly only subconsciously) that what they're saying is
ridiculous rubbish, and they've just become addicted to saying it
anyway because they know it winds up reasonable people. After M Wicks
I can see the attraction of lobbing a grenade of carefully crafted
utter nonsense at a load of rational posters and then gleefully
watching as they loudly complain! This, of course, is what the
psycholists claim that their opponents do; god only knows whether they
are conscious that it is in fact their "side" which do that, time and
time again, with the result that M Wicks didn't exactly stick out as
not being "one of them", whereas I'm sure it would be much harder to
parody an "anti-psycholist" (any psycholist is of course welcome to
try to prove me wrong, but I should think they know better than to do
so!)
(Talking of Phil Lee, I did enjoy the time when I came up with some
random anti-motorist bollocks and then decided to add "Was it Phil Lee
who came up with that?" Sure enough, he replied "Not quite, but the
idea has merit"! Ha ha! Aren't I good? Well actually, I'm not
particularly, yet people still believed that M Wicks was a real
psycholist...Poe's Law indeed!)
Anyway, I don't know whether I'm going to get flamed now, or
congratulated, or a bit of both. I guess it'll probably be mostly the
psycholists (particularly those who agreed with M Wicks!) who'll
display annoyance if anyone does. But to anyone on either "side" who
replied or referred to M Wicks, thanks: I couldn't have done it
without you. :-)
(I wonder if M Wicks will still get his posts approved on URCM now
that he's fessed up to being from the "dark side"? If what the
moderators repeatedly claim is true then I shouldn't get treated any
differently on that newsgroup just because of this post. But we all
know by now that what they say can be taken with a large pinch of
salt, to put it kindly....)
nik.morgan
Oct 5, 2012, 5:42:15 PM10/5/12
to
other up by spouting bollox, must try it again sometime.
Squashme
Oct 5, 2012, 6:44:59 PM10/5/12
to
On Oct 5, 10:42 pm, nik.morgan <ig.t...@me.com> wrote:
Blue on blue then.
----------------------------------------------------
"There is some mistake," he said. "Mr. Syme, I hardly think you
understand your position. I arrest you in the name of the law."
"Of the law?" said Syme, and dropped his stick.
"Certainly!" said the Secretary. "I am a detective from Scotland
Yard," and he took a small blue card from his pocket.
"And what do you suppose we are?" asked the Professor, and threw up
his arms.
"You," said the Secretary stiffly, "are, as I know for a fact, members
of the Supreme Anarchist Council. Disguised as one of you, I--"
Dr. Bull tossed his sword into the sea.
"There never was any Supreme Anarchist Council," he said. "We were all
a lot of silly policemen looking at each other. And all these nice
people who have been peppering us with shot thought we were the
dynamiters."
> M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it's time to fess up. M Wicks is (or rather was) a parody of a
> > psycholist. Basically my real opinions are pretty much the polar
> > opposite of M Wicks'. The original purpose of M Wicks was to gain the
> > trust of the psycholists in order to get some information, but in the
> > end this didn't happen for various reasons, and so M Wicks simply
> > became a pastime of sorts, becoming ever more ludicrous (hence the
> > Christianity, the repulsive homophobia (sorry about that...I probably
> > shouldn't have gone that far!), the "swearing" business, the capital
> > letters, etc). Even though he's obviously a dick, I must admit I got
> > quite fond of him at times...he doesn't mean to be a complete and
> > utter wanker, he's just very misguided, slow to learn, and reluctant
> > to change his mind about anything (remember, he is a psycholist).
>
> > It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
> > that I learnt that term until just now.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
> > I think it's time to fess up. M Wicks is (or rather was) a parody of a
> > psycholist. Basically my real opinions are pretty much the polar
> > opposite of M Wicks'. The original purpose of M Wicks was to gain the
> > trust of the psycholists in order to get some information, but in the
> > end this didn't happen for various reasons, and so M Wicks simply
> > became a pastime of sorts, becoming ever more ludicrous (hence the
> > Christianity, the repulsive homophobia (sorry about that...I probably
> > shouldn't have gone that far!), the "swearing" business, the capital
> > letters, etc). Even though he's obviously a dick, I must admit I got
> > quite fond of him at times...he doesn't mean to be a complete and
> > utter wanker, he's just very misguided, slow to learn, and reluctant
> > to change his mind about anything (remember, he is a psycholist).
>
> > It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
> > states that it's difficult to distinguish between parodies of
> > fundamentalist extremism and fundamentalist extremism itself (which of
> > course psycholists exhibit in spades), since they're both equally
> > insane. I think M Wicks has demonstrated that this is the case: I set
> > out to be as much of a nutcase psycholist as possible (within reason),
> > and yet it was a while before anyone started claiming it was a wind-
> > up, and not everyone did. Also, even those who did think it was a wind-
> > up seemed to think it was actually a real psycholist (e.g. Mason)
> > pulling the strings, rather than an "anti-psycholist". So it seemed
> > that they thought M Wicks was just a sock rather than a piss-take
> > (oops...I shouldn't be swearing! Children read this newsgroup!)
>
> > I thank those who (rightly!) argued with M Wicks, and I apologise to
> > those who feel that their time has been wasted by remonstrating with
> > him (but one could argue that any posting on uk.rec.cycling is a waste
> > of time!) I also thank those posters who were in on M Wicks and who
> > played along so convincingly. I must admit it was quite a novelty
> > arguing with people who I'd never normally disagree with, like JNugent
> > and Judith. And I confess that I did somewhat enjoy winding up the
> > likes of Dave and NM at times. Sorry Dave/NM: I guess it was a novelty
> > being able to spew out so much utter bollocks, and a little utter
> > bollocks goes a long way in irritating those who are rational!
>
> Congrats with the scam, amusingly both you and I were busy winding each
> other up by spouting bollox, must try it again sometime.
You will.
> > fundamentalist extremism and fundamentalist extremism itself (which of
> > course psycholists exhibit in spades), since they're both equally
> > insane. I think M Wicks has demonstrated that this is the case: I set
> > out to be as much of a nutcase psycholist as possible (within reason),
> > and yet it was a while before anyone started claiming it was a wind-
> > up, and not everyone did. Also, even those who did think it was a wind-
> > up seemed to think it was actually a real psycholist (e.g. Mason)
> > pulling the strings, rather than an "anti-psycholist". So it seemed
> > that they thought M Wicks was just a sock rather than a piss-take
> > (oops...I shouldn't be swearing! Children read this newsgroup!)
>
> > I thank those who (rightly!) argued with M Wicks, and I apologise to
> > those who feel that their time has been wasted by remonstrating with
> > him (but one could argue that any posting on uk.rec.cycling is a waste
> > of time!) I also thank those posters who were in on M Wicks and who
> > played along so convincingly. I must admit it was quite a novelty
> > arguing with people who I'd never normally disagree with, like JNugent
> > and Judith. And I confess that I did somewhat enjoy winding up the
> > likes of Dave and NM at times. Sorry Dave/NM: I guess it was a novelty
> > being able to spew out so much utter bollocks, and a little utter
> > bollocks goes a long way in irritating those who are rational!
>
> Congrats with the scam, amusingly both you and I were busy winding each
> other up by spouting bollox, must try it again sometime.
Blue on blue then.
----------------------------------------------------
"There is some mistake," he said. "Mr. Syme, I hardly think you
understand your position. I arrest you in the name of the law."
"Of the law?" said Syme, and dropped his stick.
"Certainly!" said the Secretary. "I am a detective from Scotland
Yard," and he took a small blue card from his pocket.
"And what do you suppose we are?" asked the Professor, and threw up
his arms.
"You," said the Secretary stiffly, "are, as I know for a fact, members
of the Supreme Anarchist Council. Disguised as one of you, I--"
Dr. Bull tossed his sword into the sea.
"There never was any Supreme Anarchist Council," he said. "We were all
a lot of silly policemen looking at each other. And all these nice
people who have been peppering us with shot thought we were the
dynamiters."
Squashme
Oct 5, 2012, 7:00:58 PM10/5/12
to
On Oct 5, 10:23 pm, M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's time to fess up. M Wicks is (or rather was) a parody of a
> psycholist. Basically my real opinions are pretty much the polar
> opposite of M Wicks'. The original purpose of M Wicks was to gain the
> trust of the psycholists in order to get some information, but in the
> end this didn't happen for various reasons, and so M Wicks simply
> became a pastime of sorts, becoming ever more ludicrous (hence the
> Christianity, the repulsive homophobia (sorry about that...I probably
> shouldn't have gone that far!), the "swearing" business, the capital
> letters, etc). Even though he's obviously a dick, I must admit I got
> quite fond of him at times...he doesn't mean to be a complete and
> utter wanker, he's just very misguided, slow to learn, and reluctant
> to change his mind about anything (remember, he is a psycholist).
>
> It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
> that I learnt that term until just now.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
> I think it's time to fess up. M Wicks is (or rather was) a parody of a
> psycholist. Basically my real opinions are pretty much the polar
> opposite of M Wicks'. The original purpose of M Wicks was to gain the
> trust of the psycholists in order to get some information, but in the
> end this didn't happen for various reasons, and so M Wicks simply
> became a pastime of sorts, becoming ever more ludicrous (hence the
> Christianity, the repulsive homophobia (sorry about that...I probably
> shouldn't have gone that far!), the "swearing" business, the capital
> letters, etc). Even though he's obviously a dick, I must admit I got
> quite fond of him at times...he doesn't mean to be a complete and
> utter wanker, he's just very misguided, slow to learn, and reluctant
> to change his mind about anything (remember, he is a psycholist).
>
> It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
any psycholists (sorry Mrcheerful, pyscholists), unlike that
undercover policeman with the militant greens. Well, you didn't seduce
me, as I'm sure that I should have noticed.
Or did you? I mean, I don't know who you are.
You could be anyone. Or are you?
--------------------------------------------
"Merrily the feast I'll make.
Today I'll brew, tomorrow bake;
Merrily I'll dance and sing,
For next day will a stranger bring.
Little does my lady dream
Rumpelstiltskin is my name!"
F Murtz
Oct 6, 2012, 11:04:48 AM10/6/12
to
Mrcheerful
Oct 6, 2012, 11:38:12 AM10/6/12
to
interest you, such as meanings of words.
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Oct 6, 2012, 1:18:39 PM10/6/12
to
On 05/10/2012 22:23, M Wicks wrote:
> I think it's time to fess up. M Wicks is (or rather was) a parody of a
> psycholist.
And a very good one indeed :-)
> I think it's time to fess up. M Wicks is (or rather was) a parody of a
> psycholist.
<SNIP>
>
> It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
> that I learnt that term until just now. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
> states that it's difficult to distinguish between parodies of
> fundamentalist extremism and fundamentalist extremism itself (which of
> course psycholists exhibit in spades), since they're both equally
> insane.
Poe's law. Like it. It's very difficult to tell sometimes, especially
> It seems that what I was doing in posting as M Wicks was "poeing", not
> that I learnt that term until just now. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
> states that it's difficult to distinguish between parodies of
> fundamentalist extremism and fundamentalist extremism itself (which of
> course psycholists exhibit in spades), since they're both equally
> insane.
with fruit loops like 36 and Lee.
The only give away was that a real god botherer would have reacted more
to the anti religion comments.
> I think M Wicks has demonstrated that this is the case: I set
> out to be as much of a nutcase psycholist as possible (within reason),
> and yet it was a while before anyone started claiming it was a wind-
> up, and not everyone did. Also, even those who did think it was a wind-
> up seemed to think it was actually a real psycholist (e.g. Mason)
> pulling the strings, rather than an "anti-psycholist". So it seemed
> that they thought M Wicks was just a sock rather than a piss-take
> (oops...I shouldn't be swearing! Children read this newsgroup!)
excellent parody.
>
><SNIP>
>
> Anyway, I don't know whether I'm going to get flamed now, or
> congratulated, or a bit of both. I guess it'll probably be mostly the
> psycholists (particularly those who agreed with M Wicks!) who'll
> display annoyance if anyone does. But to anyone on either "side" who
> replied or referred to M Wicks, thanks: I couldn't have done it
> without you. :-)
I'll congratulate you - it was excellent!
> Anyway, I don't know whether I'm going to get flamed now, or
> congratulated, or a bit of both. I guess it'll probably be mostly the
> psycholists (particularly those who agreed with M Wicks!) who'll
> display annoyance if anyone does. But to anyone on either "side" who
> replied or referred to M Wicks, thanks: I couldn't have done it
> without you. :-)
>
> (I wonder if M Wicks will still get his posts approved on URCM now
> that he's fessed up to being from the "dark side"? If what the
> moderators repeatedly claim is true then I shouldn't get treated any
> differently on that newsgroup just because of this post. But we all
> know by now that what they say can be taken with a large pinch of
> salt, to put it kindly....)
>
So, who are you really?
> (I wonder if M Wicks will still get his posts approved on URCM now
> that he's fessed up to being from the "dark side"? If what the
> moderators repeatedly claim is true then I shouldn't get treated any
> differently on that newsgroup just because of this post. But we all
> know by now that what they say can be taken with a large pinch of
> salt, to put it kindly....)
>
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
Rob Morley
Oct 6, 2012, 1:40:51 PM10/6/12
to
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I wonder if M Wicks will still get his posts approved on URCM now
> that he's fessed up to being from the "dark side"?
Er, the dark side is recumbents.
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I wonder if M Wicks will still get his posts approved on URCM now
> that he's fessed up to being from the "dark side"?
Judith
Oct 6, 2012, 3:23:47 PM10/6/12
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 01:04:48 +1000, F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Wot's a psycholist?
OK - I'll bite:
======================================================================
Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy�cho�list.
Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy Chapman
A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify their views:
Examples:
1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices do not
exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the alternative
"h*l*et" - or just "h" for short; "lids", and other alternatives may also be
used.
2) "all pedestrians should be required to wear helmets" is a common
attempt to ridicule suggestions that cyclists should wear helmets.
3) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in the context
of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they must try and ridicule it
as they will not be able to fully comprehend the benefits as seen for all road
users. This is achieved by using the alternative "farcility".
4) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist", in the
hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them laugh at the
psycholist's inadequacies.
5) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists. Used to
describe signage specific to cyclists on pavements and roads. Origin unknown.
6) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who disagrees
with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables them to say "ignore
him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which are too unpalatable for the
psycholist to contemplate - never mind discuss in a sensible fashion.
7) BSO : a bicycle shaped object. If someone's bicycle is not top of the
range, costing at least �500 with disc brakes, and at least 73 LEDs at the
front and 67 when viewed from the rear, then it cannot be called a bicycle.
Anything bought from Halfrauds (sic) must be a BSO.
8) "Peloton" - a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the law.
9) Whenever they hear of a cyclist being killed in an accident - they are
obliged to say things like "My thoughts are with his/her family" when they have
had no dealings with them whatsoever. This is commonly called a wankcry.
10) It is considered bad luck to mention having a puncture: hence the use
of the words "having had a visit from the P*nct*re Fairy". (Yes - these are
grown up people we are talking about!)
Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist". Psycholists are not
very bright in general and are obliged to demonstrate that they lack common
sense; they are very good at this.
A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "fuckwit".
<snip>
>Wot's a psycholist?
OK - I'll bite:
======================================================================
Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy�cho�list.
Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy Chapman
A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify their views:
Examples:
1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices do not
exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the alternative
"h*l*et" - or just "h" for short; "lids", and other alternatives may also be
used.
2) "all pedestrians should be required to wear helmets" is a common
attempt to ridicule suggestions that cyclists should wear helmets.
3) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in the context
of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they must try and ridicule it
as they will not be able to fully comprehend the benefits as seen for all road
users. This is achieved by using the alternative "farcility".
4) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist", in the
hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them laugh at the
psycholist's inadequacies.
5) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists. Used to
describe signage specific to cyclists on pavements and roads. Origin unknown.
6) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who disagrees
with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables them to say "ignore
him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which are too unpalatable for the
psycholist to contemplate - never mind discuss in a sensible fashion.
7) BSO : a bicycle shaped object. If someone's bicycle is not top of the
range, costing at least �500 with disc brakes, and at least 73 LEDs at the
front and 67 when viewed from the rear, then it cannot be called a bicycle.
Anything bought from Halfrauds (sic) must be a BSO.
8) "Peloton" - a rabble of psycholists who think they are above the law.
9) Whenever they hear of a cyclist being killed in an accident - they are
obliged to say things like "My thoughts are with his/her family" when they have
had no dealings with them whatsoever. This is commonly called a wankcry.
10) It is considered bad luck to mention having a puncture: hence the use
of the words "having had a visit from the P*nct*re Fairy". (Yes - these are
grown up people we are talking about!)
Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist". Psycholists are not
very bright in general and are obliged to demonstrate that they lack common
sense; they are very good at this.
A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "fuckwit".
thirty-six
Oct 6, 2012, 3:49:21 PM10/6/12
to
On 6 Oct, 20:23, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
I am interested in your thoughts on the meaning of common-sense and
origin(s) of said word.
origin(s) of said word.
Message has been deleted
Peter Keller
Oct 7, 2012, 12:55:41 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:23:47 +0100, Judith wrote:
> "fuckwit".
Revenge permeates our culture because it permeates the human unconscious.
Revenge, therefore, is what we most commonly experience in our
unconscious fantasies when we feel irritated and frustrated.
--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.
> "fuckwit".
Revenge permeates our culture because it permeates the human unconscious.
Revenge, therefore, is what we most commonly experience in our
unconscious fantasies when we feel irritated and frustrated.
--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.
0 new messages