[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