[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