|
|
 | | From: | Dan Baldwin | | Subject: | Re: This place is so over | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:47:32 -0800 |
|
|
 | Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Dan Baldwin@individual.net wrote:
This is funny. I won't bother correcting you, since history has shown
that you just won't get it.
> > Wollmann was wearing his AArctophilax@yahoo.com sock when he wrote:
>
> > > If they wish to learn I am here to share, but the confrontation is a
> > > part of the search for truth.
>
> > Bullshit, Wollmann.
>
> > You're here to lecture and to be worshiped. You're here to stroke your
> > own bloated ego. You've had a couple of people recently try to engage
> > you in honest question/answer, and you immediately degenerated into
> > calling their views "defective", vomiting up chunks of pre-packaged
> > screed in lieu of genuine interaction, and trotting out your old stand
> > by : argument by assertion.
>
> Arguments are defective by the rules of logic.
Exactly, which is why so many of your statements are defective. You make
assertions which you can not (or choose not to) back up yet still expect
them to be taken as facts. Ergo, argument by assertion, making your
arguments defective by your own reasoning. QED.
> > You don't want dialogue, you want people to listen with rapt attention.
> > You don't want discussions, you want an audience who hang in thrall on
> > your every word. In most people these would just be the signs of an ego
> > out of control, but in you they are signs of your deep rooted
> > insecurities.
>
> I see, Dr. "Dan".
Unlike you I've never claimed to possess accreditation I do not have, so
I'm not sure why you felt the infantile need to stick on the Dr. tag.
> How come you like to use the name Dan as a fake
> screenname so much?
1) Provide proof that Dan is a fake name for me
2) Please use your posting names "Al Chameth", "John Ingram" or any of
your latest incarnations to do this, as I do so love irony
> > Deep down inside you are insecure, and to try and distract yourself from
> > that you come barging into aa (and other groups) spewing titanic loads
> > of turgidly verbose and contradictory nonsense, demanding to be seen as
> > a guru sent from on high to hand out enlightenment. What other reason
>
> My first statements in my text refute your assertions, Guru following
> is out of integrity and powerless behavior.
Then why do you constantly act that way? Your lofty claims to be here to
"educate" people, your repeated pronouncements that others lack your
brilliance, insight, what have you, and your continual refusal to
address people in anything but a contrived condescending manner are the
actions of someone who would set himself up as a guru. Brushing off Eric
Greene's questions by saying he lacked the ability to understand is the
action of someone who sees himself as a guru in the actual meaning of
the word : a god-man. Mere mortals can not hope to comprehend at your
level.
By your own standards you are not acting "in integrity".
> > would you have for spending so much time among people you repeatedly
> > claim are vastly inferior to you in all ways, if not for ego validation?
>
> Because they actually ARE inferior?
Your constant need to frame your interactions with others as that of
superior/inferior speak of your insecurities. Those truly confident in
their abilities don't feel the need to continually assert them every 2.5
seconds.
> And I don't focus on their
> inferiority, it simply comes out as a matter of interaction.
No, you /do/ focus on it, and make it the linchpin of your dismissal of
their arguments. You put the cart before the horse. You start with the
supposition that someone's arguments are defective simply because they
don't align with yours. You disparage entire newsgroups (aamod) based on
what you perceive as defects in their individual characters. You cry to
the far heavens about how you are some towering colossus of brilliance
casting everyone and everything else in shadow.
The multiple times you've left the mod group "for good" weren't done
quietly - you had to bellow out a laundry list of faults and defects in
those you were leaving behind. Someone truly confident in their
abilities and standing wouldn't feel the need, they'd simply move on and
have done with it. But you always fire off a departing salvo to remind
everyone how much better you are than they.
> > Its my opinion that you don't genuinely believe in astrology (your
> > version or any other), Wollmann. It just makes a convenient prop, a
> > serviceable vehicle you can use to put on your "Great And Powerful Oz"
> > routine. Since astrology isn't a rigidly defined science you think you
> > can get away with whatever polysyllabic spin you care to put on it.
>
> Astrology is a tool, as I have stated many times, I use a mirror, and
> also watch the weather reports often if I need to, but neither needs
> "believing in" in order to be useful to me.
Which actually backs up my statement above. You don't necessarily
/believe/ in the objective truth of a system of evaluation and/or
prediction - you just use it as a fancy prop. Astrology fits your agenda
nicely, as there is so much room for 'interpretation'. If you tried
putting up complex mathematical calculations which you didn't
understand, those in the know would be able to point out the errors. But
with astrology you've found, as you like to put it, an "art", meaning
there is no one set of right answers others can challenge you with. This
leaves you free to claim to have the 'superior' insight (see below).
> They give me general
> guidelines to alter or adjust my life or behavior if I wish to do so
> using them. You are confusing the religious and scientific dogma which
> other arguers here attempt to use against me, for my clear logic that I
> employ.
Actually, no. You yourself are self contradictory about the issue. On
one hand you say that astrology can not be used to predict, as it
reflects reality rather than creating it, but on the other you seem
strangely fond of posting about how you "predicted" this that or the
other event.
And your spew is just as dogmatic as any religion's. Your mantra of
"there is no one truth but blahblahblah" and your prattling about "the
multiverse" are inflexible declarations by you of The Way Things Are.
Its funny how often you are so guilty of that which you accuse your
detractors of.
> I don't pretend that astrology will be evident in every little event on
> Earth as typical astrologers do, that is because of wisdom, not ego.
Which doesn't stop you from claiming to have predicted everything from
Presidential elections (how's President Kerry doing in your reality,
BTW?) to major disasters.
>
> > You're enamored of impressive sounding slogans and sound bytes, which,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > upon close examination, break down into the meaningless collections of
> > vowels and consonants they really are. By choosing as your venue
> > astrology you think to be able to isolate yourself from /factual/
> > criticism, and can then hand-wave away any philosophical criticisms by
> > claming the critic is biased, not ready to understand, etc.
>
> Ahhh, but I am an expert on linguistics and reading right into people
> and the words they use, even when they "believe" they are fooling me.
Ah, but you don't have any problems associated with Narcissistic
Personality Disorder, do you? And a true expert on linguistics would
understand that effective communication means having your point
understood by your target, and isn't simply an issue of word-count.
They'd also not be afflicted with your propensity to mis-hypen-ate words
and, abuse, commas so, of-ten.
> Sometimes I let them know I see through them, often I do not.
If you put 20 men in a room together all of whom think they are the
fastest runner, one of them will be right. I happen to beleive that the
pressure to /not/ feel pride in one's abilities or accomplishments is
debilitating and reeks of the less savory aspects of Christian influence
on Western culture. So in general being proud and secure in yourself is
a very good thing. Its when you have to /constantly/ assert that you are
the most superlative in something (or in everything) that questions
arise.
In the case of the 20 men above, the simple fact that each think they
are the fastest is not a problem. But if one or more framed /every/
interaction with people as one of "I am more than you", if /every/
interpersonal relationship they had was founded on them imposing some
imagined hierarchy, an outsider would naturally wonder why the need to
be seen in such a light all the time.
If you think you're the fastest runner, fine. If you also think you're
the best cook, most careful driver, most inspired poet, well, you're
starting to edge into "what are you trying to prove" territory. And if
everywhere you go you demand you be seen as the fastest runner, best
cook, etc. you're making a very good case for having a deeply rooted
insecuirty you're trying to overcompensate for.
> Subject: Re: Various and sundry
> Date: 20 Aug 9617:16:15 EDT
> From: "Susan
And this proves what, other than your propensity to dig into your
archives for private messages at the drop of a hat?
> > The other astrologers here and in the moderated group don't seem to have
> > the major problems dealing with differing opinions and interpretations
> > that you do, Wollmann. Perhaps that's because the bottom line is that
> > you yourself /don't actually believe/ the piffle you spew, and only want
> > to hear agreement and/or adoration for anything you say about anything
> > under, over, within, or beyond the sun.
>
> The bottom line is that the interpretations they use tell us more of
> them than astrology or what they "mean."
By that same reasoning, the fact that you are constantly trumpeting your
ubermensch status, the fact that your chart-bashing trigger finger is
twitchier than a 12 year old videogame addict after a Snickers bar and
12 pack of Mountain Dew tells us quite a lot about you as well. Other
astrologers have commented on this in the past, too, so its not just the
opinion of those skeptical of astrology in general.
> > You make a pretense at wanting discussion, but in the end all you really
> > want is validation, because under that dried up, boisterous exterior of
> > yours you're really a scared little boy who's nearing the end of his
> > time on this Earth with not much to show for it other than a vast
> > collection of twaddle archived on Google and a criminal conviction for
> > trespass.
>
> I shall not regret my time on Earth.
Most sociopaths have few (if any) regrets, so this is not surprising.
> As I have demonstrated from the
> beginning, it's all completely dependent upon how you look at things.
Ah, so you're a Sophist as well, then?
> Subject: Re: Ouch
> Date:18 Sep 96 01:54:54 EDT
> From: "Susan"
Ed, that was an e-mail, not a usenet post. What on Earth could you
/possibly/ think you're accomplishing by posting it?
Let's be totally serious and direct for a moment. If you answer nothing
else in this message, please answer this : what are you attempting to
demonstrate when you post these years-old e-mail messages? Obviously you
wouldn't do it without reason, so you must be trying to make some point.
For the life of me I can not fathom what, other than someone at some
point in your past felt positive toward you.
> "She is the latest in technology, almost mythology, but she has a heart
> of stone. She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jump suit on, and she's also
> a telephone. Although her memory banks overflow, no one would ever know
> for all she says 'Is that what you want?'" ELO "2095"
Here's what really sucks. I happen to like ELO, and Time is my favorite
album. Thank you for tainting that association for me.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
|
|
|
