|
|
 | | From: | Dan Baldwin | | Subject: | Re: This place is so over | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:06:34 -0800 |
|
|
 | Edmond Wollmann wrote:
Odd that you chose to answer the same post twice, rather than answer my
latest reply. Oh well.
> Dan Baldwin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I argue with reason.
No. You argue systematically, but not with reason. You state opinion as
fact, and put forth metaphysical notions which can not be proven
empirically ("we all create our own reality") as if they were
self-evident rules of mathematics open to universal scrutiny and
verification.
> > 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.
>
> So this is how you treat the metally disturbed?
First off, mental health is not a binary condition. Persons are not
simple either 'sane' or 'insane'. Its quite possible for a person to
have what can be termed "serious issues" without them being a genuine
danger to themselves or others.
Second, you are here of your own accord and this is not a support forum.
You /choose/ to expose yourself to the criticisms you know are waiting
for you. You even choose to read them, and even though you periodically
claim you don't read the postings of your detractors, its clear you read
a fairly high percentage of them at least.
And more to the point, calling you out on your bullshit or just plain
old flaming you clearly isn't doing you any harm. You're not some meek
little schoolmarm trying to fend of the ASCII blows of some hooligans
cornering her in rec.pets.cats. You love to muck it up with others. In
fact you've boasted about your ability to start conflict in the past.
Now just like you, I am not qualified to offer a genuine psychological
evaluation, but from my layman's seat I'd say that, while you do have
some big issues, you're far from being the sort of person who its best
to leave alone for fear that they might become a danger to themselves or
others.
> > 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
> > 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 I like exchanging ideas and views?
Show me where you have actually 'exchanged' ideas and views, then.
Exchange implies a two-way transfer. All you do is preach. While I can't
say I've read every single word of every single message you've ever
posted (there are only so many hours in the day, after all) I can't
recall you ever once accepting disagreement from someone else. I've
never once seen anything to the effect of "You might have a point there,
I hadn't thought of it that way.".
Its not an exchange, its more of an attempt by you at lecturing. You
speak from a presumption of correctness and infallibility, so that any
disagreements with you are by definition incorrect understandings of the
truth.
> > 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.
>
> Of course, there is no one truth, except that the truth is the
> composition of ALL truths.
What a singular meaningless statement and excellent example of my point
above. First, define what you mean by 'truth'. Are you talking
mathematical truth? Philosophical truth? Ethics, morality, history,
what? Second, the sentence itself is self contradicotry. The one truth
is the composition of all truths, but if there is only one truth, where
did these other truths it is the sum of come into play?
In simplest terms : at the end of the day, what is it supposed to /mean/
?
> > 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.
>
> One man's ceiling is another man's (woman's) floor.
Pardon the Tholenism here, but : non sequitur.
> > 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.
>
> And you want to hear otherwise I suppose?
I have no inherent need or want to hear agreement or disagreement with
anything I post here. Besides, simply /desiring/ agreement from others
is one thing. Its the obsessive /need/ to have it and nothing but it
which is your problem. You're not just fond of hearing people agree with
you. You need it so deeply you go utterly bat shit insane the minute
they don't.
> > 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
>
> My father turns 80 this year, I am far healthier than he, so based on
> that idea barring any accidental death, I have at least 40 years left.
> That is hardly a life being over.
With as agitated and enraged as you so clearly get from words you read
on Usenet I wouldn't be surprised if ulcers, hypertension, or some other
related condition doesn't factor in somewhere.
> > collection of twaddle archived on Google and a criminal conviction for
> > trespass (the one where you were up before a judge and convicted).
>
> You are jealous of my diligent stocking of the archives with evidence
> that overwhelms the spinics I see.
There's that insecurity/ego need of yours again. Its frankly astonishing
that you can maintain the delusion for so long that your long-winded
(yet content free) blather constitutes evidence of anything other than
your verbosity. /You/ claim you 'overwhelm' people, no one else. /You/
claim you have defeated your critics, no one else. Its only in your mind
that these great victories of yours have occurred.
And as far as jealousy, well, let's just put that thought to rest
straight away : I would be utterly mortified to my very core if people
were to start comparing me to you, Wollmann. And I hereby make a solemn
vow that if I'm ever told that I'm coming close to accomplishing the
same things you have I will have myself seen by a competent (and
properly accredited) mental health professional as soon as possible so
that I might be pulled back from the brink before its too late.
> And let us suppose just for a ludicrous minute, that what you say is
> indeed true.
> How does it serve any positive purpose to harass me for 10 years
Not that I myself have been doing so for 10 years, by the way. Unless
you're going to continue with your utterly unsupported (and
insupportable) claim that I'm really someone else you know personally.
> calling me names etc. if indeed you or others were to actually believe
> the tripe you just posted?
In a word (and speaking only for myself), entertainment.
I don't have much of a voyeuristic streak in me. I'm not one to
rubberneck at accidents on the highway, and I don't need to see a tiny
arm sticking out of the mud to feel the tragedy of a natural disaster.
But I must admit to taking some amusement from watching you make such a
giant prat of yourself on such a consistent basis for all to see.
The hook for me is that its totally voluntary on your part. No on is
hacking into your computer and spreading intimate details about you to
embarrass you. Of your own accord you come here and act ... well, act
like /you/. Your frothing against those who disagree with you, your
bewildering inability to understand the futility of your whinges in the
abuse groups, your obvious need to be the center of attention on the
group, your childish and petty "taking my ball and going home" exists
from the moderated group every few months. All of this is complete
schadenfreudian comedy gold. When you add to the mix your claims at
being "unaffected" by it all, well its hard not to love such a
wonderfully packaged selection of human fuckheadery, all for the low low
price of an NSP account.
> Basically, when I see a kook or other such disturbed person on the
> street or whatever in my life, I either ignore them because I do not
> wish to deal with it at the time, or offer constructive guidance or
> help if I do pay attention.
And yet you act so differently here on Usenet. I know you want to think
of yourself as some enlightened being dispensing wisdom everywhere he
goes, but the truth is that you get just as down and dirty as your
detractors. You're no stranger to insults, rants, and plain old mean
spirited behavior, you know. And before you whine about double
standards, I'm not criticizing you for those actions in of themselves.
I'm criticizing you for your unabashed hypocrisy for claiming to be
intellectually/spiritually "above" the rest of the people here while at
the same time being the author of some of the most vile statements made
in the group, especially towards women.
> It is the immature and troubled person, who
> responds the way you do.
I was going to paste in a load of gems from your own mouth here to show
just how mean spirited you can be, but there's no point. Everyone else
has already seen them, and you've spent your entire adult life learning
how to disconnect from your own behavior and avoid genuine
self-analysis, so why bother.
Who you are deep down inside, all that anger, insecurity, resentment,
and bile is already there for all to see, in your very own words.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
|
|
|
