At 12:02 06-07-2002 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: >Here are the facts: >1) The post clearly stated that it was an analysis of AmericanPatriot >2) The post said it was "just for laughs" and IANAPA (I am not a >psycho-analyst), so scarcity of data is irrelevant >3) The analysis is very far from applying to yourself > >Your conclusion: >1) The analysis applies to yourself, not to AmericanPatriot > >Hmm, that conclusion seems inconsistent with the facts. Perhaps there is >some data about AmericanPatriot that I'm missing?
There is an awful lot of data about AmPat you are missing; that is why I said it could not be an analysis of AmPat. As he only sent four messages (and short ones at that), it is impossible for anyone to make a psycho-analysis of him -- there simply is not enough data to be analysed. Your "analysis" shows that you really intended this to be an analysis of me, not of AmPat. The clearest evidence for this lies in the following phrase: > The threats and attempts to impose his own will upon others AmPat never threatened anyone nor attempted to impose his own will upon others. For the record, these are all the replies he sent: >Hey, why is you badmouthin' mr. Bush? He's the best damned president this >country has ever seen. He'll show the world that you ain't gonna mess with >us and get away with it! >We oughta have killed them all back in Afganastan. Had saved us a awful >lot o� trouble. >If ya dont like it, ya can always quit the job. Dozens of folks willing >to take yuor place for less pay. >Bloody kiddie-killers. We shoulda wipe�m all out. Now, tell me, in which of these four replies does AmPat threaten a listmember? In which of these four replies does AmPat try to impose his own will upon other listmembers? Those are not rhetorical questions, BTW. Feel free to admit you were wrong -- there will be no real-life consequences. Another very clear indicator is the following: > the likely result of a socially maladjusted childhood with a high > probability of repeatedly being bullied by other children. Nothing in AmPat's posts gives any indication of that. It just so happens however that it more or less resembles *my* childhood, something I have written about on this list and therefore you knew about. Coincidence? With a probability of > 99.999999% not. Now, about your second statement: >2) The post said it was "just for laughs" and IANAPA (I am not a >psycho-analyst), so scarcity of data is irrelevant Nonsense. First, I did not see anyone laughing. Second, you used the acronym IANAPA without explaining what it meant. Third, scarcity of data is NEVER irrelevant. Even when you are only an amateur, you still need sufficient data to do an analysis. When you draw conclusions based on data you do not have, then you are not *analysing*, you are *fantasizing*. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
