On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 01:51:40PM +0200, J. van Baardwijk wrote: > There is an awful lot of data about AmPat you are missing;
What data am I missing? The way to prove me wrong would be to supply that data. I contend I have enough data and that the analysis of AmericanPatriot is right on. > As he only sent four messages (and short ones at that), it is > impossible for anyone to make a psycho-analysis of him A single case can disprove your claim of impossibility. And it is possible for me, because I did it. > Your "analysis" shows that you really intended this to be an analysis > of me, not of AmPat. Nope, it said it was intended it to be an analysis of AmericanPatriot. > 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: Nope, you didn't see any private emails that AmericanPatriot sent to me. You lack sufficient data to make that statement. > Nothing in AmPat's posts gives any indication of that. Oh, but you are not looking closely enough! I saw it clearly! Maybe you need to improve your skills? > >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. Of course you didn't see anyone laughing, because this is an email list, silly! LOL > Second, you used the acronym IANAPA without explaining what it meant. Good evidence that. Pointing to what, I don't know... > When you draw conclusions based on data you do not have, then you are > not *analysing*, you are *fantasizing*. Could be! -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
