On Friday, March 14, 2014 6:49:44 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Friday, March 14, 2014 4:46:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Mar 2014, at 17:08, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:18:22 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno >>> started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in >>> itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most >>> seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured >>> badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because >>> Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own >>> research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something >>> similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno >>> faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain >>> appalling by anyone's standard. >>> >>> >>> Why so circumspect about the identity of X. With so many mentions it >>> would be easy for anyone to dig up to whom "X" refers, so why not just use >>> his name? >>> >>> >>> I avoid the name, because I want to avoid complications. I can tell you >>> out-of-line if you ask, and I might once day make public the prosecution >>> files. >>> >>> He is an obscure guy, without any serious publications. Since those >>> events I got phone calls by people who attribute him many suicides, and the >>> facts that he exploits other people by pushing them to do mistake, and then >>> he exploits the pressure (shakedown, blackmail) and things like that. >>> >>> It is harassment by manipulation. He was almost a friend, always nice >>> and funny with me. It took me 20 years to figure out the manipulation. >>> Well, it took me to put that thesis down, as he was forced to make a public >>> move. >>> >>> It is a sort of serial killer, without a trace. Many people were shocked >>> by his behavior, and even more by the fact that he got protection from >>> above, and has been able to pursue his violent actions. He was a sort of >>> genius in demolishing people (and then even computers) at a distance. A >>> mind hacker. He was not a bad teacher. I did appreciate him and his >>> teaching very much, despite he told me that there was nothing interesting >>> in Gödel's theorem. He has been also alcoholic for some period, and heavy >>> chain smoker, even in the classroom (that was accepted long ago!). >>> >>> As the logician Maurice Boffa was also a member of the jury of non >>> acceptance, I would like to insist that it was not him. On the contrary, >>> Boffa realized the manipulation and try hard to defend me. Boffa was a >>> real, and notorious mathematical logician, with many important >>> publications. Like Smets, Gochet, VandenBussche, Boelen, and others, he >>> died soon after those events. >>> l >>> Bruno >>> >>> I'm sorry to hear what you went through. It's a nasty business being >> caught up with a psychopath, if that's what he is. There are obviously lots >> of ways for a person to end up ultra manipulative and destructive. >> Non-psychopath destructive profiles are actually a lot worse in some areas. >> Long term destructive antagonism the hat goes way beyond anything to gain >> from, done with a smiling face...that's a non-psychopath profile. People >> destroy eachother's careers like that, usually when they start out friends, >> then the relationship naturally adjusts the relative seniority due to >> talent or whatever. >> >> Typically the person on the down tries to adjust but struggles, but >> things kind of fizzle out, normally including the closeness of the >> relationship. Things go the other way and turn nasty normally when the >> person on the up commits a competitive slight. Something that on the face >> of it was perfectly reasonable, but with hindsight was >> unnecessary.....involved piling it on when the relationship was already >> reversing. Going onto that person's space and competing there for, in >> hindsight, reasons of euphoria at things going well. >> >> The person on the up does nothing wrong but the person on the down takes >> it very hard. It feels like rubbing salt in the wound. Signals are sent >> 'why are you doing this? But the other person hasn't thought it through and >> transmits back a smiling face. Which is misread and taken even harder and >> the dye is caste. >> >> >> Some people can push someone to commit suicide for lucrative reason, they >> are not psychopath, but not much more nice than those people would push >> someone to commit suicide just for their own satisfaction, and which would >> be my definition of "psychopath". Of course the frontier between both >> might be thin, and when the "killing" is moral, usually the killer can mask >> well his intentions. >> > > It's true, and whether the individual is an innate psychopath or not > hardly matters in terms of that particular relationship, in which he has > locked onto a destruction seeking path. It's effectively a psychopathic 1 > on 1 (one way) situation. He's not empathizing. > > Also, the behaviour can lock in at an earlier time of life, as the outcome > of an earlier relationship that went the way I exampled. It might not have > you at all. If the guy has a pattern of doing this to people other than > you, then that's the profile. Or maybe it started with you. > > Either way it's not your fault, it's his fault. Either technically or > actually. We all have a responsibility when in the formal roe of teacher, > to special needs. The low ability have upfront special needs. The gifted > have special needs that have not happened yet, that involves not us, but us > in that form > We have to recognize there's always someone knock down more gifted. And if > we're teaching it could be one or more students coming through more gifted. > We have to make sure we don't set up the psychology that makes the > inevitable reversal hard. Because if we don't do that, we are prone to > destroy that persdon..break him down. Because the 'hard' part wasn't about > her, it was about us. > If you're a Doctor Who fan, I'm reminded of a scene where the Doctor responds adamantly to a suggested way to deal with a threat by saying "you don't understand, I can't do that. I have rules that I live by" The other person responds with a slight contempt "You can't deal with those who have no rules, with rules. You are a goody goody" The Doctor looks back darkly "The Good don't need rules"
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
