--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: <snip> > One of the things that I think distinguishes my > comments from others here is that I tend to focus > on the forest and not on individual trees. I spot > TRENDS.
Actually you *make up* trends, virtually always self- serving ones that provide you with a framework to attack the folks you don't like (i.e., those who criticize you). > Many of the people I end up criticizing > (and yes, sometimes harshly) don't seem to be able > to do that. They get so focused on the moment, and > the putdown or "gotcha" they're trying to achieve > *in* that moment that they lose sight of the fact > that they have run the exact same "gotcha" number > dozens of times in the last couple of months. The > routine never changes, only the particulars. Whereas you have a set of a half-dozen or so trends that you announce over and over, each time as if the one you're announcing has just occurred to you. As to your claim that you don't focus on individual posters: > Becoming obsessed with another poster, to the point > of not even being able to *realize* that one has > become obsessed, does not strike me as sane behavior. > Being literally *unable* to control oneself, and > compelled to keep playing "gotcha" even if it means > one has to "post out" to do so does not strike me > as sane behavior. Writing tens of thousands of words > trying desperately to get someone to argue with you > who has said he has no interest in arguing with you > does not strike me as sane behavior. Writing like one > is trying to demonstrate the textbook definition of > hypomania does not strike me as sane behavior. Here you describe four (or possibly just three, since the last two appear to be the same person) individual posters. The folks you're referring to are easily recognizable based on the many times you've described them in exactly the same way. And all of them are your critics, interestingly enough. > In short, a few people on this forum strike me as > not sane. I have chosen to ignore them, and what > they write. Actually you *don't* ignore them. What you mean is that you choose not to address them directly. You announce on a regular basis that you're ignoring them, while also posting regular attacks on them (like the attacks above). Often you direct these attacks at individual posters by responding to a post that quotes a post of theirs; even if you don't use their names, it's obvious who you're talking about. Some might say that repeating a pretense that everyone recognizes as such over and over does not strike them as sane. > They have chosen to keep attacking me, Because you keep attacking them. > and to expand their attacks to anyone who either > agrees with me or admits to liking some of the > things I write. This is one of the bogus "trends" that exists only in your own imagination. Except, perhaps, when what these folks agree with or admit to liking happens to be one of your attacks. They seem to feel that this is > both justified, and rational. But again, it does > not strike me as sane behavior. For you, "sane behavior" consists of (a) never criticizing you and/or (b) never uttering a peep of protest about your attacks.
