--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > Raunchy caught some fire I remember, and she fired right > > back in her usual entertaining way. I don't know who you > > are talking about that needs protection. I see a lot of > > people who deserve what he dishes out and sometimes, even > > when it seems prematurely harsh at first, his analysis of > > new posters ends up seeming prescient in retrospect. > > This is an interesting comment, Curtis. I own up to > my occasional harshness, but I also think I've been, > as you say, nigh-unto-prescient about some of the > posters on this forum.
This is true, you have a good sense of this, The reason is that what I > look for is not what the posters in question are > saying in words, but what the *intent* seems to be > behind those words -- WHY they're saying it in the > first place. > > Several new arrivals in the last year or so have > instantly struck me as being in it for the attention. > Their whole act from the first moment they appeared > reeked of what I call "attention vampirism." When I > see that, my first reaction is to try not to give > them any. When they then add "mentally ill" into the > mix, I try to avoid them entirely. > > 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. 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. > > 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. > > In short, a few people on this forum strike me as > not sane. I have chosen to ignore them, and what > they write. They have chosen to keep attacking me, > and to expand their attacks to anyone who either > agrees with me or admits to liking some of the > things I write. They seem to feel that this is > both justified, and rational. But again, it does > not strike me as sane behavior. >
