--- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Aw shucks, dumbass, I was rooting for ya not only that you > > > *would* do it but *could* do it...very similar to the "dog > > > ate my homework". Well, Steve, it'll remain in the holy > > > archives that you *did* try, just as others here have > > > asked those "in the know" to interpret the writings of you > > > know who. > > > > Uh-oh, LG, you're going the route of the other prevaricators > > around here. One of their tricks is not to use names, which > > they think makes it safe for them to seriously distort an > > incident in which these pseudo-anonymous folks have been > > involved, making it sound shifty. > > My purposeful removal of names, as in this case, was so as > not to bring more attention to those that probably crave it.
Although it may not be completely applicable to your example, LG, one of the things that the self-important petty tyrants always miss is the "tactical advantage" (a la the Castaneda quotes I posted earlier) of speak- ing generically, without "naming names." I don't know about you, but when I do this, there are often *several* individuals I might be talking about, ALL of whom fit the generic, stereotypical portrait I've painted with my words. But by speaking generically, you (or at least I) set a trap for the petty tyrants. Their self-importance (a form of narcissism, after all) almost always leads them to believe that what I wrote was "all about them," so they reply, all in a huff and offended and on the warpath, *demonstrating* their attachment to their own importance, ego, and compulsively-controlled public image. As Castaneda delineated in the quotes I posted, this is a way of *using* the weaknesses of the self- important to push their self-importance buttons, so that they reply to generic descriptions AS IF they really were "all about them." It's a way of getting them to admit that the descrip- tions are ACCURATE -- so accurate, in fact, that they merely *assumed* that we were talking about them personally.
