--- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Comment below: > > ** > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > **snip** > > > > > Try this as an exercise: Assume for the sake of > > argument that he *is* sincere that he is just > > speculating, and that he's saying *if* it's the > > case that Rick's disappointment and doubt has > > led to anger and frustration, Rick might well > > manifest those emotions by apparently rationally > > questioning MMY's character. > > > > In other words, is that a plausible psychological > > scenario? (Not even necessarily for Rick but > > for people in general.) > > **snip to end** > > Judy, when I read the point in the guy's argument or > speculation about Rick essentially (or possibly) 'masking' > his true agenda of anger and frustration under a pretense > of openess and objectivity, it really made me question if > I really knew anyone who ever did that.
Fine. But my point was that Curtis didn't address the plausibility of the scenario. Instead, he bashed the guy for purportedly attacking Rick on the basis of no evidence, after having decided--on the basis of no evidence--that the guy wasn't telling the truth when he said he was just speculating. I was making a "meta" observation about *Curtis's* post, not addressing the validity or lack thereof of the guy's analysis. In my experience, Curtis tends to get all hoity-toity about folks not sticking to the evidence while he often does exactly the same thing he's criticizing. I mean, I > do know some people who attempt to project themselves in a favorable > light when it is obvious that they are not (or not to the same degree, > at least); but I don't know how anyone who could pull off 'objectivty' > and 'openness' on any long term basis as a "cover". You could pretend > to be open and honest for the short term, but the longer you keep up > the pretense it would seem to skew the person's peformance towards > 'openness and honesty'. > > It didn't seem to me to be a plausible psychological scenario for > anyone. And it doesn't sound plausible for Rick. (Not that 'that' > was your point, I understand.) Actually, it occurred to me this afternoon that Rick's "open" and "objective" and "honest" behavior looks very different when one has managed to get on his bad side (speaking from personal experience). So although this wasn't my point to Curtis, I'm beginning to think the guy's analysis may have been on target.
