Very true.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > You are right, John, and I severely simplified the definition to save time > for me and the readers who might not be interested. Insanity takes many > forms just as physical dysfunction takes many forms, some of which are not > harmful and can be interesting under certain conditions. The challenge is > to be able to identify the harmful versions and take appropriate action. > And yes, a large fraction of the population is insane by even the > conventional definition. These people are only kept in check by the actions > of normal society. As we have seen in some countries, these people are set > loose to do their damage when normal society breaks down or is led by the > insane. This has nothing to do with politics of the left or right. Both > versions can be used by the insane to do their damage. The essential skill > is to recognize when the message is being delivered by a dysfunctional > individual and avoid believing anything the person says no matter whether > you agree or not. This is hard to do especially when the insane person > expounds a religious or political belief you also believe. You need to > separate the message from the messenger because sooner or later the message > will take a path away from reality into insanity. You don't want to be on > board when this happens. > Ed > > > > On Jun 14, 2009, at 8:05 AM, John Berry wrote: > > Erm, I think by that definition of insanity the world would have more > insane than sane. > At least reason/evidence *seems* to dictate how a minority view reality. > > Of course there are differing levels I suppose, grok was outside of > "normal" not in his logic but in his hostility. > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Jun 14, 2009, at 7:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >> >>> >>> [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> I miss Jed. I hope he comes back. >>>> You know, when things didn't go his way at Infinite Energy, he never >>>> came back. >>>> >>> >>> And it may come to pass that Grok's purpose will be fulfilled: He will >>> have succeeded in totally disrupting the forum. >>> >>> For, remember, Jed's banning, and Thomas Malloy's banning, were both the >>> indirect result of Grok's actions here. If Grok had not been spewing >>> his toxic waste here Bill would never have resorted to such drastic >>> action, which was taken at least in part because of a number of >>> complaints by members, which were in turn triggered by Grok. >>> >>> Aren't trolls wonderful? >>> >> >> Indeed. However, the real fault is the reaction of normal people to the >> insane. If the people in this group had recognized the nature of Grok and >> responded in an appropriate way, i.e. ignored him, his effects would have >> been nil. Instead, efforts were made to engage him as if he were a normal, >> rational person. This same approach to the dysfunctional individual plays >> out on a national scale when responding to leaders and spokesman who suffer >> from the same mental dysfunction. Yes, I agree people can have differences >> of opinion without being insane. The indication of insanity is in how these >> differences are expressed. Another indication is the impossibility of >> changing such a person's attitude by rational discussion. Unless people can >> learn how to make this distinction and ignore people who cannot understand >> reality because their brains are not wired properly, society will continue >> to be led into destructive conditions, and this forum will suffer the same >> damage again. >> >> Ed >> >>> >>> >> > >
