Even after you've *told* him you were making fun of him, he *still* doesn't get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRHUXcCI4xY --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- A few minutes ago, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > OK, but I don't see why any of this requires applying a > > formal diagnostic label. And I think slapping a label on > > one's analysis has a tendency to make one think the > > analysis is more definitive than it may actually be. > > > > Putting people in boxes is necessary for the kind of > > health-care/insurance setup we have, but it may > > rigidify and limit understanding of the individual. I > > don't think any human being really *fits* in a box. > > But a few hours earlier she wrote: > > "Does anybody here think this all is not the *perfect* > description of Barry?" > > And a little while after that she wrote: > > "But it's interesting: Curtis thinks you're a narcissist, > but Barry and I are not; I think Barry's a narcissist, but > you're not; you think Barry's not a narcissist (don't know > whether you think I am). Nobody else has weighed in and > said they don't think Barry's a narcissist, so I guess > everyone else agrees with me..." > > It seems that when Curtis describes Maharishi as a > narcissist that's bad, and "putting people in boxes." > But when Judy does it, it's OK. :-) > > Also, should we interpret her saying "I don't think > any human being really *fits* in a box" and yet claim- > ing that someone she dislikes is a *perfect* narcissist > mean that she doesn't believe that the person she dis- > likes is a human being? :-) :-) :-) > > What a loon. >
