"But you're behaving like a little kid screaming that his mommy's a mean old witch because she scolded him for stealing a cookie."
It may be your self-perception that you are in a position to scold from a "Mommy" perspective that causes some trouble here Judy. Your perspective on Pete's comments added to the interesting discussion up to the point that you tried to sell your POV as a universal ethical principle that you could tell that Pete had violated concerning his own profession. Since you are not in this profession you are just speculating about how people should conduct themselves while on a chat board. You are taking your own POV from outside the profession too seriously. Peter's abusive behavior is right here and now, > where there's at least some potential for me to > get him to think about what he did, and possibly > to resist the temptation to do the same thing in > some other context in which he might well cause > serious harm. So you weren't just taking a shot at a person who you don't like much on this board? You were "improving" him in his own profession? I think if you gave this a bit of reflection you might not have to couch your own personal desire in the elaborate trappings of standing up to "abusive behavior". You haven't been displaying this trait of "improving" others as much lately Judy which is why this post stands out so much. You have made this whole outrage up as an excuse to take a shot at Pete. Other posters who know you both well recognize what is going on here just as clearly as we saw the intent of the original exchange. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > There is no absolute respect given by anyone here to anyone here. > > > > If a Nobel prize winner in physics posted here, the trolls would be > > out in force arguing with him/her based on their kindergarten math > > skills and their comic book versions of the laws of the universe. > > But the nontrolls would take what he or she said quite > seriously. > > <snip> > > No way did Willy ever have a chance of taking Doc Pete's comments as > > "important," right? Willy's immune to anyone's words, right? > > Right, as I just suggested myself in another post. > > No > > way was Willy ever at risk of being "abused by a professional." > > Completely irrelevant. > > > And fuck, Judy, there was the post ( http://tinyurl.com/29kado ) > about > > the MSAE all-men's tribunal that literally psychically raped a child > > and rejected her in an act of such brutality that even in this Kali > > Yuga world it still staggers me, and you didn't say shit about it. > > There is an unconscionably vast number of abuses > in this world. We have to pick our battles. The one > you mention is long past; what good would it do for > me to express outrage about it? > > Peter's abusive behavior is right here and now, > where there's at least some potential for me to > get him to think about what he did, and possibly > to resist the temptation to do the same thing in > some other context in which he might well cause > serious harm. > > > Take up the cause of that little girl, Judy. Show me you have an > > ounce of heart, and I'll wear that tee shirt for all my sins. > > > > With your clarity, you could be doing so much good, so maybe > > tomorrow I'll have a good part of me try to convince me to "wish > > for Judy's best parts to speak" too. > > My "clarity" tells me that even if what happened with > the little girl were something going on right now, I'd > want to know the *facts* before I started condemning > anybody. I've seen too much crap from the keyboards of > disgruntled former TMers to take these kinds of stories > as gospel in all their particulars. > > If the account here is completely accurate, of course > it's disgusting. If you don't know me well enough by > this time to know that's how I'd feel about it, if > you're demanding that I take a species of "loyalty oath" > by denouncing it or be considered in sympathy with what > was done, then I seriously question your powers of > discernment. > > > But, not today. Wallow in your dark pit, bitch. > > Actually I think it's you who is wallowing in a > dark pit. I think you know perfectly well that > your rant is unreasonable. But you're still smarting > from my having dared to respond negatively to your > open question to the group as to whether you're a > fuckhead; and discharging your angst by demonizing > me (literally!) is a higher priority for your > psyche than making sense. > > You really can't get to me by spewing elaborate, > wildly exaggerated insults, no matter how creatively > written. If you think I have "clarity," you ought to > recognize that. And I suspect you do. But you're > behaving like a little kid screaming that his mommy's > a mean old witch because she scolded him for stealing > a cookie. > > Grow up, for goodness' sake. >
