> At 12:11 PM 8/30/00 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >Look, gang, I'm all for a discussion of mental illness and the scientific
> >status of psychoanalysis, but I'm not for the accusations of "asshole"
> >the like. Enough.
> when someone takes knowledge of a relationship between two people--no
> matter what that relationship is (and yes, it was public, that wasn't the
> issue) --and deigns to psychoanalyze the respondents in a thread as to
> their "real" motivations for saying this or that, then proceed to get it
> wrong AND continue on with the b.s. even after they're called on it, then
> they're an asshole.
In your abusive responses to me last night and today, you've removed any doubt I might have had about the deformity in your character. Instead of dealing with my criticism, you've engaged in two of the classic tactics of the disturbed ego-- turning the tables on the accuser and confusing the issue with irrelevant material. Rather than try to answer my criticism, you've simply changed the subject. All of a sudden now we're talking about me and what a terrible person I am. You've sought out any kind of nasty statement you can hurl at me.
For instance, you claimed that if I understood the "interpersonal dynamics" involved, I would feel like "a piece of shit." You stated that I "live and work among the absolutely enlightened," the implication being that a privileged person such as me has no right picking on a poor working class girl like you. You've repeatedly brought up the irrelevant issue of the way leftists allegedly treat non-leftists. You called me an @sshole for revealing something you'd told me offlist, while conveniently overlooking the fact that you yourself had also just revealed this to the list. "I tell you something personal offlist and this is what you do with it?" (sniff sniff) Next, you denied that your insults were motivated by my having revealed what you'd told me offlist, despite the fact that this is obviously what you'd just done. Then, in another effort to confuse the issue, you began discussing the "ambiguity of the definition of depression." You asserted that I and my "ilk" like to engage in "guilt trip politics." You claimed that I turned it into a "personal issue." It was already a personal issue, from the moment Reese let forth his insult. You accused me of engaging in "psychoanalysis babble." You claimed that I have no business using terms like "narcissist," because people "regularly" use these terms as insults. "You have to take responsibility for the fact that they are used as insults." No, I don't. I was using the terminology responsibly. You claimed that I defended myself by stating (and you even quoted me) "hey we're all suffering from some form of psychosis," as if I would ever make an absurd statement like this. You implied that I had a problem with the fact that you have "personal relationships" with several people on this list, as if I could care less about your "relationships." You implied that I believed personal relationships within the group lead to "group psychosis." You dragged in my criticism of democracy, implying that I think we should have a king ruling the world. In fact, what I stated was that liberal democracy, in preventing anyone from having absolute power, forces our leaders to serve the whims of the market so as to please the populace. You know perfectly well that I advocate anarchist socialism. Finally, as stated above, you claimed that I took "knowledge between two people" and used it against them. As you know, I was not aware of your relationship with Reese when I criticized both of you in the same post. You claimed that I got it wrong and continued on with the "b.s." even after being called on it.
But I wasn't wrong, was I, kell? How else to explain this string of dishonest accusations and irrational misdirections except that I absolutely did NOT get it wrong? Look back over this list of accusations. Look how long and tiresome it is-- all of written just since yesterday evening-- and all of it garbage! It seems I was dead-on in my assessment. I've seen who you really are, something even you've never done. That's bound to be annoying. That's bound to elicit a response.
I've got your number. You've never had to deal with that before, have you? You've been fooling the world for how long now?
Ted "Poster Boy for Dick" Dace