>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.
xerox dude.
> 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.
works both ways. you play the victim quite nicely.
you have no crits of me except for pseudo psychoanalysis based on observations on an email list.
>For instance, you claimed that if I understood the "interpersonal dynamics"
>involved, I would feel like "a piece of shit."
yes, because you maint. early on that i was sticking up for reese. i was flaming him. duh!
> 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.
no, i sarcastically suggested that it was pretty arrogant of you to speak like you do because you admitted yourself that you and your family sometimes don't get it and harbor the sentiments i acknowledged. therefore you should learn something from living among ordinary people: they don't all get it and maybe calling them an asshole as you and carrol did is actually a poor approach.
>You've repeatedly brought up the irrelevant issue of the way
>leftists allegedly treat non-leftists.
this isn't irrelevant at all since reese has clearly identified himself as a libertarian.
i was changing the topic, opening it up for the entire list. hence the change in the thread. my reply was to doug, not you. yes i spoke about you b/c i felt doug should notice that you called people asshole AFTER he asked that we stop.
>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)
read on. i corrected that later. indeed, i presume that since i run a list that crosses over with this one then a great many ppl probably know who reese is. as for you, i wrote you offlist to clarify given that my sentence was opaque and purposefully so. i wrote you not to excuse reese's beh/ but, again, to point out that your pseudo analysis was wrong. '
your demand that i tell everyone who i have personal relationships with is ignorant. it doesn't matter does it? because even before YOU KNEW of any such relationship, you were engaging in your dipshit analysis. telling you changing nothing except that it gave you more fodder for engaging in some sort of ridiculous nonsequitor argument
>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 do play 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.
no. it wasn't. it was his belief on the issue of small d depression. you can disagree with it or not, but his position doesn't mean that he dislikes you or anyone else personally.
you chose to take it personally.
when someone makes a stupid claim about women, as you recently did, i don't take it personally nor do i think you are, personally, an idiot. it's a political and theoretical difference.
you hurled names at me AFTER doug asked that we stopp engaging in that kind of beh/.
calling people narcissists is an insult. there is utterly NO excuse for it. YOU are not qualified to make such a claim.
d 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.
no. i haven't seen one lick of evidence of this. you just don't call someone a name signifying a personality/mental disorder because of what you observe on a list.
> You
>claimed that I defended myself by stating (and you even quoted me) "hey
>we're all suffering from some form of psychosis,"
i didn't quote you. i was speaking generally about the way in which terms like psychotic and neurotic get hurled about. the defense has been the above. i don't care what you do or don't do. i was speaking to you AND others on this list, ken and angela, who like to call people narcissists and psychotic, etc. and think they're doing it from a theoretical position. i have argued for months now that this doesn't excuse them from doing so and failing to realize the ad hominem uses of the term.
>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.
you are and were wrong. you suggested i was defending reese. i did nothing of the sort. nearly everything you said about me/motivation was wrong. you couldn't even get the claim about doug and catholocism right ferchrisakes. do you have evidence that i address doug's catholicism ag reat deal. huh?
>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?
you really are an arrogant idiot to assume that you lord something over me because you think you've tagged me and my psychodynamics all based on an email list observation.
what an idiotic claim to make.
>Ted "Poster Boy for Dick" Dace
yes, as far as i'm concerned, this last statement seals it.
end of story. you're /dev/null material
kelley