> You may say that the lack of actual email filters somehow unites us, but I suspect that’s not the case. Consider the practise of talking past the person but about the person: there is a dispute about some issue. X takes one position and Y takes the opposing view. Others join in. Soon you will notice this behaviour: X finds a Z who agrees with him, and they embark on a discussion of Y, why he or she is deluded or wrong, what his or her mental states are, etc. In the more ballsy instances this approach is used directly in response to X. By constructing a psycho-strawman of X, s/he - and importantly, his/her substantive points - are effectively eliminated i.e., filtered out from view. Little groups can then bicker about their neighbour(s) in broad unfiltered daylight.
Leaving aside wondering who did what on Earth to earn the toxic boss treatment, I am not saying "shag is wrong because she is insane". I can and have tried to deal with the merits of her arguments. It appears to mostly just put a target on your ass, and I want a refund on the effort. What tipped me over into indulging in the psychologizing was noticing that she acts the same way *when I can discern no disagreement*. It's venom for venom's sake, for all I can tell.
-- Andy