United Nations: Pot meets kettle
A little over a year ago, the mainstream media fell all over itself to breathlessly report the story of a meaningless committee at the United Nations questioning the Vatican over abuse committed decades ago by Catholic priests. The whole episode at the U.N. was little more than a publicity stunt by aging left-wing cranks.
Yet now the media is notably silent over the rich irony of a new report detailing rampant child sex abuse and cover-ups by U.N. employees and "peacekeepers" today!
Amazingly, 175 new allegations of sex abuse were reported among United Nations programs just in 2013 and 2014 alone, even though the U.N.'s operations take place in just a handful of small areas around the globe.
So the next time that the United Nations wants to lecture some other institution about sex abuse, it should look in the mirror first.
In the land of the blind; the one eyed man is king.
You are so Germanic in your lack of wit.
What's the world's thinest book?
Why it's The Big German Book of Humor. or Gross Germania Ha! Ha! Pamphlet (in the vernacular). :^)
Drop the LSD, P, a beautiful world awaits. LOL! You might cure your sociopathy.
But then sociopaths all ready think they are "well". Don't you?.
On the 29th at 1108AM: nothing but riffing on “emoticon”.
But the last line of the comment actually gives another fine example of clinical projection: after the comment-performance he has turned in on the 29th (to say nothing of all the prior material), JR will declare and declaim that it is I (or all of us – who knows?) who can be characterized as “smart-lite”.
Thus to the 29th at 1122AM:
Anyone who can make sense of the gnomic distractions in the first three paragraphs is welcome to share the sense of it all.
In the fourth paragraph: we get (yet again) the Playbook effort to reduce everything to merely a difference in “life view”.
First, this is not a difference in “life view”. This is a comprehensive and abyssal problem of credibility, coherence and logic as to the stories and claims and allegations proffered.
Second, there is thus no “higher” or “lower” about it. There is only credibility, coherence and logic.
Thus, third, this is not a matter of determining who is “superior” or not; this is a matter of assessing proffered material to see if it makes sufficient sense to warrant credibility. JR’s effort here to head for the Victim-y high-ground by trying to spin the issue here as one of his being demeaned or (why not?) ‘oppressed’ by elitism or what-have-you thus fails, and rather obviously so. It’s his material that has put him in the ‘inferior’ position he insinuates is being forced upon him for no good reason.
But we again see the neat way JR has stacked the cards for himself: on the one hand, he is very knowledgeable and all of his various philosophical, literary, historical, moral, theological, psychological, and other assertions can (and perhaps must) be taken as accurate, veracious and credible; yet on the other hand (when his material is demonstrated to have some significant failings) he – rather than his deficient material – is now ‘oppressed’ by people who think they are “superior” to him and – have you been waittttting for ittttttt? – he is therefore both a) a robustly-informed truthy truth-teller victimized by such ‘oppression’ and b) a poor waif of a not-so-knowledgable truthy truth-teller being demeaned by those who (for no reason he can think of) appear to be “superior” to him in some respects. A neat ‘psychic economy’, as they say.
As to the fifth paragraph: it makes no difference whether I am a “janitor on a religious toot” or not. It is – to repeat yet again – a matter of credible, coherent, logical material … or not.
But then the sixth paragraph reveals that the prior paragraphs had a purpose after all. We are to be lectured about Jesus, specifically His remark about the first being last and the last first. But if I might be “a janitor on a religious toot” then I doubt JR could conceivably occupy a position more “last” or more ‘inferior’ than that. So his own ‘logic’ recoils upon him here.
Thus then his epithetical question in the seventh paragraph trips over itself and fails.
And the whole thing concludes with an effort to drag in a cutesy bit usually applicable to Elvis.
And – although no “corrections” were necessary to be “supplied” – JR will indulge himself by deploying the phrase. No doubt on his usual presumption that mimicry can pass for the real thing; and perhaps he can be forgiven for this, if that gambit has worked for him before at some point(s) in time.
On, then, to the 29th at 1142AM:
The usual epithetical opening in the first paragraph.
As to the second paragraph: we are now given to infer that there was more than one “abusor”, among whom the Brother giving him low grades in Chemistry was only the “major” one.
But we are then quickly moved beyond that bit and given a rather vivid step-by-step. What have we got? A story – that much is “clear”, certainly. And the ‘clarity’ is – as it were – reinforced by more juvenile scatological epithet.
Then on to the torties and their cut of the take. (And again with that curiously archaic “save” as a substitute for ‘except’.) Again: if the torties “got 40% of” the settlements, then that must have been the agreed-upon percentage determined when the allegants signed-up, plus expenses and fees. (If not, then the torties are guilty of various professional and legal violations.)
And who picked the torties? Surely it was the assorted allegants who called the office and expressed an ardent desire to sign-on.
Were there “delays in our negotiations”? What would constitute a “delay”? It was a 500-plaintiff case, so there was quite a bit of paperwork, both for the torties preparing the formal court submissions and then for the defense and Insurer attorneys to come to final settlement figures with the torties. The Complaint was filed – if I recall correctly – in 2006 and final settlement and, of course, the checks, were ready sometime in 2007. That doesn’t seem such a long time, as legal processes go in such a complex case with so many allegant/plaintiffs. Did the court think otherwise?
But – as so very very often – JR would have us imagine (and quite possibly has imagined for himself) that the “delay” was “planned by the church”.
At any rate, one million, rather than twelve thousand, dollars certainly seems worth the “delay”.
And the story has a further twist (have you been waittttting forrrrr ittttttttt?): the only tortie who only took 25% (he waived the fees and expenses, perhaps) was a Jewish attorney; although not JR’s attorney, which was perhaps a poor choice on JR’s part due to his not having done ‘due diligence’ before his shopping trip. All the “catholics” – but of course – charged the 40% (their agreed-upon cut plus fees and expenses, probably). The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, no? And none of the mistakes that were made required the Church to have “planned” them.
On then to the 29th at 1205PM:
Another collection of gnomic one-liners.
Any reader sussing out the sense of the first paragraph is welcome to share the insight here.
In the second paragraph: we are back to the “Germanic” (or “Prussian”) trope again: I “lack wit”, with “wit” perhaps meaning both i) that I lack humor and ii) that I lack the intelligence to see that JR has just been playing and joking all along.
And thus once again, JR will toss his claim to seriousness under the bus in the tactical service of getting as much mileage as he might out of the whole “Germanic” humor bit.
And the final two paragraphs merely riff on the second paragraph, using the old “the world’s thinnest book” bit (correction supplied). Tee-hee.
And in the process demonstrates his lack of knowledge as to the difference between a “book” and a “pamphlet”. And that’s cause for a genuine Tee-hee.
On then to the 29th at 1209PM, where JR will try to squeeze a bit more mileage out of his LSD advice.
But one wonders, after all this time: this continued reference to “sociopathy” or “sociopath” or “sociopathic” (he has used the term in all of its grammatical forms) seems oddly focused coming from someone who has otherwise demonstrated very little working competence in matters-psychological. Where did he encounter this “sociopath” element so vividly that he has – while clearly ignorant of the dynamics of clinical projection – made it the mainstay of his epithetical-diagnostic stuff?
And on the 29th at 1217PM: again demonstrating his robust ignorance of the dynamics of clinical projection, he will also toss up the thought that “all sociopaths already think they are ‘well’”.
Passing over the misuse of “already” (correction supplied), I would say that he is indeed on to something here: some very seriously challenged persons do indeed construct the personal fantasy – or ‘psychic economy’ – in which they are not only “well” but better than “well”, even ‘heroic’ and extraordinary. It’s called ‘compensation” (used here in the psychological rather than Victimist sense) and perhaps on some inchoate level he realizes its acute relevance. Since he has opened the ‘advice’ channel here, then I would certainly urge him to give this matter far more serious consideration; such a course of action will offer far more constructive outcomes than any drugs (“LSD” or otherwise) could offer. And I am happy to have been of help.
The god in me just told me to tell you to go F yourself. So go F yourself!
I never thought I was "well". I certainly don't care about your opinion of me. I survive.
You are a classic sociopath. Read yourself. You have a thin veneer of "sanity" but no kindness; truth; or empathy for even compensated rape victims.. You a sociopath, baby. Not so pure but still simple.
If you don't think I'm extraordinary that's your loss. All your nonsense has naught to do with me. Roll in the dung little piggy.
There was a time line. Our lawyers went from 33 and 1/3% to 40% if settlement was not reached by a specific date. We went 6 mos. over that date; hence we paid 40% + costs. Goldbergs clients paid 25% plus costs perod.. I tried to switch lawyers mid stream 25% was obviously a better deal. But out of fear of being accused of client stealing Goldberg talked me out of switching and he told me what, he was afraid would happen to him, if i did switch. I should have switched.
Sociopaths dread being laughed at. You don't know how funny you are. You don't know that the readership knows that you are inhuman. You lack EMPATHY. The paramount human virtue.
No priests ever tried to get in your pants?
In regard to the 30th at 422PM:
As to the first paragraph: epithet, couched in the (jokey or serious – take your pick) bit about “the god in” JR and further splattered with the familiar juvenile scatology.
Thus, if we are for whatever reasons inclined to question his material, then we are questioning (take your pick: the, some, any, a) “god”. Which can simply be left up to hang where it was put.
As to the second paragraph: and now for something completely different. Specifically, we are now informed that JR “never thought [he] was ‘well’”. Readers may judge that assertion as it relates to the material in the record here.
If it is to be credited, then surely the awareness hasn’t prompted any sense of prudence or circumspection about his penchant for making global assertions with no corroboration, with many mistakes, and with no demonstrated ability to learn circumspection from his many mistaken assertions. (The rickety crossbar installed to hold the seam together at this juncture is: JR may or may not be accurate, but it is only others (who, by the by, don’t agree with his stuff) who tell “lies”. A neat economy indeed.)
If, on the other hand, it is not to be credited, then it’s just one more assertion.
Leaving us then with the questions as to a) in what ways might he not be “well” and b) the causal elements of such un-wellness as might exist. About which, see more below when the discussion takes up the “sociopath” bits.
But the “survive” bit certainly goes to the “heroic” and “extraordinary” aspects I had mentioned. And I had not proffered an “opinion about” him, but in any case he is welcome to whatever stance toward my material he may wish to adopt.
We also see here the typical Abusenik Playbook gambit to ‘personalize’: if you doubt the material then you are doubting the (‘victimized’) story-teller and thus you are ‘re-victimizing’ the story-teller. Another neat economy.
As to the third paragraph: having delivered himself of that much, however, JR will most surely deliver not only an “opinion” about me but also (his version of) a formal clinical diagnosis (based on the knowledge and authority of the relevant Wig from the Wig-box): “You are a classic sociopath”, declares the Wig, in apparent mimicry of a competent professional.
The basis for the diagnosis? Slyly and neatly: while I “have a thin veneer of ‘sanity’” (which is itself going to require JR’s working-definition of i) “sanity” and ii) the actual, functional definition of “thin veneer”) yet I have “no kindness; truth, or empathy”.
Meaning – as has been discussed and noted a number of times in prior material – that a) one cannot question allegations and claims and stories without being deficient in “kindness”; and b) one cannot doubt the (personal) “truth” of any allegation or claim or story without being deficient in (objective or public) “truth”; and c) one cannot express incredulity for demonstrated non-credibility without being deficient in “empathy”.
In other words: one must accept everything proffered by an allegant or else one must be a “sociopath”. A neat little ‘economy’, carefully constructed.
And – again – it is not actually “truth” to say “rape victims”; the more accurate characterization here would have to be ‘statutorily-raped victims’, as demonstrated clearly by the step-by-step description provided to us.
Thus the formal diagnostic conclusion (“You a sociopath, baby”) fails to ground itself here.
What actually are some of the indicators of “sociopathy” (which is the old term; the more accepted term nowadays is “antisocial personality disorder”)?
The Mayo clinic symptom list includes:
A failure to exercise regard or concern for the difference between right and wrong / a pronounced and persistent lying or the deployment of deceit in the service of exploiting others / the deployment of charm or wit for the purpose of manipulating others for personal gain or even simply for the personal fun of doing so / egocentrism to an intense degree, coupled with a sense of being superior and a tendency toward histrionic exhibitionism / repeated difficulties with the law / a persistent violation of others’ rights through the deployment of intimidation and dishonesty and misrepresentation / a consistent hostility, notable irritability and-or impulsiveness and-or demonstrated aggressiveness and a pronounced tendency toward violence / unnecessary risk-taking or dangerous behaviors / work behavior that is irresponsible / an inability to learn from negative consequences / the abuse of alcohol or drugs / bullying behavior or abusive language deployed against others / poor school performance.
Further: the onset may be in childhood, and is clearly discernible by the 20s or 30s.
The MD-Health dot.com site lists, among other elements: significant and sustained disregard for social norms and obligations / a notably low tolerance for frustration and a notably low threshold for the resort to violence or the discharge of aggression / a pronounced tendency to blame other persons or to proffer plausible rationalization to excuse behavior that has created conflict between the individual and society.
The above lists are proffered as a general informational description of some of the primary indicators of that particular disorder.
As to the fourth paragraph: JR insists that he is “extraordinary”; that is his self-assessment and it is his to make and can anyone be surprised … ?
This assertion is followed by the insistence that none of my “nonsense” material has anything to do with him – although the conclusion as to the relevance of the material to him is a conclusion made by him and not by me.
And – once again and rather uncharacteristically and curiously – we get the oddly archaic usage of “naught to do with me”.
And the whole bit is wrapped up with an epithet about my being a “little piggy” who can go “roll in the dung”, which – verbally – is certainly somewhat aggressive and, one might even say, abusive. Yet that’s just JR consistent and persistent personal style – but, of course, is not to be taken as indicative of anything more.
Then, on the 30th at 427PM:
In the first paragraph, the further diagnostic assertion is made that “sociopaths dread being laughed at”. In no listing of clinical symptoms for this disorder have I come across this bit as being an element. It would seem more characteristic of a narcissistic personality disorder. But when plop must be tossed, then plop-tossing and not accuracy drives the game.
This is immediately followed by an epithetical bit to the effect that I don’t know “how funny” I am. Perhaps to JR, band while he does consider himself well-versed in humor and jokes and play yet this is hardly the time and place and subject for jokes and play.
Yet – as if on some level he inchoately realizes that his epithet is merely his own – he then quickly lards his personal observation with the further epithetical bit to the effect that I “don’t know that the readership knows that [I am] inhuman”.
Thus – doncha see? – JR has his finger infallibly on the pulse of “the readership” and thus his own personal opinions also accurately convey the opinions of “the readership”. We have it on his own authority. And it would – have you been waittttting forrrr itttttt? – be ‘sociopathic’ to doubt or deny that authority. A very neat ‘economy’ here.
Which bit is then further burnished by a repetition of his sly insistence that if one questions or doubts Abusenik stories and claims and allegations (even if such reservations are explicated at length) then one doth “lack empathy” (scare-caps omitted). And thus again I repeat: empathy cannot rightly be deployed until the justification for its deployment is established, and – again – there’s the rub in all of this.
And the paragraph concludes with another effort to burnish the essentially flawed premise: empathy – doncha know? – is “the paramount human virtue”.
But this is merely a self-servingly – if cleverly – constructed assertion. There are many human virtues, and who or what authority (besides JR) pronounces that “empathy” is “paramount” over all the rest? (Short answer: Victimist dogma, by the most amazing and convenient coincidence.)
I would lean more toward a resolute concern for the truth as being the primary and the “paramount” human virtue. Because without that, then who knows if “empathy” is or is not well-placed and rightly-placed? Surely, an inaccurately lodged “empathy” is no virtue, and will most likely create more problems and negative consequences for everyone involved.
And a promiscuous deployment of “empathy” cannot of itself resolve any actual problems that created the asserted need for the empathy in the first place. But – and no competent tortie is unaware of this – “empathy”, rightly-placed or otherwise, can certainly help lubricate larger settlements. And thus its claimed paramountcy is not only convenient but very very useful … for manipulating people into acquiescing-in and assenting-to one’s objectives and one’s agenda.
And – but of course – “empathy” is very very useful for distracting from any assessment as to whether that “empathy” is or is not well-placed and rightly-placed to begin with.
But you can see the seams of the construction here: if a) “empathy” means going along with whatever stuff Abuseniks push your way, and if b) “empathy” is the “paramount” human virtue, then c) not finding JR’s stuff credible is – to his mind anyway – a “paramount” failure of human virtue. (Conversely, JR may be seen as the seat and fount and paragon of “the paramount human virtue”. Neat economy again.)
As to the second paragraph: apropos of nothing that has gone before, JR then asks if “no priests ever tried to get in [my] pants”.
To which I respond: No.
(Time-saver: this was something of a trick question. If one has not had the asserted experience, then – by yet more cobbled-together Abusenik ‘logic’ – one cannot possibly have any right or rational grounds for questioning the asserted material. If, on the other hand, one has had the experience, then one must be a dishonest and ‘un-empathetic’ person indeed to question the stories of others who claim the same thing. A neat economy.)
So overall the conceptual frame of the construction here is this: i) sociopathy (using the old term) involves a lack of feeling or empathy; ii) if you don’t buy JR’s stuff then you are not ‘empathetic’; iii) ‘empathy’ is the “paramount” human virtue; iv) therefore if you don’t buy JR’s stuff then you fail in the “paramount” human virtue (and, are thus, neatly, “inhuman”).
This presumes, of course, that the only possible manifestation of ‘empathy’ when confronted with Abusenik claims and stories and allegations is to accept them without further delay or question.
And thus to question them is a definitive indicator of being a “sociopath” and of being “inhuman”.
One might then – and without any stretching – conclude that we are seeing here a rather nicely demonstrated example of a fixed compensatory-delusional system constructed, embraced, and maintained by Abusenik doctrine and dogma.
Of course, none are as bad as the Catholic church, that not only hid organized child rape, they did it in the name of their god.
No other group had each pedophile "confess" thier crimes to another, then let the criminal free, but the Cahtolic church did it 100% of the time, as Satan Would Do. (Matt 18:6-14)
Have a little sympathyfor the devil. It wasn't the devil telling you to love Jesus but obey them. It was the guys who really believed they were lovers of Jesus. They loved J.C; and yet they did the acts that created this scandal. And with no punishment. None. They get laughed at on t.v. but where's the punishment? Ah! no where. Literally nowhere.
Bernard Law, on 1st May, makes a damning accusation against all Catholic priests. It is a pity that he doesn't place more value on the word expressed in his own surname. Which apparently is LAW. My reasons….well there are certain fundamental principles that underpin the Law in all western countries.
Namely that an individual is entitled to a good reputation and nobody should wrongfully deprive him of his good reputation, without sound and demonstrable justification. But it seems that Bernard is blind to this fundamental right of all people. Because he… without restraint or moderation will condemn all Catholic priests as pedaphiles. Thus destroying their collective and individual reputations.
But what will that do… in terms of practical consequences? Well it will destroy another right they are entitled to under the law. The right to a fair trial. Why so?. Because the juries are drawn from the general public. The jury pool becomes tainted, in the sense that the jurors are effectively brainwashed. Mainly by those journalists, who think like Bernard, and present the news in such a biased way that a witch-hunt mood is created.
The priest is thus demonized before the trial starts…. and therefore cannot possibly get a fair trial. In additon another right has also gone out the window. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Instead he is presumed guilty, from the kick-off.
So Bernard Law's whole modus operandi is to take away his target's fundamental rights, in order to make his target vulnerable to easy attack.
Incidentally in regard to Matthew 18, verse 6… the right of any victim of any abuse is to go to the police and report it. That there have been so few reports, to police, tells me that this witch-hunt is largely based upon exaggertion and fabrication.
Not to mention the anti-Catholic bigotry. Which seems to be par for the course.
No P you aren't getting away with that one. You are the only true sociopath here. The rest are wannabes. I'm talking about a complete lack of empathy on your part as posted by you here about anybody but priests and bishops. You've shown no empathy towards victims per se or to our families; NOT EVEN ONCE. You are the sociopath. you alone.
Actually the only thing you've shown any "feeling" for is your image of your self; and or what you hold sacrosanct. That's why I want you to drop acid and live the sacred. I mean LIVE the sacred. We is it. There is no you and me there's just us and only for a little while. I'm not a liar or a thief.
On the 2nd at 221AM we get a riff on an old Rolling Stones song; no doubt the connection here is simply that the word ‘devil’ has a 3×5 in the box with the Rolling-Stones bit scribbled on it.
But how then to fluff out this stringy bit?
In the second sentence we get something the sense of which is not quite clear, including a reference to some “them” that has not been identified.
In regard to the third sentence:
We need to bear in mind that there were very few priests who “did the acts that created the scandal”. And from what we have seen of the various Stampede cases and dynamics, there is high probability that there were even fewer than the number (4 percent, if memory serves, from the Jay Report tally) of priests against whom allegations were lodged.
In regard to the fourth sentence:
JR (and/or his muse(s)) appears to be trying to run the following play: if one “loved” Jesus and yet sinned, then that constitutes some sort of proof-positive that … what? One’s love is real only if it is perfect? No human being can qualify for any sort of love at all, if this is the case. Once again, we see the Stampede Playbook scam: if one is not perfect, then one is totally not-perfect – and this is truly some sort of fundamentalist either/or set-up that makes for cutesy rhetorical bombast but bears little if any relation to the reality of actual and flawed human-ness.
Such a dynamic as the Playbook seeks to establish here is – not to put too fine a point on it – utterly ‘inhuman’ since it is actually non-human, trying to hold humans to a standard that cannot possibly be achieved and sustained. Humans have ‘ideals’, but it is in the very nature of an ‘ideal’ that it lies beyond the pure fulfillment of that ideal.
In regard to the fifth sentence:
First, before we consider whether “punishment” was meted out, we have to establish with some degree of credibility that in each case “punishment” was deserved. And in the Stampede allegations, that credibility has not at all been established.
Second, we see the Victimist effort to reduce all “punishment” to legal punishment, although very few priests against whom allegations have been made have been allowed to remain in ministry. To those – among whom there are a few known Abuseniks – who have not had the type of life-experience that involves holding a job or calling for any length of time, let alone a lifetime, then clearly the loss of the authority to practice that calling may well seem scant “punishment”. But this is a problem that is seated in the Abuseniks, and not in the Church for not ‘punishing’ (to the extent, of course, that “punishment” was warranted in the first place).
In regard to the sixth sentence:
We merely get that rhetorical “None” (the Wig of Alas and Alack)which is supposed to substitute for the utter lack of explication or demonstration of the assertions that were made and perhaps distract us from noticing that utter lack.
In regard to the seventh sentence:
Apparently, ‘getting’ “laughed at on tv” is some stab at comprehending the global humiliation consequent upon being dragged through media mud. For individuals who have constructed fixed-delusional systems to avoid confronting humiliating aspects of themselves, and for persons who – by claiming the popular mantle of victimhood – have (for the moment, at least) insulated themselves from any experience of public humiliation, then too this experience of public humiliation will not register on them as being a profoundly incisive punishment. (Presuming, of course and again, that any such punishment was warranted in the first place.)
And – again and of course – one might try out one’s empathy on somebody who was falsely accused.
But here, curiously, we see the odd dynamic whereby ‘victims’ claim a lack of empathy on the part of those who doubt them, and yet those same individuals do not demonstrate any empathic chops when it comes to considering the role of so broad and deep a public and personal humiliation as is visited upon those accused in a time of Stampede.
And the final two sentences are simply further rhetorical efforts to bolster the prior bits (which bits themselves are purely rhetorical and provide no explication or demonstration).
Leaving us – to use JR’s pithy rhetorical declamation – “Nowhere … Literally nowhere” (corrections supplied).
On, then, to the 2nd at 230AM:
And in this single-paragraph comment what do we get?
In the first sentence:
Merely an assertive denial against the material – substantive and accurate psychological and clinical information – that JR doesn’t want to deal with. (Imagine a child holding hands over ears and shaking the head while chanting ‘I’m not listening’, over and over again.)
Thus for no demonstrated reason, JR here simply seeks to prevent any assessment that is not congruent with his own constructed and fixed system of narrative and spin. This is Playbook 101.
In the second sentence:
Ditto merely an assertive repetition of his original plop-tossy epithet without (again) any demonstration or explication, especially in light of the clinical symptomatic indicators I had provided.
In the third sentence:
A cutesy effort at epithet masked in the appearance of a compliment: compared to me, all the rest of the ‘sociopaths’ here (i.e. those who question Abusenik material) “are wannabes”.
In the fourth sentence:
A further repetition of the asserted claim and charge as to my “complete lack of empathy” in regard to the Abuseniks. Once again we see the Playbook effort to avoid and distract-from conceptual material by trying to turn the assessment of Abusenik material into a personal attack on Abuseniks.
Again, this is a classic Victimist ploy designed to a) avoid the assessment of their claims and stories and assertions by b) making themselves into ‘victims’ of an ‘attack’ (i.e. to have one’s material assessed is to be attacked). Avoid the assessment; go for the soap-opera.
And need it be noted again that it is precisely the requirement of genuine Scientific Method that one proposes ideas or hypotheses, publishing them for review and assessment by others, so that there is a mutual effort to clarify and sharpen the ideas’ and hypotheses’ relationship to fact and truth … ?
But this Scientific Method is absolutely and precisely what the Playbook deliberately and consistently seeks to avoid or undermine. Because the Playbook’s objective is not to enlighten, but only to manipulate, readers.
And JR is welcome to put up any (accurate) quotations from me that demonstrate an empathic preference for “priests and bishops”. I have put up corrective material where incorrect material has first been put-up; I have pointed out (and clearly explained at length) problems with material that has been put up. But I leave it up to the readership to decide, and I don’t threaten readers with epithets and imprecations if they do not accept my material without question; I leave final assessment of all the material on this site to the individual readers, and try to provide them with material that will assist them in that.
But I will certainly say that in a time of Stampede and under the circumstance of Stampede and in the milieu of Stampede, then I am almost automatically on the alert for the dynamics of Stampede.
Because I do not at all trust the dynamics of Stampede to either a) yield demonstrable and actual truth or b) permit a serious deliberation, based on the Scientific Method, by those whose sympathies and empathies are being targeted for the purpose of nothing more and nothing less than manipulation.
Manipulation, in my book, is itself “inhuman” insofar as it is ‘anti-human’: it does not seek to engage the best and most genuine human capacities for rational assessment and deliberation, but instead seeks to stampede people as if they were herd-animals.
In the fifth sentence:
Again, the Playbook effort to start the play on a base rather than with an at-bat at home plate: we cannot very well be ‘empathetic’ if we have not yet established with any reasonable degree of credibility or probability that we are dealing with genuine victims, in this or that specific case. And if that cannot be done in specific cases, then we cannot merely presume (out of some presumptive ‘empathy’) that the generality of the cases are nonetheless credible or at least highly probable.
And again we see the Playbook attempt to distract from these profound problems merely by tossing up some rhetorical ploys; in this case, brassy scare-caps.
In the sixth sentence:
On the basis of nothing better than the whole agglomerated mush that has preceded it, we get merely another repetition of the assertion – itself undemonstrated or inaccurately characterized – that I am “the sociopath”.
And – if you think about it for a moment – that “the” (in “the sociopath”) seems to indicate that JR realizes he must somehow avoid being imagined or assessed as “the sociopath” here. But, as so often, he cannot muster any demonstration or explication, and thus contents himself with yet another rhetorical bit (that “you alone” in the final sentence) which apparently is supposed to substitute for lack of demonstration or explication by simply emphasizing the original flawed assertion and characterization.
But it cannot work as JR desires, for all the reasons discussed.
On then to the 2nd at 238AM:
Already up to his hubcaps in problems with his tactics and strategy here, JR will try in the first sentence to riff further on his “sociopath” bit by asserting that I only have “feeling” for my image of myself. He is welcome to put up any (accurate) quotation from my material where I attempt to spin myself or to manipulate the characterization readers might form of me. Rather – and again we see the wonders of clinical projection – JR here may well be describing and revealing himself rather than anyone else.
In the second sentence:
JR will try to somehow redeem his recent “acid” and “LSD” and drug exhortations by trying to spin them as having a valuable purpose: he would – doncha see and doncha know? – like me to “drop acid” in order to “live the sacred”.
Which reveals nothing so much as JR’s apparently limited grasp of “the sacred” as being dependent-upon, if not also limited-to, dropping the said “acid”. And I am inclined to think he speaks from his own experience here, which – by the by – brings us back to the list of clinical symptoms of sociopathy that I have provided in a recent comment on this thread.
(Quite possibly he is operating on the assumption that since it is in the pursuit of ‘living’ “the sacred”, then drug-use is not to be seen as a clinical indicator of sociopathy, but rather is to be seen as a creative and marvelously transgressive indicator of genuine spiritual searching on the part of intrepid and heroic and extraordinary spiritual seekers. That sort of thing.)
In the third sentence:
Again merely the use of rhetorical bombast (the scare-caps) to substitute for the complete lack of explanation. But the exhortation (i.e. “live the sacred”) does seem to be a revenant discourse from the 1960s, replete with all the self-absorption and simplistic self-confidence and pretentious lack of seriousness that so clearly marked the Boomers in their youthy springtime.
In the fourth sentence:
A non-sensical bit as stated, reminiscent perhaps of midnight bong sessions after a hard day trying to burn down the ROTC building or overthrow ‘the establishment’ root and branch while casting any structure or boundaries to the wind in the name of ‘personal liberation’.
In the fifth sentence:
Ditto, with the added stab at mimicking a certain philosophical maturity (“there’s just us and only for a little while” –itself a phrase lifted without attribution from the lyrics to “Look Away”: “it’s just us, and for a little while”).
In the sixth sentence:
Apropos of nothing that had preceded it, and yet so crystalline in its general relevance that it seems almost a deliberate self-parody, JR channels – have you been waittttting for itttttttttttttttttt? – Richard Nixon near the end: JR is “not a liar or a thief”.
Nobody had actually said he was. But he seems to think so, for whatever reason(s).
kill a commie for christ jerk off.
the only enemy america has is you.
hey are you talking Noel Coward? If I've heard the lyric it's from my subconcious.
For U feeling the sacred would require Acid. I'm not talking acid for everyone just you sweetie. Crack that fake wall you consider to be you. No?
I just think sometimes drugs are insight producing. Not always but I'm doing fine thanks I haven't dropped acid since my 20's i took what i needed and left. u however never have. that's why i recomend it so strongly to you.
Do you really think the entire English language is limited as to who ever else used the same words in a sentence i.e. Noel and tricky Dick? I've also used words Jesus supposedly said in Aramaic. Does that make me him?
"youthy springtime" Now that's pretty good! I must say. but you mean it negatively. I think it's the closest you've come to being creative. What the fuck is it you like? Something played with a ball?
Aw who cares. You are the lady of mystery
I've had a great day and engaging you in low bitchery. (I had to desend to your level)., aint productive.
I got my first standing ovation at 68 years old, today. i'm doing a play, my first in 40 years. 5 actors; and the audience stood up and not to leave :^) Seriously It' feels great but I've got to push the rock up the hill, all over again, in the next performance. It's an Irish play about people trapped in their lives but who still hope for the best. it's a good play. almost a great one. It will remain nameless because I want it that way.
I'm sharing my happiness with you. care to be nice about it? Come on be nice I've got a bet going you can't do it. Prove me wrong.:^)
And continuing:
In regard to the 4th at 102AM:
As to the first paragraph: an epithet and some inane reference to Communists.
As to the second paragraph: an epithet and equally inane and ridiculous assertion that I am the “only enemy America has” (and are we to infer that the ‘logic’ of this assertion makes JR a defender or friend of “America”?).
As to the third paragraph: JR will make an excuse for his lifting of a quotation: it was from his “subconscious”, doncha see? (correction supplied)
As to the fourth paragraph: I and all readers are informed by the Wig of Theological and Spiritual Knowledge and Expertise that for me “feeling the sacred would require acid”. And on what basis does the Wig make that spiritual diagnosis and prescription? Again, we see that somehow “sacred” and “Acid” are, in JR’s mind and experience, enmeshed.
But then he will in the next sentence try to extricate himself from the consequences of his prior assertions about drugs on this thread while simultaneously trying to keep his favored epithet going: the Wig is only prescribing “Acid” for me – doncha see? – because I have – we are all informed – “a fake wall”. As to just who has amassed the most fakery here, myself or the Wig Collection, readers may judge for themselves.
As to the fifth paragraph: we are informed that in JR’s (informed?) opinion “sometimes drugs are insight producing”. He then allows as how he is speaking from experience here (thus drugs are part of his “personal truth”). But then he quickly tries to extricate himself by saying that the drug abuse was back in his 20s, and – have you been waittttttting for ittttttttttttt? – even then he only “took what [he] needed” and then, but of course, “left” (does that mean “quit” or does this odd usage here indicate some fudging of the fact?).
And readers may consider what type of person “needed” that “Acid” to go forward with his life.
Then – seeking to somehow turn the fact that I have never used drugs to his own advantage – he seeks to assert that while he has used drugs (and, presumably, “Acid” and it was – in his estimation – a worthwhile and beneficial experience), yet I am deficient since I have not done so. Thus the Wiggy prescription (or ‘recommendation’). Readers who are parents or guardians may consider whether the Wig-Doctor’s advice is something they should deploy in the service of their own children. I personally won’t be accepting the prescription/recommendation proffered by the Wig-Doctor.
And we might consider ourselves drawn back, again, to the list of sociopathy symptoms provided in a prior comment on this thread.
As to the sixth paragraph: JR will try to extricate himself by going for the excuse that just because he uses “the same words in a sentence” as – in this instance – Noel Coward and Richard Nixon (nicely noted by JR as being “tricky”), yet this does not demonstrate anything. Readers may consider the validity of his excuse.
JR will also slip in a commendation for himself and his Biblical chops: he has “used words Jesus supposedly said in Aramaic”. Readers may consider the relevance of this bit in regard to his a) lifting the lyrics and b) using so close a statement as made by “tricky Dick” (in precisely the situation here where “tricky Dick” might also have tried this gambit if he had gotten himself into this mess).
And in the Biblical references, at least he somehow proffered some indication that he was making reference to the words of Jesus. Not so in the instances under the discussion here, where he gave us no hint of Noel Coward or Richard Nixon (although I will readily grant that he probably did not consciously intend to try the Nixon gambit in an effort to extricate and excuse himself – this is indeed an instance where his “subconscious” kicked in and gave him away).
As to the seventh paragraph: readers who can suss out the sense of this paragraph are welcome to share it here.
As to the eighth paragraph: a gender-bendy epithet.
As to the ninth paragraph: he will try a variant of his often-deployed childish I’m Not/You Are bit: he declares himself as having had “a great day” even if he has had to “descend to [my] level” and ‘engage’ me “in low bitchery”. Readers may judge that bit as they will, bearing in mind the marvelously revelatory dynamics of clinical projection.
As to the tenth paragraph: by the most amazing coincidence (and doesn’t he have so many of these, if he is to be believed?) today he received his “first standing ovation”. In his whole life, all 68 years of it. And the whole scene then proffered to us may be considered as each reader will.
And – oh by the way – we are not going to be given the name of the play (which might create the possibility of anybody actually checking out the factuality of his claim here) because JR doth “want it that way”. But of course he would “want it that way”. So it’s just another JR story within the larger JR “play”.
Nor could it in any way be denied that acting chops would come in mighty handy for an Abusenik.
But then but then but then:
In the eleventh paragraph, a truly different and new Wig: JR is “sharing [his[ happiness with [us]” here in this play-story. Thus the Wig of Innocent Sharing (and thus: who but a “sociopath” would dare to not “care”?).
Perhaps I would care to “be nice about it”? I would not care to do so, since a) I am not sure any of it is true and b) being “nice” in the Abusenik dictionary means buying any story hook, line, and sinker.
And then – so very revealingly – he snarks “prove me wrong” when he has just informed us that he has no intention of putting up the name of the play that might enable someone to check the factuality of his story. (His “bet” story – a secondary bit – can be left right up where it was put.)
Yup, this is the genuine, authentic, and real JR.
Define caring for me will you P? Without going to the dictionary,please.
The play is called The Weir.
"Leave this right where it's put" DUH! Can you be more repetative more dull? If you've said that once it's a thosand times. Is it mandatory your be so damn dull? Ah I forgot religion. :^) The very soul very ACME of dullness. as it were.
WE KNOW YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE"S HAPPINESS. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE A SOCIOPATH. DOPE!
Why would I be so stupid as to reveal information about my personal life, which i did by telling you about the standing o. If it wasn't true. why would I bring it up? Because I'm so dumb? If I was a criminal do you think I'd blow 2 years of writting here over something I'd made up? My god, man! You are pathetic. You only embarass yourself.
In regard to the 5th at 351PM:
As to the first paragraph: since JR used the term “care”, I would presume he knows the meaning of it. I could recommend a dictionary as a general discipline, though, by all means.
As to the second paragraph: JR suddenly now changes his mind and informs us of the name of the play. What so quickly changed his mind and why he originally chose not to “share” it is anybody’s guess if they wish to consider it.
As to the third paragraph: the usual epithet. And to repeat: I’ve said some variant of ‘the readers may consider this as they will’ so often not to remind the readers of their authority, but rather to remind JR of their authority – in the hope that such an awareness might induce more circumspection in him.
It suits him merely to find the whole business “dull” and “boring”, but perhaps he has no control over that response and it is what it is and it is not my problem.
But that bit leads to another epithet, this time to the effect that “religion” is the font of dullness and boredom. Readers may consider it as they will. Apparently “religion”, like ‘ideas’ and assessment generally, has this effect on him and has done so for quite some time.
As to the fourth paragraph: omitting the scare-caps, we have only more epithet. And since JR’s “happiness” seems to include – among other things – drugs as a gateway to some sort of spiritual insight then I cannot support such a course.
But it is clearly an opportunity, here, to don the Wig of Decent Outrage, which is one of the collection we have often seen before.
And this bit serves the further purpose of providing a platform for his repetition of his bit about my being a “sociopath”. Doubtless it is hoped that the promiscuous use of the scare-caps will help distract from any other possible applications of the criteria for that disorder.
And the whole concludes with a further – and nicely juvenile – epithet.
Thus on to the 5th at 408PM:
I do not presume – nor have I ever presumed – to know what deep personal dynamics drive JR to put up the material he puts up. If he here invites me to make such overt speculations – about far more substantial matters, especially – then I will say that I don’t see the value of such speculation for the purposes of this site.
It is JR who has said he is a “criminal”, but not me. I have pointed out problems with the material he has proffered and the more rational possibilities and probabilities arising from the material; the results and responses on his part are in the record here.
If he imagines that the record of his proffering here (or his consequent credibility) can be ‘blown’ any more than it is, then I can only advise that he reconsider that thought. The attempt to stand on his record here – as it were – will have to actually take into account the nature and content of that record.
The nature of which record here he seems to consistently misjudge.
As to who here most egregiously doth “embarrass” himself (correction supplied), I am content to leave that judgment to the readership.
But – as may be clearly recognized – this entire bit serves, yet again, to provide a platform for the Wig of Decent Outrage, and the histrionics are part of the gig for that Wig.
Which brings things back to the Playbook: avoid the analysis and go for the soap opera. Which is Tort Strategy 101.
Sir/Mam if you drink alcohol; you are doing a drug. So unless you are a tea totaler…….. and caffenine is a drug. too. Take ibuprofen or asprin?
He, who is with out sin……
Title P's Bio, The Pompous Sociopath brings you The God of Love, a story against all odds!
You can not be happy for me. I get a standing o at 68 after having not worked in a play in 40 years. and you haven't the kindness to say, good job. You're a sociopath. Even god can't make a sociopath feel.
In regard to the 5th at 651PM we continue with the ongoing exploration of the Abusenik use of the Playbook.
As to the first paragraph:
It opens with a gender-bendy epithet, so often seen when there won’t be much else following it.
The gambit here will be: since alcohol (and, for that matter, coffee’s caffeine) and even aspirin also qualify as “a drug” then we are all druggies together.
But, of course, the use of so powerfully psychoactive a drug as LSD or “acid” – which is a Schedule 1 substance in this country and is also illegal in most of the rest of the world – is far beyond the taking of an alcoholic drink, a cup of coffee, or an aspirin.
And the many possible noxious effects – upon physical, psychological, emotional, perceptual and cognitive systems – are profoundly serious. Which may go some way to explaining a few things.
So we are not, then, all druggies together.
But – of course – this silly bit then serves to platform (in the second paragraph) the deployment of the Wig of Scriptural Authority: let he who is without sin cast the first stone. But LSD is in a class far far beyond a drink, an aspirin, or a cup of coffee. So this Scriptural bit fails.
And as well: we see the attempt to equate ‘having serious reservations about X’ with “casting a stone”.
Yet it does raise an interesting question: if X is not a sin because a lot of people do it, then what about sexual-abuse? If a lot of people do it – and the Stampede doctrine holds that a lot of people do – then is it a sin? And who – since all of us are sinners one way or another – would have the right (according to JR’s take on the above Scriptural admonition) to be casting stones?
The third paragraph is merely more riffing on the epithetical, and we have dealt with it all before here.
The fourth paragraph brings us a whiney personal plaint and since there is no personal relationship created by commenting on this site, then it is totally inapt as a subject here.
But the plaint bit does provide a platform for the Wig of Personal Woundedness, and the histrionics that go with that Wiggy gig.
And – but of course – it also provides a platform for the mere repetition (yet again) of JR’s personal psychological construct: a “lack of kindness” (if indeed my stance here can be accurately characterized as such) is sufficient to ground a diagnosis of sociopathy.
That – he apparently has to be told – is not how clinical diagnosis actually works. He can inform himself by consulting the relevant sections of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, where he will discover that his sandbox construction of sociopathy – so conveniently adapted to his plop-tossy and self-serving purposes – doesn’t meet the criteria for the diagnosis he has taken it upon himself to make. He has, instead, merely demonstrated – once again – that if something looks to be a useful plop-pile for tossing, then he will toss the pile and consider it a good piece of work.
And – of course – only a “sociopath” will be unkind enough to point out the wackness in his material.
As to his further, theological (and epithetical) assertion as to what God can and cannot do in regard to sociopathy, readers may consider its validity as they will.
Pathetic!
I took LSD last in 1971. 44 years ago. I used it and then left it. Diagnose that.