>>>>>>> In any case, I am through with showing proof, whatever kind >>>>>>> that might be, to whomever decides they are authority to >>>>>>> judge it as so or no.
>>>>>> That's exactly right. Asking for proof is not reasonable in >>>>>> the context of a casual conversation.
>>>>> And yet the _only_ person who has done that in this thread is >>>>> you.
>>>> Perfect passive-agressive behavior! >>>> "I didn't ASK for it,...I only implied it was necessary." >>>> Whatta fuckin' turd.
>>> Yoop *I* was the one who asked for evidence as part of a longer >>> standing conversation.
>> But not the *ONLY* one
> Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. (But only > from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone else.)
> Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. > (But only from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone > else.)
I don't normally ask for proof from people who post their opinions when engaaged in casual conversations. I generally take them at their word when they claim to have learned something from a credible source. But I do tend to require proof from right-fighting liars who enjoy trying to bully others to meet standards which they, themselves, cannot ever hope to meet for themselves. So yes, I did ask for proof from you. Go figure.
>>>>>>>> In any case, I am through with showing proof, whatever >>>>>>>> kind that might be, to whomever decides they are >>>>>>>> authority to judge it as so or no.
>>>>>>> That's exactly right. Asking for proof is not reasonable >>>>>>> in the context of a casual conversation.
>>>>>> And yet the _only_ person who has done that in this thread >>>>>> is you.
>>>>> Perfect passive-agressive behavior! >>>>> "I didn't ASK for it,...I only implied it was necessary." >>>>> Whatta fuckin' turd.
>>>> Yoop *I* was the one who asked for evidence as part of a >>>> longer standing conversation.
>>> But not the *ONLY* one
>> Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. (But >> only from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone >> else.)
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes: > In news:lyaazg6fe7.fsf@ethel.the.log, > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> mused: > > "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> writes:
> >> But not the *ONLY* one
> > Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. > > (But only from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone > > else.)
> I don't normally ask for proof from people who post their opinions > when engaaged in casual conversations. I generally take them at > their word when they claim to have learned something from a credible > source. But I do tend to require proof from right-fighting liars > who enjoy trying to bully others to meet standards which they, > themselves, cannot ever hope to meet for themselves. So yes, I did > ask for proof from you. Go figure.
At the same time as you falsely asserted I was asking for proof.
And at the same time as you criticized me for asking for proof.
>>> Well, yes. There was _you_ who repeatedly asked for proof. >>> (But only from me - you aren't interested in proof from anyone >>> else.)
>> I don't normally ask for proof from people who post their >> opinions when engaaged in casual conversations. I generally >> take them at their word when they claim to have learned >> something from a credible source. But I do tend to require >> proof from right-fighting liars who enjoy trying to bully >> others to meet standards which they, themselves, cannot ever >> hope to meet for themselves. So yes, I did ask for proof from >> you. Go figure.
> At the same time as you falsely asserted I was asking for proof.
I'm sure that you feel that way.
> And at the same time as you criticized me for asking for proof.
> On Oct 21, 4:38 pm, "Vickie" <vkraj...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Nellie" <ellie_fi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> I stated quite clearly that it has great usefulness in the medical >> >> field.
>> > I agree that studying gender differences can be useful in the medical >> > field, the same way that studying other group differences are useful >> > (like ethnic background, residents of certain areas, particular >> > cultural behaviors like diet, etc). They all provide information on >> > *average* conditions that are helpful in medical research.
>> >> And especially towards the treatment of mental disorders.
>> > I agree with this far less than the above statement, because treatment >> > of mental disorder involves treating *individuals*, which requires a >> > different approach than relying on "group tendencies".
>> I hold tight to the knowledge that medical researchers are studying >> gender >> difference in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.
> OK. I am all for the research part. But if I have a mental disorder I > hope that my doc doesn't rely on my sex for diagnosis and treatment. > If I find out that a doctor has two different protocols for treating a > mental disorder for men and women, and chooses one or the other based > on the sex of the patient I'll find another doc. That doesn't mean > that gender research of mental disorders is invalid.
Interesting. I would be more apt to find another doc if he didn't take the knowledge he knew, for example, if, hypothetically, SSRI's were believed to be better than a TCA for women with personality disorder specifically, but for men the opposite were true. That this doc ignores research and thinks, meh, let's start her on a TCA as they are proven to be good for personality disorder, generally, when in fact (hypothetically) only works optimally for men.
>> Right now, after being diagnosed, a p-doc or GP will prescribe any one of >> the universally used AD's for the treatment of many disorders. >> It is hit and miss after that.
> That's true. I'm not knowledgeable about medical stuff, but I think > this is because diagnosis and treatment of such disorders are more > difficult that clear physical problems.
Very true. So the more research scientists do and find the better it will be for those who suffer.
>> Can you imagine the importance and success of dealing with these >> disorders >> by using an SSRI (or what-have-you) that starts off specifically designed >> for your biology?
> Absolutely. You said it just right, "specifically designed for my > biology" would be my ideal -- which I can't usually get. The second > best would be as close to my specific biology AND *condition* as > possible. Don't forget in most cases genetics, history, past > experiences, preexisting conditions, overall physical and mental > conditions and stuff like that, are much more important in diagnosis > and treatment of a disorder than raw biological makeup. Though there > are few things about my *female* biology which are clearly different > from a *male* one, my overall physical/mental profile might put me > much closer to a man with similar condition than women with different > profile.
I disagree. Biology is biology and XX chromosomes places you directly related to others with those same two and all the chemicals and hormones that ride along with those. Genetics, history, past experiences, preexisting conditions, etc., fall second to our biological make-up. There are exceptions of course, hermaphrodites or transgender. (And with my own belief, I think homosexual's biology [within the brain] can have more similarities to their gender opposite so may not be able to use gender specific treatment in regards to mental disorders. Or at least a doc would have to tread lightly.)
>> Some facts are well known.
> Yes, they are. I don't see anyone disputing that.
>> Women are depressed on average more than men.
> True. But a depressed women doesn't necessarily need a different > treatment than a depressed man, nor does she necessarily respond the > same way to a treatment that is helpful to another woman.
That is exactly what the research is hoping to find.
>> Boys are four times as likely to be autistic.
> And an autistic boy could be more "similar" to an autistic girl than > to another autistic boy. The point is, when a doctor wants to treat an > autistic boy or girl, the useful information is the particular > condition of that boy or girl, not the "fact" that boys are mole > likely to be autistic.
Unfortunately I know little to nothing about autism. My point is that more boys are autistic than girls. It means something about the genetic make-up of boys that makes them more susceptible and should not be discounted.
>> It is not an end all be all, and I am not discounting that each person >> individually needs what is right for them.
> Oh, thank god for that!
lol You really thought that I think all medicine should be left and treated at the gender-line?
>> But to be pointed in the right direction?
> ... or the wrong one.
That is where we are now. If we can narrow down the hit and miss aspect by shaving off some of the misses, isn't that a good thing?
>> A better jumping off point? I am >> all for it.
> I prefer that my doctor doesn't rely on gender stereotypes when > prescribing a treatment for me.
I think she might already. I am sure your doc has assessed the fact that you are a woman ;-) and therefore looks at things like: thyroid disease osteoporosis autoimmune disorders rheumatoid arthritis urinary tract infections ask for bone density scans prescribe hormone therapy during menopause
Perhaps the chemicals and make-up in our brain are even *more* gender specific than research out there shows and should be treated accordingly.
>> >> If you are speaking of benefits to society, which I think you are, we >> >> differ >> >> in respects to acknowledging gender differences in social settings and >> >> the >> >> benefits they give.
>> > I agree that when it comes to public policy, funding for various >> > programs, advertisement, and other things that target *groups* taking >> > gender differences into consideration can be useful.
>> >> I agree with Dr. Courten-Myers that: >> >> "The recognition of gender-specific ways of thinking and feeling -- >> >> rendered >> >> more credible given these established differences -- could prove >> >> beneficial >> >> in enhancing interpersonal relationships.
>> > I TOTALLY disagree with this. When it comes to "interpersonal >> > relationships" we are no longer talking about group tendencies. In >> > relating to individuals, using our preconcieved assumptions can be >> > more harmful than helpful. Yes, it makes our jobs *easier* to rely our >> > understanding of group tendencies, and it's tempting to take shortcuts >> > and make a whole bunch of assumptions based on stereotypes, but the >> > price could be quite high.
>> I could be wrong, but are you confusing interpersonal relationships with >> intimate (one on one) relationships?
> Nope. I consider any relationship that involves particular > "individuals" interpersonal. So, for example, the relationship that > the media advertisers have with their audience isn't interpersonal > because they are addressing "groups". Even a sales person who comes to > my door to sell something isn't addressing "me" personally. But a > sales clerk at a store who is trying to help me find something has an > interpersonal relationship with me -- and I would like them to listen > to what *I* want, instead of pointing me to the areas that they think > "women" like.
With money involved, that's a whole different ball of wax! You are right that a good salesperson is going to listen to your wants and needs and lead you to the proper product. If buying a car, a salesperson might suspect I would love the fact that every visor has a light-up mirror on it, when in fact I would rather it have a honkin' steel cage around it for safety. But I'm not going to get bunged up about it. The salesperson will figure that out soon enough. In their mind I am sure they are going to go with first instincts and show what they think you want. When sales logs show that more women buy the Eclipse Spyder or Toyota RAV4 over a Viper, they are not going to discount it!
>> That is a *type* of interpersonal relationship but not all.
> True.
>> >> However, the interpretation of the >> >> data also has the potential for abuse and harm if either gender would >> >> seek >> >> to construct evidence for superiority of the male or female brain from >> >> these >> >> findings."
>> > To me that's not the real danger. I don't think that making >> > assumptions about men and women necessarily means that we are making >> > value judgement. I think it's a bad idea to do so in interpersonal >> > relationships because it increases the chance of failing in whatever >> > we are trying to do. Let's give an example from the medical field that >> > was mentioned above (though I'm not in medical field and don't know >> > much). The recommended dosage of many medications depends on size or >> > weight. A doctor may present a general average recommendation for men >> > and women (say, in a research report in a medical journal). The same >> > doctor would be absolutely wrong if he/she prescribed "average >> > recommended dosage" to a particular patient merely based on the >> > patient's sex. The "interpersonal relationship" between the doctor/ >> > patient requires measuring the weight of the particular person without >> > considering the "average weight of men/women". Prescribing the >> > "average" dose to an individual patient based on their stereotypical >> > size will cause big problems of overdosing and underdosing. The same
> >> >> I stated quite clearly that it has great usefulness in the > >> medical >> field.
> >> > I agree that studying gender differences can be useful in the medical > >> > field, the same way that studying other group differences are useful > >> > (like ethnic background, residents of certain areas, particular > >> > cultural behaviors like diet, etc). They all provide information on > >> > *average* conditions that are helpful in medical research.
> >> >> And especially towards the treatment of mental disorders.
> >> > I agree with this far less than the above statement, because treatment > >> > of mental disorder involves treating *individuals*, which requires a > >> > different approach than relying on "group tendencies".
> >> I hold tight to the knowledge that medical researchers are studying > >> gender > >> difference in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.
> > OK. I am all for the research part. But if I have a mental disorder I > > hope that my doc doesn't rely on my sex for diagnosis and treatment. > > If I find out that a doctor has two different protocols for treating a > > mental disorder for men and women, and chooses one or the other based > > on the sex of the patient I'll find another doc. That doesn't mean > > that gender research of mental disorders is invalid.
> Interesting. > I would be more apt to find another doc if he didn't take the > knowledge he knew, for example, if, hypothetically, > SSRI's were believed to be better than a TCA for women with > personality disorder specifically, but for men the opposite were true. > That this doc ignores research and thinks, meh, let's start her on a > TCA as they are proven to be good for personality disorder, generally, > when in fact (hypothetically) only works optimally for men.
I'd look for another doc if he was less concerned about what worked for me than he was about what worked better on average for men.
Doug Anderson wrote: > "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Let's resummarize this. At the risk of sounding a bit immodest, I think >> this summarizes the point, pretty well. >> Recognizing and appreciating some of these differences can be helpful.
> Is it? Since no one can even say what these differences are, if it is > going to be really helpful, we'll have to do without that help.
I just stated some commonly found differences in my earlier post. Here is it again in case you missed it (classified by someone else as "stereotyping", since its grouping people - guess that's sinful):
Is is wrong to recognize that, (for example), women are generally more into cosmetics than men are? That men often tend to act more aggressively than women do (testosterone)? That women often tend to share more with each other in lieu of just competing? That men are generally stronger and taller than women are? That women tend to be (much more) the primary caretakers than men?
Some of these differences are nature-based, and some are nurture-based, but either way, they are quite common - and prevalent.
I find that recognizing and appreciating the differences can be helpful. Like most anything else, it can be overdone or misused. But to simply dismiss them, and say they are going to be harmful in all cases, or are of NO value, or are inconsequential, or are "less than the variations found between individuals of the same sex over the entire range of that sex and are therefore of no significance or importance", seems ridiculous.
Let's try it again, since the forum seems to be all but dead, and this still hasn't been acknowledged by the OP (or anyone else), for that matter.
Doug Anderson wrote: > "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> <snip>
>> Recognizing and appreciating some of these differences can be helpful.
> Is it? Since no one can even say what these differences are, > if it is going to be really helpful, we'll have to do without that help.
Yes, I sure can say what some of the differences are. And I've listed just a few common ones below.
Here is just a small sample of some commonly found differences:
Women are generally more into cosmetics and fashion than men are. Men often tend to act more aggressively than women do (testosterone). Women often tend to share more with each other, in lieu of just competing. Men are generally physically stronger and taller than women. Women tend to be (and much more so) the primary caretakers than men.
Some of these differences are nature-based, and some are nurture-based, but either way, they are quite common - and prevalent. You said that no one could specify any differences, but I have indeed presented some, so your statement is incorrect.
I find that recognizing and appreciating the differences can be helpful. Like most anything else, it can be overdone or misused. But to simply dismiss them, and say they are going to be harmful in all cases, or are of NO value, or are inconsequential, or are "less than the variations found between individuals of the same sex (over the entire range of that sex), and are therefore of no significance or importance", seems ridiculous.
> Let's try it again, since the forum seems to be all but dead, > and this still hasn't been acknowledged by the OP (or anyone > else), for that matter.
Your entire existence here is spent either posting useless quips to try to bait people into useless arguments that could never, ever possibly go anywhere, or you spend it with useless comments like "I agree", or "I disagree". And then you wonder why, when you finally post something that just might lead to a substantive discussion, you're ignored.
You posted your thoughts, and no one, so far, cares to reply, probably because they know where it'll end up.
Had you looked within, grasshopper, and been willing to take responsibility for your actions - old-school style - you'd know why no one responded, despite your pathetic pleas that they should.
AllYou! wrote: > In news:QtmdnbgKueDmlGzXnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@earthlink.com, > Bill in Co <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> mused: >> Let's try it again, since the forum seems to be all but dead, >> and this still hasn't been acknowledged by the OP (or anyone >> else), for that matter.
> Your entire existence here is spent either posting useless quips to > try to bait people into useless arguments that could never, ever > possibly go anywhere,
Some projection noted there? (actually, that's not a question)
Perhaps you should look at your own actions, or are you afraid to? And finally, just because you are incapable of debating the issue, doesn't mean everyone is.
> or you spend it with useless comments like "I > agree", or "I disagree". And then you wonder why, when you finally > post something that just might lead to a substantive discussion, > you're ignored.
LOL. And since when have you posted a substantive, non-baiting and name-calling discussion, rather than troll? (take your time ...)
> You posted your thoughts, and no one, so far, cares to reply, > probably because they know where it'll end up.
> Had you looked within, grasshopper, and been willing to take > responsibility for your actions - old-school style - you'd know why > no one responded, despite your pathetic pleas that they should.
I think you forgot something...
> NOTICE: > I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than > a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. > Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a > useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken > seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons.
We know that. But the fact that you are proud of that ... speaks volumes about your own character, or rather, lack thereof. It's one thing to not be aware of it; but it's quite another to be proud of it.
> I never assume that there's any more to a story than what I have > read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted > anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant > layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them > under any circumstances.
No worries, there. Again, the fact that you are proud of that, once again .. speaks volumes.
> AllYou! wrote: >> In news:QtmdnbgKueDmlGzXnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@earthlink.com, >> Bill in Co <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> mused: >>> Let's try it again, since the forum seems to be all but dead, >>> and this still hasn't been acknowledged by the OP (or anyone >>> else), for that matter.
>> Your entire existence here is spent either posting useless >> quips to try to bait people into useless arguments that could >> never, ever possibly go anywhere,
> Some projection noted there? (actually, that's not a question)
Case made, case closed. Thanks.
> Perhaps you should look at your own actions, or are you afraid > to?
If I were the one begging people to respond to nonsense, you'd have a point. But, as usual, you don't.
> And finally, just because you are incapable of debating the > issue, doesn't mean everyone is.
How does that comment possibly have any bearing whatsoever to anythiig that I ever said? Are you under the delusion that I ever claimed that everyone is incapable of debating you?
>> You posted your thoughts, and no one, so far, cares to reply, >> probably because they know where it'll end up.
>> Had you looked within, grasshopper, and been willing to take >> responsibility for your actions - old-school style - you'd know >> why no one responded, despite your pathetic pleas that they >> should.
> I think you forgot something...
Just because I didn't post the rest of the truth about how useless you are, doesn't mean that I forgot about it. It just means that I don't have all the time it would take to type it all..
-- NOTICE: I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. I never assume that there’s any more to a story than what I have read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them under any circumstances.
>>> Your entire existence here is spent either posting useless >>> quips to try to bait people into useless arguments that could >>> never, ever possibly go anywhere,
>> Some projection noted there? (actually, that's not a question)
> Case made, case closed. Thanks.
You mean you acknowledge it? OK, then we're making progress.
>> Perhaps you should look at your own actions, or are you afraid >> to?
> If I were the one begging people to respond to nonsense, you'd have > a point.
But you do, just like in your "discussion" (do note the quotes) with Doug. (you know, the usual, ad hom, name-calling, bit)
> But, as usual, you don't.
>> And finally, just because you are incapable of debating the >> issue, doesn't mean everyone is.
> How does that comment possibly have any bearing whatsoever to > anything that I ever said?
Sigh. The fact that you can't see it....
> Are you under the delusion that I ever > claimed that everyone is incapable of debating you?
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone...
>>> You posted your thoughts, and no one, so far, cares to reply, >>> probably because they know where it'll end up.
>>> Had you looked within, grasshopper, and been willing to take >>> responsibility for your actions - old-school style - you'd know >>> why no one responded, despite your pathetic pleas that they >>> should.
>> I think you forgot something...
> Just because I didn't post the rest of the truth about how useless > you are, doesn't mean that I forgot about it. It just means that I > don't have all the time it would take to type it all..
LOL. You have the time. I hate it when people use that BS. It's just an excuse, for not being able to step up. That's ok, I understand, though.
> -- > NOTICE: > I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than > a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. > Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a > useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken > seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons.
> I never assume that there's any more to a story than what I have > read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted > anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant > layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them > under any circumstances.
>>>> You posted your thoughts, and no one, so far, cares to reply, >>>> probably because they know where it'll end up.
>>>> Had you looked within, grasshopper, and been willing to take >>>> responsibility for your actions - old-school style - you'd >>>> know why no one responded, despite your pathetic pleas that >>>> they should.
>>> I think you forgot something...
>> Just because I didn't post the rest of the truth about how >> useless you are, doesn't mean that I forgot about it. It just >> means that I don't have all the time it would take to type it >> all..
> LOL. You have the time.
Actually, unlike you, I have much better things to do.
> I hate it when people use that BS. It's just an excuse, for not > being able to step up. That's > ok, I understand, though.
It's your world, and so I'm sure you do.
>> NOTICE: >> I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more >> than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality >> whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing >> more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must >> never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to >> anyone for any reasons.
-- NOTICE: I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. I never assume that there’s any more to a story than what I have read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them under any circumstances.
>>>> Some projection noted there? (actually, that's not a question)
>>> Case made, case closed. Thanks.
>> You mean you acknowledge it? OK, then we're making progress.
> I'm sure you took it that way.
>>>> Perhaps you should look at your own actions, or are you afraid >>>> to?
>>> If I were the one begging people to respond to nonsense, you'd >>> have a point.
But you do. Evidently you "can't" see it. That's too bad.
>> But you do, just like in your "discussion" (do note the quotes) >> with Doug. (you know, the usual, ad hom, name-calling, bit)
> I'm sure you see the world that way as well.
That you pretend you can't ... doesn't really surprise me. But I wouldn't expect any more from you, because that would require some integrity.
-- > NOTICE: > Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a > useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken > seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons.
Exactly. And well summarized; I'll give you that much. The fact you are proud of it ... is a bit sad, though.
>>>>> Some projection noted there? (actually, that's not a >>>>> question)
>>>> Case made, case closed. Thanks.
>>> You mean you acknowledge it? OK, then we're making progress.
>> I'm sure you took it that way.
>>>>> Perhaps you should look at your own actions, or are you >>>>> afraid to?
>>>> If I were the one begging people to respond to nonsense, you'd >>>> have a point.
> But you do. Evidently you "can't" see it. That's too bad.
TRY to keep up. You're responding to my commne two posts ago. I know this is a liitle bit too fast for you, but do try.
>>> But you do, just like in your "discussion" (do note the quotes) >>> with Doug. (you know, the usual, ad hom, name-calling, bit)
>> I'm sure you see the world that way as well.
> That you pretend you can't ... doesn't really surprise me. But I > wouldn't expect any more from you, because that would > require some integrity.
Bill, you're perpetuating the conclusion that most have reached about you with these very bizarre responses. Do you always have such difficulty with focus?
> -- >> NOTICE: >> Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a >> useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken >> seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any >> reasons.
> Exactly.
-- NOTICE: I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. I never assume that there’s any more to a story than what I have read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them under any circumstances.
>>>>>> Some projection noted there? (actually, that's not a question)
>>>>> Case made, case closed. Thanks.
>>>> You mean you acknowledge it? OK, then we're making progress.
>>> I'm sure you took it that way.
>>>>>> Perhaps you should look at your own actions, or are you >>>>>> afraid to?
>>>>> If I were the one begging people to respond to nonsense, you'd >>>>> have a point.
>> But you do. Evidently you "can't" see it. That's too bad...
> TRY to keep up. You're responding to my commne two posts ago. I > know this is a liitle bit too fast for you, but do try.
I know, I know, it's a bit hard for you to handle. I'll try to take that into consideration.
>>>> But you do, just like in your "discussion" (do note the quotes) >>>> with Doug. (you know, the usual, ad hom, name-calling, bit)
>>> I'm sure you see the world that way as well.
>> That you pretend you can't ... doesn't really surprise me. But I >> wouldn't expect any more from you, because that would >> require some integrity.
> Bill, you're perpetuating the conclusion that most have reached > about you with these very bizarre responses. Do you always have > such difficulty with focus?
LOL. I can see quite clearly..... Perhaps you need to brush off those spectacles?
>> -- >>> NOTICE: >>> Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a >>> useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken >>> seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any >>> reasons.
>> Exactly.
> -- > NOTICE: > I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than > a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. > Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a > useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken > seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. > I never assume that there's any more to a story than what I have > read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted > anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant > layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them > under any circumstances.
>>>>>>> Some projection noted there? (actually, that's not a >>>>>>> question)
>>>>>> Case made, case closed. Thanks.
>>>>> You mean you acknowledge it? OK, then we're making >>>>> progress.
>>>> I'm sure you took it that way.
>>>>>>> Perhaps you should look at your own actions, or are you >>>>>>> afraid to?
>>>>>> If I were the one begging people to respond to nonsense, >>>>>> you'd have a point.
>>> But you do. Evidently you "can't" see it. That's too bad...
>> TRY to keep up. You're responding to my commne two posts ago. I >> know this is a liitle bit too fast for you, but do try.
> I know, I know, it's a bit hard for you to handle. I'll try > to take that into consideration.
>>>>> But you do, just like in your "discussion" (do note the >>>>> quotes) with Doug. (you know, the usual, ad hom, >>>>> name-calling, bit)
>>>> I'm sure you see the world that way as well.
>>> That you pretend you can't ... doesn't really surprise me. But >>> I wouldn't expect any more from you, because that would >>> require some integrity.
>> Bill, you're perpetuating the conclusion that most have reached >> about you with these very bizarre responses. Do you always have >> such difficulty with focus?
> LOL. I can see quite clearly.....
I have no doubt that you think that you can, but look inward, grasshopper, and the truth will set you free. -- NOTICE: I treat everything which anyone posts in Usenet as nothing more than a work of fiction with no basis in fact or reality whatsoever. Every comment in every one of my posts is nothing more than a useless opinion or a wild speculation, and must never be taken seriously or as having any positive value to anyone for any reasons. I never assume that there’s any more to a story than what I have read, no matter what else the author or anyone else may have posted anywhere. Be advised that my remarks are that of an ignorant layperson, and no one should ever base their decisions upon them under any circumstances.
|
