Re: Sublimation - Ego defense mechanism

John M Price PhD wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>> John M Price PhD wrote:
>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>> Rolf Marvin B?e Lindgren wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ... But psychoanalysts don't seem to be very active neither
>>>>> on News nor on the web...
>>>>
>>>> How could we make this a more inclusive forum?
>>>
>>> The issue isn't the forum.
>>
>> What's the issue?
>
> You seem to think the forum is not inclusive.

I look at the evidence. A typical thread includes the same three or four
voices, with an occasional lurker joining in, and you shouting abuse. We
could achieve so much more.

>>> (You've obviously avoided anything like looking up past posts
>>> in the 'forum'.)
>
>>I don't get it - how would that answer my question?
>
> Listen, Wilba, you come in here a bloody newbie, now complaining
> that you don't see psychoanalysis, and hence the forum isn't inclusive
> enough.

You're fantasising again John. If you switch off your unconditional negative
regard for a moment you might hear what I actually say.

You didn't come here as a newbie? You joined as a fully-formed long-term
participant? How long do you have participate to no longer be a newbie?

> If you had a damn clue, or even understood the ramifications of usenet
> etiquette, you would have posed that as a question, rather than an implied
> accusation, or, posed the question to the archives of the group at google.
> (You can use google, can't you?)

What's "that"? I'm not with you.

> If you had actually done that you would have seen that there have been
> many, many conversations regarding psychoanalysis. Hence, you premis
> of an uninclusive forum is flat falsified (like that, newbie?).

You seem to be really hung up on psychoanalysis. If I had wanted to see more
discussion of psychoanalysis specifically I would have said so.

> It would really be appreciated if, in future, that you realize this group
> has been here before you. Maybe you could read what went on without
> your presence.

Maybe you could read what I write rather than attacking bizarre fantasies of
what I intend...?

>> I can't see how what you said has anything to do with making this a
>> more inclusive forum,
>
> Not my job. If someone wants to post, they very well should post. I am
> not going to go about beating the bushes. That is not what usenet is all
> about.

So you want this to be a _less_ inclusive forum? Or just to distract us from
the actual question?

>> except that you seem to be saying that anyone with a
>> psychoanalytic bent should be excluded by definition.
>
> Oh bull***. Just why do you have such a negative attitude? Here, a
> negative attitude based solely on your flat out ignorance of what's gone
> before.

How is what has gone on before I got here relevant to what is happening now?
(Remember, I'm not talking about a lack of psychoanalytic content, but about
the purpose of the forum.)

You said, "Psychoanalysts ... are a vapid bunch, not a real grasp of
evidence. They cannot see the problems with their hermeneutic approach. ...
Recall that this is in the science hierarchy. Psychoanalysis is 1) not a
science, 2) not psychology ..." How is that not a statement that
psychoanalytic perspectives should be excluded?

> Sheesh. Did you even ever get through a college course?

Over here you live in a "college" and study at a university. :-)



'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated is a moderated newsgroup.
Before submitting an article, please read the guidelines which are posted
here bimonthly or the charter on the Web at http://psychcentral.com/sppm/
Submissions are acknowledged automatically.
.