Re: An answer to Kelly's false psychology and (more importantly) false theology

On Nov 9, 3:55 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-11-09, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 9, 11:41 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not unreasonably.  I have never once seen you admit to having been
wrong on any claim.  You never admit to having been mean, or even
rude, you never admit to having misunderstood things... I've never
seen any kind of capacity for admission of error on your part.
You are a fool to judge these things from the
shadow world of usenet.

I would be a fool to claim certainty of them, perhaps, but not to form
an initial hypothesis.

You need face-to-face
interaction in order to play psychiatrist.  And,
even at that, you would have to be psychiatrically
trained, not in drug treatment (as so many are), but in the
dynamics of abnormal psychology.

Conveniently, that's where my degree is.  My specialty was cognitive
psychology, and I have an actual degree in it.  :)

To review, I denied Kelly's false pschology that
she falsely attributes to me.  IOW Kelly is untruthful
and should apologize.

Well, you're pretty much supporting her claim, though, at this point.
Again, no matter who is talking, no matter what they say, if you think
there is a fault, you always think it is someone else being wrong.

Never you.

Isn't that sort of weird?  Ordinary people are wrong pretty often; they
end up making mistakes several times a day, usually, and apologizing at
least once or twice a day.  When I talk to people other than you on
Usenet, my expectation is that I will apologize to them, and they to me,
for various errors.  This happens so frequently as to be completely
unremarkable.

And yet, here you are, completely dominating a newsgroup with your posts,
and I've never, ever, seen you apologize.  When this is pointed out, rather
than pointing to an example (if you asked me to do it, it'd take me maybe
five minutes), you simply make a handful of only tangentially related
assertions, then insist that there is fault, but that it lies exclusively
with someone else.

Reality is:  No one can make a clinical diagnosis based on situations like
this, but then, no one's claiming to.  No one's claiming that you should be
entitled to disability payments based on an over-the-internet diagnosis.  No
one's claiming that you should be institutionalized with or without your
consent.  No, all that's happened is that people have pointed out a pattern
of your behavior which, if we accept it as an explanation and model, allows
us to predict your future behavior.


The foundation for your thoughts and observations
on these matters is wanting. You should be open
to the possibility that you are wrong. Further, it
is not for you to judge others lest others judge you,
according to a teaching of Jesus Christ. IOW I
recommend that you restrain yourself.

Instead of there being another fruitless SRQ sequence
wherein you attack me further in violation of the common
gentlemanly code of behaviour, I have a constructive
proposal for you.

Suggest to me a topic of quakerism that we can discuss.

David Christainsen



.

Relevant Pages