Re: Psychology at work: How the Bunny-Boiler boils her bunnies - A must see event...

["Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thou jigging fool. Thou
cankerous, dissembling smooth-pate. Ye squeaked:

> "Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:sjb53.8qa.17.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thou podgy dunce. Thou
>> pox-marked mannish coward. Ye gnashed:
>>
>>> "DaRkAnGeL" <chaos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:f0k101$glh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> <to any reader>
>> If you are interested in psychology, this is truly awesome stuff.
>> Watch very carefully. There is no snippage from this point on to then
>> end of the bunny-boiler's mind-magick trick being exposed here:
>>
>>> And from my point of view, in the absence of the pressure, we'd be
>>> fine, I'd be working and we'd be planning my move to Australia.
>>
>> [^] Take note of the explicit notion of pressure.
>>
>>>> So, as stupid as it sounds, it seems as though (and again, I don't
>>>> have all the facts - I have everyone's perception of the facts,
>>>> motivations, and desires - which is all any of you have as well) if
>>>> you two could just bloody well forgive each other, you might have a
>>>> shot at
>>>> reclaiming that love!! At the very least, you could stop giving
>>>> each other black eyes on a daily basis.
>>>
>>> Well, DA, when I was 15, my father beat my face into a hardwood
>>> floor, because I told my sister to stay out of my belongings--a
>>> typical sibling situation met with violence.
>>>
>>> I stood up to him. I talked to the social worker at my school, and I
>>> was removed from my home to foster care. Although the beating was
>>> only the tip of the iceberg, it was sufficient to get me out of the
>>> situation.
>>
>> [^] Step 1. Go back in time to a horrible event. Evoke highly emotive
>>            images from said event.
>>
>>> Since then, I have never hesitated to stand up to anyone who
>>> attempts to control me by force.
>>
>> [^] Step 2. Surreptitiously discard the previous notion of "pressure"
>>            and introduce the emotively harsher notion of "control by
>>            force."
>>
>>> I'll do almost anything for love, if I'm asked, but I won't be
>>> subjected to force.
>>
>> [^] Step 3. Conflate the ideas at 1. & 2. and drag the now
>>            transmogrified idea across the intervening time spam and
>>            apply it to the here and now.
>>
>> [^] There are two sleights of hand in the entire mind-magick
>> operation. Step 3 is where the *first* Svengali manoeuvre is actually
>> hidden; the mind image at 1 is from the distant past and not related
>> to the present in any way, yet the past is now neatly wrapped up in a
>> reference to the present at 2 (qv "Since then"), and 2 is the notion
>> that carries the now greatly amplified punch that is inherent in the
>> change of the idea of "pressure" into "control by force."
>
> You never hit me. You never hurt me physically. Our relationship had
> many, many good parts, which my relationship with my father lacked.

Q1: What point are you actually attempting to address?

Q2: In relation to the point you are addressing, your response means what?

> The illustration was about standing up to those who believe they can
> control me.

That only describes what any sentient being ought reasonably be expected to
conclude when reading that you "have never hesitated to stand up to anyone
who attempts to control [you] by force."

Please try again by identifying then addressing a point, directly,
succinctly and unambiguously.

> The means of control is not relevant. The idea of control--by any
> means--is relevant.

It remains quite relevant that you need to address the points
regarding your alteration of the notion of "pressure" into "control
by force".

Please try again.

> You were not in a position to force me to do anything by physical
> means, but you did pressure me relentlessly, and that pressure had
> enormous emotional force, because I loved you and wanted to spend the
> rest of my life with you.

Q3: What point are you actually attempting to address?

Q4: Denials of physical force have what to do with the point you are
addressing?

Q5: Assertions of relentless pressure have what to do with the point you are
addressing?

Q6: What does anything else written in your paragraph there have to do with
the point you are addressing?

Also note that the modified notion of "pressure" into "control by force" has
now been downgraded to "enormous emotional force". Please stay with your
original change of notion from "pressure" into "control by force".

So far you have made at least 5 major assertions and an uncounted number of
minor assertions without addressing a single point in the argument; not a
solitary one.

>>> In the case of Rick and me, on top of all the other force,
>>
>> [^] Step 4: Thus both the real history and the very presence in the
>> here and now of the current event are altered by the history of the
>> other unrelated event. What remains is an implicit damning accusation
>> that is dropped at the feet of the unsuspecting reader that is
>> reinforced with the now altered idea of "additional force", (qv "on
>> top of all the other force", note that "all the other force" is
>> completely undefined; it is nebulous and inherently all
>> encompassing.)
>>> there was this at the very end:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.psychology.psychotherapy/msg/c3777625043aab93
>>
>> [^] Step 5: This is the *second* Svengali manoeuvre. While the
>> reader's head is busy dealing and coping with the horrible scenery in
>> the mind image of emotional and physical abuse, the reader's
>> attention is immediately taken from the bombshell that was just
>> dropped and it is focused firmly on yet another event.
>>
>> The switch is very quick and the presumably horrified reader has
>> likely not seen the *first* switch at all. Thus while still reeling
>> from taking in the devastation of the first mind image, and not
>> having time to inspect the whole process for soundness, the implicit
>> damning accusation is left to set like jello in the unsuspecting
>> reader's mind. In short, a "fact" has been created from two
>> independent ideas and the unwitting mind is left to assume a fact.
>
> There is no "switch." The fact is that you pressured me, and you used
> a number of means to do so. And when you could no longer harangue me
> in email, you brought it here.

You will note that your assertions do not address the point at all. You
cannot assert that there was no switch because you have not addressed a
single point that supports the assertion there was a switch. HTH.

>> <bows to audience>
>>
>> Now for the encore... major snippage below; the context is not
>> relevant.
>
> Context is always relevant.

That can be true, based on the context. Equally, it can be false, based on
the context. A basic principle of the English language is that sentences
stand on their own for meaning, thus by applying that to the statement,
"The perception you have never happened, just FYI", it necessarily follows
that the assertion at Step 6., which you did not address at all, let alone
address indirectly, stands intact and uncontested, original context or not.

That aside, you may take the words "the context is not relevant" to mean
"the original context has been stripped and another fitting, plausible
context has been substituted."

You may now proceed to address the original point, not any new point
arising from new words.

>> What is relevent is the impact of the statements and their
>> implicit intent in light of the mind-magick trick exposed above:
>
> No. What matters is the statements in the context they were made.

See above. The point remains that the substituted context is plausible given
all the other points, of which you have yet to address a single one.

>>> You have this almost exactly the opposite of what it was
>>
>>> The perception you have never happened, just FYI.
>>
>> [^] Step 6: Question the reader's perceptions just in case the tricks
>> from Step 1 to Step 5 are being quietly churned over and analysed in
>> the back of the horrified reader's mind.
>>
>> <bow>
>>
>> "The emperor has no clothes."
>
> I always liked you naked.

Q7: That has what do with the point you are addressing?

The point in the text is that your devices have been laid bare and that you
are now metaphorically naked. The point does not relate to anyone else or
to anying else at all. Please try again and address the point.

Your reply was a very impressive, large-scale failure to address a single
point, not a one.

Please address your comments only to the points that need to be dealt with.
Also please try to respond logically and thoughtfully, without recourse to
emotive rhetorical devices and sophistry.

Now, your undivided, unemotional attention is also needed on this:

[1]:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.psychology.psychotherapy/msg/c3777625043aab93

That is the link you provided above, which was labelled as being the "second
Svengali trick." The date on the linked post to is 08 Apr 2007. The message
ID of the post you are replying to is [2] news:sjb53.8qa.17.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
and the date on that post is yesterday, 25 Apr 2007. There are 17 days
between those two posts.

Correct? Yes? No? Correct, yes.

The description at [1] accurately defines the very same behaviour that
is described at [2], a full 17 days before the behaviour at [2] was
exhibited in public, witnessed in public and described in public.

How do you account for the verifiable fact that [1] is a wholly accurate
apprehension and representation of [2], a full 17 days before [2] took
place?

You may assume a rejection of any and all notions about psychics who
make verifiably 100% accurate predictions of the future. It necessarily
follows then that it is reasonable to posit that the correct response
is that your behaviour follows a distinct, identifiable, wholly
predictable pattern;

A) A pattern that you repeatedly assert does not exist.

B) A pattern that you repeatedly execute.

C) A pattern that can be described and has been predicted on at least
   three other occasions with verifiable 100% accuracy.

D) A pattern that been witnessed and is likely to be identified
   as a pattern by others.

Please explain.

C) relates to several other 100% accurate declarations of your future
behaviour that are recorded on google; Two of the three instances
referenced at C) stand out in particular as being just as exemplary
as [1] is to [2] above.

Normally links would be provided but you already replied to the posts and
avoided the very same point entirely viz. your behaviour constitutes a
distinct and wholly predictable pattern - there is no reason to let you
have another go at avoiding the point again so no links will be given.

As an aside that needs not be addressed, it is time to reassert that if
there is even a shred of merit in what is being said here then your
"five months of written evidence" are your ticket to some very serious
trouble in relation to online stalking and harrassment, and perhaps
even, depending on what you have told Michael Cranston et al in writing,
libel.

Given that, it is vital that you deal logically and unemotionally with
each and every point that, when taken together, assert that a pattern
does exist, despite your continued objections to the contrary.

Considering that you appear to be in such an appalling position, you
might consider if it is worthwhile asking your lawyer if a court may
interpret written material in light of a clearly established pattern of
behaviour.

--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
    Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
    Usenet Ruiner Lits
    Top Assholes on the Net Lits
    Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits

"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jij prachtige alpine zaadvreter.