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

["Rhonda Lea Kirk" <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All replies at the end.

"Kadaitcha Man" <nntp.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slt3k.meo.19.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.

I have avoided nothing.

> 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.

I eagerly await receipt of my ticket.

> 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.

No. It is not vital at all. See below.

> 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.

My position is not at all appalling. And my pattern of behavior is
distinct, as is yours. The entire post linked below is enlightening, but
the relevant
part I wish to highlight is this, because it is what you have tried to
do above, and in innumerable posts throughout the last two and one-half
weeks:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/590b43a50041a715

"I like to destroy the context and create a new, entirely different
context, then force an opponent to acknowledge that they created the
context and therefore their view is incorrect."

In addition, the following post is also relevant:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.windows-xp/msg/18db311a40184c30

"I don't give a shit what you look like or what you are or who you are
in real life - this is usenet and it is far from real life. Essentially
that means I will continue to do what I have done for more than one and
a half decades on usenet...

Serve up copious amounts of bullshit to anyone willing to swallow it."


<spits>

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle