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

[Lionel <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:54:09 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
<spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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 avoid

Sweet, merciful lord - will this crap never cease?

--
   W  "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
 . | ,. w ,
  \|/  \|/              Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------