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

[Henry Schmidt <schmitty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk <spunky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thou daw. Both like serpents are,
> who, though they feed on sweetest flowers, yet they poison breed. Ye
> nauseated:
>
>> All replies at the end.
>
> Real meaning: "I refuse to address any verifiable fact about my abhorrent
> behaviour."
>
>> "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.
>
> Your failure to address the facts of your contemptible behaviour is
> confirmation, yet again, that you believe someone other than you is
> responsible for what you have done. You have also confirmed, yet again, by
> denying that you have avoided anything, when the black and white fact is you
> avoided everything, that you believe it is anyone other than you who is in
> possession of a mind that misleads itself by way of deep self-deception.
>
>>> 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.
>
> That addresses nothing.
>
>>> 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.
>
> That also addresses none of the points that you failed address previously.
>
>>> 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.
>
> cf. possession of a mind that misleads itself by way of deep self-deception.
>
>> And my pattern of behavior is distinct,
>
> Yes, indeed it is; it is distinctly identifiable, distinctly predictable and
> it is also distinctly circular. Nevertheless, you have addressed nothing,
> again.
>
>> 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:
>
> That also addresses none of the points that you have failed to address so
> far.
>
>> 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."
>
> How unsurprising that you would attempt to use the most convenient excuse
> possible to avoid facing up to the truth of your wholly predictable, wholly
> circular and wholly damnable, vile behaviour.
>
>> <spits>
>
> <shrug>
>
> Prosecution rests.
>

Professional jealousy of Cranston again, eh?