Woody Woodpecker goes McCain

[ajmccarrell]

Just had to post this to see how long it would take for someone to insult me.

A lot of you are incapable of engaging the issues I bring up or citing your own facts and figures to challenge anything I have said. Nobody seems to be able to pick up a book and challenge a darn thing I said using an actual academic source. Nope, reading cures liberal ideas, so you have to stay as far away from that activity as possible.

I also think anyone that brings up psychotropic drugs in their posts is on them, as anyone who isn't on them wouldn't just jump to accusing someone else of mental illness because I don't think like you. It seems you have me on the brain at all times, and you must think about me constantly, maybe that's why people take them.

No one yet has addressed any issues, just me!

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I also think anyone that brings up psychotropic drugs in their posts is on them, as anyone who isn't on them wouldn't just jump to accusing someone else of mental illness because I don't think like you. It seems you have me on the brain at all times, and you must think about me constantly, maybe that's why people take them.

No one yet has addressed any issues, just me!

Well in my case I'm a psychiatric nurse so psychotropic drugs are a big part of my work.I do see some grandiosity and borderline personality d/o features in your behavior on here ie. the absusive rants followed by some contrition and no I don't have you on the brain at all times ..I am having a little trouble with this Palin b*tch getting getting in there though.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Well in my case I'm a psychiatric nurse so psychotropic drugs are a big part of my work.I do see some grandiosity and borderline personality d/o features in your behavior on here ie. the absusive rants followed by some contrition and no I don't have you on the brain at all times ..I am having a little trouble with this Palin b*tch getting getting in there though.

Okay, well that explains that. I apologize to try to cool the situation down because at times it clearly gets out of control, not because I feel particularly bad. I am typically sitting here grumbing about stupid people in the world.

Grandiosity is a problem. I have a big ego and I know that. You may notice that people who become doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc do have a tendency towards narcissism, otherwise they wouldn't do what they do. Same thing here, I've always been an overachiever. However it is made worse because people challenge things such as my intelligence, qualifications, station in life and even my sanity because I disagree. You'd see a lot less of it if you would just assume that I'm not lying. I'll tell you a little something that might put it in perspective for you. I think I've mentioned before that my mom had been married about 6 times. During the divorce from my actual father, she claimed that I was "special needs" during the divorce because I had been molested, for the sole purpose of collecting more child support. So, for a while I grew up thinking that was actually the case, and I found out later that it was all just a tactic. So there was a little munchausen's going on there, so when people call me stupid or crazy, etc, it brings up a little bit more of the resentment and anger I felt at having been lied to and how inadequate I felt in being "the handicapped kid", when it turns out it was all a scam so that my mom didn't have to get a job. Trying so hard to accomplish things in life (IE music, a masters degree, being successful, for a while dating the prettiest girls I could find, etc.) in a very short period of time was my way of overcoming some of the feelings of inadequacy that I grew up feeling. So, I gave you a huge vulnerable spot here, so don't misuse it okay? You might find that I'm actually a very nice guy, if not still very arrogant, if we'd stop screaming at one another. I do actually think I'm always right.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Okay, well that explains that. I apologize to try to cool the situation down because at times it clearly gets out of control, not because I feel particularly bad. I am typically sitting here grumbing about stupid people in the world.

Grandiosity is a problem. I have a big ego and I know that. You may notice that people who become doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc do have a tendency towards narcissism, otherwise they wouldn't do what they do. Same thing here, I've always been an overachiever. However it is made worse because people challenge things such as my intelligence, qualifications, station in life and even my sanity because I disagree. You'd see a lot less of it if you would just assume that I'm not lying. I'll tell you a little something that might put it in perspective for you. I think I've mentioned before that my mom had been married about 6 times. During the divorce from my actual father, she claimed that I was "special needs" during the divorce because I had been molested, for the sole purpose of collecting more child support. So, for a while I grew up thinking that was actually the case, and I found out later that it was all just a tactic. So there was a little munchausen's going on there, so when people call me stupid or crazy, etc, it brings up a little bit more of the resentment and anger I felt at having been lied to and how inadequate I felt in being "the handicapped kid", when it turns out it was all a scam so that my mom didn't have to get a job. Trying so hard to accomplish things in life (IE music, a masters degree, being successful, for a while dating the prettiest girls I could find, etc.) in a very short period of time was my way of overcoming some of the feelings of inadequacy that I grew up feeling. So, I gave you a huge vulnerable spot here, so don't misuse it okay? You might find that I'm actually a very nice guy, if not still very arrogant, if we'd stop screaming at one another. I do actually think I'm always right.

Well this does help explain some things but until you overcome that always thinking your're right you will continue to have problems interacting with others.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Well this does help explain some things but until you overcome that always thinking your're right you will continue to have problems interacting with others.

Tue, but I've never really cared that much about what other people thought, just whether or not I thought there was truth in anything they said about my failings. I'm friendly enough, but I don't require the company of others. Most of the time, I'd rather be left to myself.

On edit: To this day, the family I left will not acknowledge that I've actually accomplished the things I have. I sent a copy of my CD, news about my career, my wife and son, what I was doing ediucationally, etc. I got back some psycho response about how it was that my mom was somehow responsible for all of it, and that I was steeped in sin and was running away from God, if any of it was true. I still believe in God, I just don't think my mother is God or in any way represents God. So, if someone thinks I'm lying about qualifications, there is an open scab there. I'm not lying about any of it and I'm not someone who makes a habit of lying.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Just had to post this to see how long it would take for someone to insult me.

A lot of you are incapable of engaging the issues I bring up or citing your own facts and figures to challenge anything I have said. Nobody seems to be able to pick up a book and challenge a darn thing I said using an actual academic source. Nope, reading cures liberal ideas, so you have to stay as far away from that activity as possible.

I also think anyone that brings up psychotropic drugs in their posts is on them, as anyone who isn't on them wouldn't just jump to accusing someone else of mental illness because I don't think like you. It seems you have me on the brain at all times, and you must think about me constantly, maybe that's why people take them.

No one yet has addressed any issues, just me!

Once again, you fail to see that you are causing people to react this way. N o one attacked you first to any relevant degree. They pretty much merely dared to diagree with you mostly by stating the facts.

When you tell people that they are uneducated, ignorant, etc. It make you look off your rocker.

Moverover and despite the personal insults, you rarely actually address the issue at hand. Instead, you bring up some irrelevant point and try to use that against the main point. An example is the Palin troopergate issue. You asserted that because the fired person was a jerk, Palin was justified in firing him. This is incorrect because although the guy could have been a jerk, that dos not excuse Palin from refusing to cooperate in an investigation she agreed to cooperate with. In other words, what is wrong with getting all the facts out there as she initially said she would do? The answer is she knows some of the facts will be damning for her (as her personal advisor - the former US Attorney - told her) and the RNC cannot have that. So, in typical fashion, they attack the alleged victim and you follow suit and expect people with knowledge of the facts to applaud you for this irrlevant argument. Then, when people call you on it, you at like an snotty nose three year old who spilled his juice

In the end, I submit the thing you call ego is really hubris.

Note - I think this is mostly caused by your age. Everyone has lots of hubris when they are young It is quite a shock when you get a little older and realize you are not all that. At least it was for me.

[GoldDustOrphan]

I will not insult you if you answer the following question correctly.

Who is prettier...Stevie or Christine?


(The Ledge is getting so serious. I feel like Mick during the Rumours sessions: hoping and praying the fighting will end so I can get back to the business at hand - getting my shot with Stevie.)

[Stephanie]

Originally Posted by GoldDustOrphan

I will not insult you if you answer the following question correctly.

Who is prettier...Stevie or Christine?


(The Ledge is getting so serious. I feel like Mick during the Rumours sessions: hoping and praying the fighting will end so I can get back to the business at hand - getting my shot with Stevie.)

yes-the REAL issues! Like is Fleetwood Mac really getting a tour up for next summer, and when will Stevie do another AHI fundraiser. These are what the people want!

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by Stephanie

yes-the REAL issues! Like is Fleetwood Mac really getting a tour up for next summer, and when will Stevie do another AHI fundraiser. These are what the people want!

Well there are other forums for those things?

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, you fail to see that you are causing people to react this way. N o one attacked you first to any relevant degree. They pretty much merely dared to diagree with you mostly by stating the facts.



Note - I think this is mostly caused by your age. Everyone has lots of hubris when they are young It is quite a shock when you get a little older and realize you are not all that. At least it was for me.

Yeah ..when I actually defended him over on the Lindsey forum I pointed out that one of the things he needed was some life under his belt..He has been pretty honest about his childhood and how religious cults can really **** someone up and cause some serious self esteem issues so I'm more willing in light of that to cut him some slack.I have had similar things in my past that allow me to empathize with that although I dealt with it in a completely different manner.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Yeah ..when I actually defended him over on the Lindsey forum I pointed out that one of the things he needed was some life under his belt..He has been pretty honest about his childhood and how religious cults can really **** someone up and cause some serious self esteem issues so I'm more willing in light of that to cut him some slack.I have had similar things in my past that allow me to empathize with that although I dealt with it in a completely different manner.

I agree and like AJ. I have told him so publicly and privately. I just took adcantage of you all's introspection to point out in a non finger snapping, matter of fact way why I thought his bringing irrelevant stuff into arguments was BS, etc.

In the end, I think he is a formidable intellect when focused

Note - I am far from perfect and have focusing issues as well.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Once again, you fail to see that you are causing people to react this way. N o one attacked you first to any relevant degree. They pretty much merely dared to diagree with you mostly by stating the facts.

When you tell people that they are uneducated, ignorant, etc. It make you look off your rocker.

Moverover and despite the personal insults, you rarely actually address the issue at hand. Instead, you bring up some irrelevant point and try to use that against the main point. An example is the Palin troopergate issue. You asserted that because the fired person was a jerk, Palin was justified in firing him. This is incorrect because although the guy could have been a jerk, that dos not excuse Palin from refusing to cooperate in an investigation she agreed to cooperate with. In other words, what is wrong with getting all the facts out there as she initially said she would do? The answer is she knows some of the facts will be damning for her (as her personal advisor - the former US Attorney - told her) and the RNC cannot have that. So, in typical fashion, they attack the alleged victim and you follow suit and expect people with knowledge of the facts to applaud you for this irrlevant argument. Then, when people call you on it, you at like an snotty nose three year old who spilled his juice

In the end, I submit the thing you call ego is really hubris.

Note - I think this is mostly caused by your age. Everyone has lots of hubris when they are young It is quite a shock when you get a little older and realize you are not all that. At least it was for me.

Well, you and I disagree on what "facts" are. It seems what passes for them around here is often made up figures and half truths with no actual academic source. I typically have addressed the source, issue, but I usually get ignored or attacked personally when I do. A perfect example is the post about the census figures and the tax system, no one could really shoot down my argument, I just got a lot of crap and personal attacks. I do have to disagree on something else too, which is that I grew an ego. I actually used to have VERY low self-esteem, as part of the general control that was used in making me compliant to the cult system, and it actually grew over the last few years as I got more life experience and actual accomplishments under my belt. Prior to that, i had no aspirations that I was or would be anything at all. I just write off your opinion there to the fact that it's nearly impossible to know someone online, especially when the topics are as contentious as they are here. It tends to bring out the worst in people. Thanks for the compliments overall though.

To answer the other guys question, I've always found Christine more attractive, honestly. I think she's a much more well rounded person and genuinely more interesting. Stevie has come off to me as fickle, shallow and self-indulgent. Looks aren't that important to me.

[strandinthewind]

No, you admitted here " [g]randiosity is a problem. I have a big ego and I know that." Then you said "You might find that I'm actually a very nice guy, if not still very arrogant." You have also specifically stated you have a large ego elsewhere on this board. All of this directly negates your statment "I do have to disagree on something else too, which is that I grew an ego." It also fully supports my use of the word hubris and IMO my self learned theory that hubris tends to lessen with lefe's lessons discovered only through aging.

As for it is difficult to get to know someone online, I agree with this. However, calling people idiots, saying they are uneducated, etc. when they question you is, at the least, not going to make anyone want to get to know you. Try this instead, when someone argues with what you said, rebut them with facts and leave out the education comments. Or, use the theories in the classes you took and apply them to support your argument. An example of this is:

The Keynesian economic system argues that aggregate demand is influenced by many economic decisions (both public and private) which sometimes behaves erratically. In the instant argument, this suggests . . . . I do not believe this because the other economic theories like X, Y, and Z state . . . . Therefore, I think your argument is incorrect.

This is wildly better than saying if you'd ever taken economics 101, you would not be such an idiot. People likely will engage you on the former with a rational response. The latter will get you an insult back

Also, humor sarcasm can be inserted, but direct insults are different.

Finally, the ignore feature is a powerful tool.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Well, you and I disagree on what "facts" are . . . .

No. You are incorrect and I suspect you know that. Facts are facts. Again, when presented with the facts in the troopergate example above, you ignored them and presented an attack the alleged victim argument. You have yet to address the relevant facts in that situation. Instead you stated and insulted:

I guess this guys firing MUST be improper because Palin, a Republican (term used as substitute for Nazi around here) fired him. Where are the feminists? They're actually attacking Palin for firing this creep. Read the REAL troopergate story above. I doubt it will change anyone's mind around here, because the people here don't like to have their opinions challenged with facts. It just confuses them.

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=37419

Again, which relevant facts were you cahallenging before implying that everyone here is a confused idiot?

Try addressing the actual, relevant facts and then people might not take such offense.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No. You are incorrect and I suspect you know that. Facts are facts. Again, when presented with the facts in the troopergate example above, you ignored them and presented an attack the alleged victim argument. You have yet to address the relevant facts in that situation. Instead you stated and insulted:



http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=37419

Again, which relevant facts were you cahallenging before implying that everyone here is a confused idiot?

Try addressing the actual, relevant facts and then people might not take such offense.

I disagree with your last statement. You and others will find a way to be offended and make any post or position all about me no matter what is said.

Okay, no evidence has been suggested as credible that the commissioner was fired because of the trooper. Any news report I have seen says that the commissioner also disagreed that he was fired for that reason. He stated that he felt pressure, but not directly from Palin. I believe Palin had an absolute right to fire the guy FOR not firing the trooper, even if this were true. Palin had reason to believe that the trooper was a real creep and that he shouldn't be on the force. The commissioner had no business being in public office, unless somehow the charges against him involving his wife were not true, or that he had talen appropriate steps such as counseling to ensure such outbursts would never occur again. I am well aware that a lot of women lie about things like this and that I shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that it had happened, but there appears to be no statement from the commissioner contradicting the report. Also, the police ARE a good 'ole boys club and too often bad cops are allowed to remain on the beat. I think the whole charge is a political witchhunt, where even if the allegations were true, it's a very small issue that doesn't really deserve the kind of attention it is getting. If I were in her shoes, I probably would have done a lot more. I support her decisions to dodge the investigation at this point because it has certainly become something very different than it was at the time she said essentially "bring it on". Also considering the statements of one of the members of the state senate committee that he intended the results to be an "October Surprise", it is no longer an investigation about her actions, but it has morphed into some kind of Kenneth Starr like investigation meant to bring down a politician more than find any truth in a possible misconduct investigation. The investigation has become politicised on a national level and in no way bears any resemblance to what it started out as being.

Happy now?!