Date: Mon 02 Dec 2002 - 01:29:26 GMT
> > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:26:13 -0800
> > From: Jon Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >Tsk, tsk, Joe. I can see that you haven't read any of my postings
> > >on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute during the last year plus....
> > >
> > >Anti-American? How little you understand! And how little you
> > >know!
> > >
> > >People on the list do tend to need to counter your diatribes by
> > >reminding (or trying to remind you) of the flip side to your
> > >arguments, so it is
> > >true that we end up presenting a litany of facts and concepts that
> > >try to correct the imbalance we perceive in your views. But we
> > >have never had a real discussion with you about the US and its
> > >foreign policy, Muslims, Arabs, Jews, Israel or Palestine, because
> > >instead of a real discussion,
> > >get in to futile efforts to break through your prejudices and
> > >anger, as
> > >do to pound your views into us.
> > >
> > >I am told that you have been kicked off another list (CoV), and
> > >warned on
> > >least one other, not because of the substance of your views but
> > >because
> > >the way you behave on the list. I do find that it makes true
> > >discussion quite difficult and wastes a huge amount of time of
> > >people who otherwise have a lot to offer each other and learn from
> > >each other.
> > >
> > >There are a lot of interesting things that we should be discussing,
> > >and
> > >need to find a way to do it without your impeding the process.
> > >
> > >My hope, Joe, is that we can let this calm down, and that you can
> > >the effect you have on the list's interactions, and find some way
> > >to
> > >more effective for both yourself and the rest of us on this list.
> > Hate to say this Larry but you seem to be the one that has the
> > problem here, not Joe, whose only issue seems to be that he has too
> > much time on his hands and thus posts an extraordinary amount of
> > stuff. It's not a crime to be opinionated or to argue vehemently,
> > which is what he seems to do. But I do take issue with the fact that
> > you only engage in ad hominem attacks and avoid any direct
> > engagement of the points he makes. All it does is make you look bad,
> > not him.
> How long have you been on this list, Jon? As I wrote last week,
> Lawrence is merely articulating what most of us who've been here
> awhile know perfectly well. Nothing ad hominem to it-- which is Joe's
> specialty-- just constructive criticism. Lawry's only error is to
> hope that Joe can reform in some way and become a responsible member
> of the list. Not gonna happen. Joe is the Darth Vader of the memetics
> list. The psychiatric term for his condition is antisocial
> personality disorder. Yes, there's a human being somewhere in there,
> and sometimes individuals with this condition do take off the helmet,
> so to speak, but it's very rare. Most sociopaths are stuck for life
> at the emotional maturity of a 6-year old, and Joe does not appear to
> be an exception. He's incapable of recognizing when he's wrong and
> often believes he's scored some kind of great rhetorical victory when
> all he's done is to repeat for the 50th time his unreflective views.
> It's a problem of the ego. "I'm right because I'm me." The reason he
> can't recognize Israel's slow-motion genocide against the Palestinian
> people is that he *identifies* with Israel. It's the pathological ego
> that makes people vulnerable to pathological memes, in this case the
> "Palestinians are evil terrorists" meme.
> As Lawrence wrote, Joe is an interesting case study. Indeed, he is
> highly useful to a memetics list. All pathological memes are
> functions of pathological egos, whether those egos exist at the level
> of the individual, as with Joe, or at the collective level, as with
> the United States or Israel.
> Many individuals diagnosable with a personality disorder exert a
> degree of "charm." The dark side certainly has an allure. It's
> always dangerous to expose a personality disorder, as people tend to
> side with the disturbed individual against those who would "attack"
> him. Unfortunately, you've demonstrated this tendency all too well.
Actually, and those who have been on this list for some time know this quite well (in fact, considering how long it went on, much too well), Ted has an undying grudge against me because I, along with some other list members, notable Wade Smith and Scott Chase, blunted his blindly memebotic attempt to inflict his own personal fantasy infection of Sheldrakean morphic resonance on this list as some kind of mystical gospel. This ad nauseum ad infinitum attempt, against all logic, reason and evidence, perdured for more than a year, and Ted is still nursing the wound that the rejection of his personal mental infestation by the list at large inflicted upon him, and a malevolent grudge against those whom he quite rightly sees as those who blew off such nonsensical absurdities with rational and irrefutable counterexamples and the exposure of his pet delusion's irresolveable self-contradictions. He continues to hold this grudge because he acolytically and emotionally invested his self-concept, self-esteem, and sense of self-worth in the transcendent and metaphysical truth of his fervent, zealous and fanatical belief in his chosen article of faith and its guru, The Holy Sheldrake and His Writ, and thus wrongly perceived the rejection of Sheldrake's pseudoscientific claptrap as personally ego-threatening. For this mortal sin, I will always be the Darth Vader in Ted's eyes; the Dark Icon of Pure and Ultimate Evil that prevented the questing flock from being indoctrinated in the True Dogma Of All Creation by the Enlightened One who had received the Divine Epiphany of the Faith, the Truth, and the Light. He must therefore forever Quixotically tilt at my windmills, ignoring the Sancho Panza of logic and evidence in the process, motivated by a simple and singleminded visceral animus. Because of this fatuous and vapid yet fanatical fixation, Ted indefatiguably engages in the psychological projection of ad hominem attacking me by illegitimately accusing me of ad hominem against others when I am discussing issues, not persons, by accusing me of being the rabid memebot that he has amply and abundantly demonstrated himself to be, and by generally projecting all of his many various and sundry psychological pathologies upon me, the person he has fixated upon as the agent of his personal destruction simply because I, along with others, tirelessly and conclusively refuted a quisireligious fantasy of his with which he has personally identified.
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 02 Dec 2002 - 01:31:28 GMT