| Chess One 2005-03-12, 9:50 pm |
|
"R.P. Warren" <HueyDuck@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1110671125.938218.221120@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Spam Scone wrote:
> at,
>
> 'Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not
> notice the log that is in your own eye?' Matthew 7:3.
>
> I definitely won't say there are no logs in my eyes, but I do think
> both Innes and Brennen have more than a small speck in their own, at
> least when they look at each other.
R. P Warren thinks that one thousand ad hominem off topic posts full of
deliberate lies and malice introduced by this lack-a-wit are the same as
sweet nothings? He merely establishes a standard for his own level of
discrimination, not unlike the new poster 'Geof' who might momentarily
witness what appears to be 'a spat."
R. P. Warren has not quite noticed previous posts by this confused man -
google his last hundred efforts and report back to us R. P. <wink> - a man
who delights in, among other things, calling people anti-Semites, as well as
regularly speculating on their nationality, native language, chessic skills,
sexuality and anything at all which appears to him as a possible means to
degrade them - this R. P., I hope you will note from your research is the
Constant Motif.
I repeat that the singular motive for such a massive and obsessive campaign
is a lack of self-esteem which is become chronic in its public
manifestation, so that other people must be reduced lower than one's image
of oneself in order to maintain any cogency and acceptance of one's
self-judgment. There is no other motive! None. There really is no other
motive why we should write hate material about other people, and it stems
from our fear - something in them provokes it in us, and we wish they did
not exist! Isn't that how it is?
I should note that this image of a hated-self is itself entirely false in
that it is based on a judgment received from outside and taken on without
discrimination as being a valid criteria. It is some opposite to a loving or
self-accepting appraisal.
There are several typical mechanisms by which this process becomes typical
in any subject - and the most obvious is from parental influence, but to
proscribe further would require specific information from the subject, and
besides, could not take place in public.
The condition is not so extreme as to promote it to an order of things
outside our ken, since indeed, it is a matter of degree only, and all men
[particularly] have it, as occasioned by our unacknowledged pain. Therefore,
it is no matter of shame, nor of isolation, and has a distinct cause and
potential remedy.
It is notable that the only persons this character attacks are people who
have achieved or know more than himself - it is either an attack or a
fawning brown-nosing approach, both consistently without any discrimination.
This is a rather generic clue, but again, who is immune to some level of it?
And only its chronic manifestation makes one 'nuts'.
That some dick with a PhD regularly does the same in another newsgroup, and
is obsessed to write thousands of abuse posts about one woman in
particular - to the degree that she speculates what he is doing under the
table as he writes - has undoubtedly influenced our subject here, who can
only generously be thought of having values of his own. He has not yet
discovered what one might call soul, or any values which would form his own
mind.
These are thereby borrowed or stolen [or resented, the same mechanism
really, except reversed] from those he perceives to have, and what he has
not. May he chose wisely! But better to chose himself than any outside Icon.
But should R. P. Warren prefer this sort of shit he would, one must suppose,
continue to encourage it by comparing it to other material here as exactly
equivalent. In which case I relieve him of further need to engage me in this
subject, since our means of estimating the worth of a variety of writing is
dissimilar.
Phil Innes
|