From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Context/Style/Spelling 
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:40:23 GMT

stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes: >
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >>
>
>>However, these postings ARE a serious problem, and, IMO, likely THE problem
>>with the USA today.
>
>Yes- your posting are a serious problem, in many ways.  1) they lack continuity
>and context 2) spelling is not too great (I will assume keyboard fumbling)
>3) postings tend to twist and turn and attempt to build (create) relationships
>that are not completely valid.

You left out that they froth at the mouth.

>>Loosely called ACM, or anti-conceptual mentality, the ACM person is
>>incapable of treating the world as a unified whole. Instead, his/her
>>"rational process" consists of slogans, images, sound and video bites,
>>and a whole horde of imagery, devoid of any connetional rational underpinning.
>
>This appears to be you - let me support my observation.  You constantly
>resort to naming calling (slogans), use acronyms (sound/video bites), us
>old world thinking to support new world concepts (NAZI, commumist, socialist).

I second the motion.  Phil's description of ACM fits himself to a T.
Remember when he erred by referring to a NY Judge as a Democrat when
said judge was actually a Republican?  I pointed out the error, and
Phil said the REAL ISSUE was PC versus non-PC, rather than Demo vs
Repub.  All he sees is PC, PC, everywhere.  Hey, he was the one who
brought up the judge's party in tryin to make a point about Demos.

Phil's arguments go all over the place, but rarely do they stick to
the subject.  All rules for debate may be broken to make a point.
In this thread today, over a discussion of non-discrimination laws
in California, Phil switched context to the voters of Colorado and
claimed that the people had already spoken.  But they were different
people, in a different state.  This is a typical example of how
Phil argues.  Obviously he is unable to grasp a complex subject and
understand it all.

To Phil, the whole world is an unfathomable storm.  It is full of
feminazis, lesbicrats, and the destructors of FOA.  You are either
PC or non PC.  There is no middle ground.

Such a state of mind is a clear indicator of immature thinking.
What is most interesting is that Phil posts the ACM definition when
he is the best example of it.  There is a good explanation for this.
The thing a person hates most in others is usually their biggest
personal flaw.  Phil senses at some level that he can't follow a
real discussion; he flails out blindly; and he accuses one and all
of his biggest failing.

Let us all hope Phil gets some psychological help.  This is a man
who could easily end of on the Ten O'Clock News as a "Mad Gunman."

>>I see this over and over on the net -- a slogan here, name calling there,
>						       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
>>and an inability (or, perversely, a refusal) to treat the concepts
>>"presented" in an ACM post *as* a concept.
>>
>
>Whoa!!!  I had to mark out the above phrase- and to use an old slogan,
>"this is the pot calling the kettle black"...  You are the master of 
>name calling.

Yeah, I think Coram gets extra points for the Complex Beration that
Phil vented a few posts ago.  (Coram, you ARE playing Phil-O-Matic
with these posts, aren't you?)

>>I used to think these people were perverse -- now I believe that they are
>>sincere (mostly) and simply can not deal with connected concepts.
>
>Well then that is your mental failure, or inability to understand much
>of what other people present- becuase in general, if you do not agree
>with them, then it means you can block it out or degrade it.

Previous discussions with Phil have indicated he is incapable of
understanding that people have different experiences or beliefs
from his own.  Phil condemned the SCO secretaries for not taking
immediate action against their harasser.  In Phil's mind, since he
wouldn't put up with such behavior, these women deserved what they
got.  Again, this is a hallmark of arrested psychological development.
Phil has a mental outlook stuck around age four since he has no
evidence of empathy, a characteristic not seen until children reach
six or seven.

>>In any case, the above example is classic. It would be nice to debate with
>>"Coram Populo", but, damn it, he can't think his way out of a paper bag.
>
>>Nice enthusiam, but, gee whiz, his posts are an embarrasment.
>
>Are they?  Well I would stand way back and take a look at what you have 
>posted in the past, and just take a moment to think about how embrassing
>it might be for you.  I have read responses from other people to your
>posting- and I am afraid that they are not very positive in general, and
>alot of them, have to to style, not content.

But Phil must have everyone disagree with him.  That way he can tell
himself we dislike his opinions because they're un-PC.  Repeatedly
telling Phil that it his is debating style that people don't like is
a waste of bandwidth.

Note Phil's new .sig hits on an environmental hot button now that
we're bored with the anti-Clinton hit.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Disproof's uncouth, refuting moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.