william.scherk

I defer to the fabulous film-making maniac Ken Russell. This is a scene from The Devils (ostensibly about group demonic possession in a nunnery in Loudon). It looks like what I imagine the neurologists did to the poor possessed gals in the dank suburbs of Rochester. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5SnTm1vBD0

I read into the book at the Amazon site ... and should mention that my light reading no longer extends to science fiction, thrillers or American Stalker type fiction. Michael Connelly I am a fan (Hieronymous "Harry" Bosch, LA detective/cop), Alex Patterson, meh ("He must find her killer before it's too late!") . It is really something that Hunter has sold 50,000 copies (and looks set to pay the bills for 2012). Congratulations to Bidinotto for that. I just do not think he should expect, nor fish for, Objectivish recommedations or reviews. I think he should cash his cheques, do a Happy Dance, and roll up the sleeves and crank out another Hunter book. He is doing Very Well, and needs no backup from the churls ... That said, although Robert mentions the faboulous 181 five-star reviews at Amazon, the fact remains that he has 25 one-star reviews. They are SCATHING (which of course does not matter in face of sales figures!). Here is a random sample of the book from the Kindle preview: Wonk leaned forward: the chair's metal legs creaked ominously. He couldn't bend more than a few inches, but his chubby arms somehow manage to reach past the curve of his belly to grip the green canvas bag at his feet. He lifted it laboriously and balanced it precariously on what little remained of his lap. Then he poked around inside and extracted three manila folers, held together by rubber bands. "Here they are," he said, panting from his heroic exertion. He pushed the folders across the desk. "All three files that you asked for." They bore official Department of Corrections stamps and labels. Hunter whistled softly. "Amazing. How did you manage to get your hands on all this stuff?" Wonk looked like a puppy tossed a treat. "Trade secrets. That is why I am the highly paid professional researcher, while you are the high-profile professional journalist." He hesitated. Hunter knew Wonk was waiting to be begged for details. Amused, he ignored him, and instead took his time removing the rubber bands. I won't belabour the point: this is a formula thriller vigilante paperback/Ebook. It sold a lot. This is good. However, a picky jerk reader like me is still thinking about those Enormous Rubber Bands. Where do you buy them? Wouldn't a clip have worked as well\? Perhaps a briefcase to carry the folders would have been wiser? Why can't I get the picture of J Neil Schulman out of my mind? Why does the author slur over the mechanics of purloining Official Secrets? And ... if Wonk is so huge he can barely use his arms or bend his body, then how exactly does he resemble a puppy tossed a treat? A huge butterball puppy? A gobbling puppy who cannot bend? If he cannot bend more than a couple of inches, how the hell can he reach the frigging bag? My reading mind simply cannot proceed without these kind of stupid nagging questions. All the best to Robert Bidinotto's commercial success. But compare this thriller to Kira Peikoff's appallingly bad piece of shit . . . it is like the many rings of hell for me. Beyond a certain point of awful, one omits measurement and runs screaming for the exit.

And now the end is clear And so I face the final slurring My class, draw ever near I'll rant my case of which I'm certain I lived a life once full I patrolled the same old highway And less, much less than this I did it the wrong way Regrets I'll not admit for fear of annihilation I did what they made me do I am not a self-creation I planned the same old course I underlined upon the blackboard And less, much less than this I'm the injured party Yes there were friends I'm sure you knew Whom I bitched out and left in ditches But over all, my mania grew I taught and taught and taught some more and stiffened up to fight the War I've cursed, I've bitched and moaned I've had my fits, hysteric whines And now as my classes end I find richly self-deluding To think I wreck'd myself Forever molding on the shelf Oh no, oh no, not me It was the other guys For what's a man but what he's taught If not the pupils forever wrong To rant the same old plan To ungrateful classes The record shows I crashed the bus And scuttled far away Yes the completely wrong way

It is one of those things that just cry out to be exploited and misunderstood. It is such a chance for a lot of people to grandstand, or to 'be on the safe side' (meaning keep looking for physical evidence of bad things generating the illness). Who would want to be told that the illnesses are 'psychogenic' (I am NOT psycho, my daughter is not crazy, they are not doing enough, leave Britney ALONE!). If eleven or so of the young folks have actually received a diagnosis of conversion disorder (this used to be called hysteria long ago [my daughter is NOT hysterical!]), then I am inclined to go with that, expecially since this would presume a close neurological examination, and good followup. I don't know the demographics of that little community, or what these young folks look like. Are they high-performing princesses? Are they perhaps poorer than the norm in their school? Were they friends, or associates with each other? Did they have a chance to be together enough (in class or out) for contagion to take place? Apparently the "Celebrity Intervention' guy, Doctor Drew, is featuring the Mystery Illness tonight. I will watch with one hand over my eyes ... at least he did not call it Mystery Illness Stalking Our Schools. It looks like he may interview some of the folks involved (hopefully not their parents or local "I just know it" crazy people). My daughter is NOT crazy! We need an Ayn Rand in the room to cut through all the crazy, I think. If I get a chance to watch Celebrity Intervention Doctor, I will report back. (very cool that the CDC wants to help. Justify that budget, bitches)

I thank you back, Brant, and I must say you and Humanity make a lovely couple.

I have done a little bit of helpful work with Diana's Tweets about her tormenters, and put it online at Storify. See Doctor Comrade Diana and the self-hoisting petard

Did you get that, Michael? Phil will never post on your site again. Your weakness and double standards disgust him.

I am pretty sure that this came from the OWL list, George. Does this not seem familar? Emphases added ... From: "Philip Coates" <philcoates@worldnet.att.net> To: "owl" <objectivism@wetheliving.com> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:36:39 -0700 Subject: How NOT to Invest Time on OWL >Eyal said [4/6]: >>so far it looks to me like you've simply stated a position; I don't see >>that you've given any argument for it. >Eyal, this whole discussion is another OWL time-waster. >Not every post has to be an argument: >There is value in simply boiling down and summarizing in bullet form the key >aspects of the Objectivist positions. For one thing, it shows how they hang >together. In many cases the arguments i) have already been made in the >literature and do not need to be endlessly repeated often less competently >on OWL ( a very secondary and inferior venue with lots of newbies and people >who have a shaky grasp of Objectivism before they come to criticize), ii) >come from other branches of knowledge such as biology and psychology...and >the reader has to be well-read enough to supply on his own, or iii) are in >part introspective. [instead of finding what I -did- offer interesting and >worth chewing, you skip past it.] >>if she ever expressed the view that a baby acquires rights at the instant >>of birth, I am not aware of it; and in that case please let me know where to >>find it. >I don't know. Focus and respond on the -logic- of it instead, please. >>I'll be interested in hearing more from you about your reasons in support >>of your view, and what problems you see with Will Thomas's view. >To repeat: My view is that the rights of a child or infant are neither 0 nor >100%, but often vary as one gains (or loses) intellectual, moral, practical >capacity. I didn't give a complete analysis nor am I particularly focused on >whether Rand said it first. >But I showed by example (criminal and civil offense) it is -possible- for >rights to exist *in degree*, in case anyone wants to be so foolish as to >argue that rights never exist in degree. (I also hinted at how my "degree" >formulation can help resolve conundrums about the mentally impaired or >deficient..a more complex issue than children.) >To me, that a child has -zero- rights is so instantly contrary to the nature >of rights that no argument could possibly be advanced for it. Far more >important and more positive, that rights exist in degree as a child matures >is so commonsensically obvious, that I am reluctant to spend my time on it. >The average man on the street would get this immediately. This is not rocket >science (and it was actually observational knowledge that was available at >the start of adolescence whenever one observes a sibling, prior to >Objectivism). >Of course, none of this will stop wide-eyed OWLs, comatose during daylight >hours, from flapping their wings and beating this to death for another fifty >posts. >--Philip Coates >[ PS, I just want to say in passing, that this thread and OWL in general >reminds me of why I don't publish. I have done a lot of work and written >hundreds of thousands of works in my own journals on solutions to many of >the more difficult philosophical problems associated with Objectivism---from >induction, to additional virtues to add to the existing eight, to a complete >taxonomy of all the forms of cause and effect that exist in the special >sciences, to concretization, to thinking skills, to practical tips on >reaching and sustaining benevolence, to how to educate children. The >material is original and has the virtue of being true. >Every time I think of doing it all I have to do is read OWL or attend the >TOC "Advanced Seminar". What always stops me from pulling them together and >publishing them is the extreme pickiness and tunnel-vision of OWLsters and >TOCsters of the more academic variety. I wouldn't want the prospect of being >nibbled to death by non-benevolent ducks. >Objectivists are the last audience I would want to write for. Give me a >commonsense dentist or engineer or bricklayer any day.]

Yeah. Foucault was in my mom's bookshelf in 1972. I finished reading what she had (Madness & Civ, abridged) before I graduated, and got some very good things out of it. Later, I fell in love with the beautiful prose and humanity of Roland Barthes, and tried hard to shave off the bumf, jargon, hall-of-mirrors, navel-fucking of some of the latter big French fucks, and so could squeeze out a drop or two of sweet nectar from Deleuze (whose aphoristic style I liked at times; grimly ironic, self-defeating, containing contradiction in its utterances). By the time I was involved in the Memory Wars, I saw that the Lacanian infection had completely fucked up a few faculties in the humanities. I did not understand how anyone could fall in love with such a fucking shyster, liar, plagiarist and shitty, domineering therapist (Lacan). Once I got to the fully fucking crazed Julia Kristeva, I considered the worst of the religious devotion to the Great French Fucks as just another sad fact of life. Then Frederick Crews saved me. He let me see that crashing through the Dominant Discourse of Freudian Bullshit was a dangerous job. Those who had peddled that shit all the years were deadly opposed to being pushed off their thrones, their departmental thrones, their kingdoms of influence and tenure and domination of undergraduates. You could not get above the basement level at UBC until you had been thoroughly fucked up the ass by Postmodernism. That is what is such horseshit about Janet's pretensions. As if the Dominant Discourse was not her bag of muck, in academe. As if she was even competent in criticism. I think what Janet has learned best along the way is obfuscation and dodge. She dumps her fucking bullshit on this list, and then turns her nose up at us. Fuck off, Janet. As the greatest Postmodernist of all said (Jayne County), "If you don't want to fuck me, baby, baby fuck off."

Diana keeps an eye on Objectivist Living, it seems. Or perhaps her friend Trey Given does so. Hi Diana! Hi Trey!

Oh, Michael, that is terrible. I felt bad when he died -- I thought I had tried to help him in his distress, but when he died I felt such a regret for things I had said in that 'helping.' He was so lonely, so thwarted, so stuck. Janet is not like that. She has had a happy, engaged and rewarding life so far and enjoys the leisure to indulge her intellectual interests. Sure, she may have misjudged her audience here, and might come off as a bit of a crank, but she is no Otani. Please do not use those kinds of comparisons to suggest another old, failed, demented loser nearing the grave. It is unfair, it is ugly and it demeans your values. It is not correct identification. If Janet got but feeble responses from SOLOists, it is more likely a reflection of their generalized stupefaction and incuriosity. If she is a little oblivious to the room, cross-eyed with purpose, not particularly kind, and perhaps over-stewed in post-modern tea, nail her for that. One thing that was so sad about Otani was his aggression and social illiteracy, his lack of interest, his despair. If anyone should make you think sadly of Otani, it is Mrs Grundy. But thanks, thanks for that sobering memory of Nick. I shall light a candle. I shall strive to be kinder and more just. Starting tomorrow or the next day. Below is what I had planned to post to Diana`s Facebook wall. I think I will sit on that for a bit, maybe, either tone it up or tone it down. "Hi Diana, you certainly have my support in resisting the sectarian wrongheadedness of the Premises site, and its attempt to nail you to the same wall as TheBrandens, Kelley, TAS/TOC, SOLOP, Joe Rowlands. and the other forty-thousand false friends of Objectivism. It is nasty, it is myopic, its public face is very poorly designed and shows zero imagination. It might splash out further and make Objectivism seem like furiously judgemental toddlers. It brings back the tang of Peikoff shunning McCaskey, the Speichers shunning you, you shunning the Speichers, Objectivism Online shunning Ayn Rand Fans ... and everyone calling for boycottage and 'don't talk to her or you are not my friend' and higher walls between people. It is pathetic and it is another (albeit minor) version of that vainglorious urge to punish, destroy or vanquish dissenters. It is a grim and unpleasant manifestation of the dangers of fanatical orthodoxy. Now you know how Sciabarra felt, bitch. At least he had the grace to shut up completely and let the fools and hysterics take the heat. You succeeded only in reinforcing a reputation as a sectarian thug. And now you experience emotionally what it is like to be scorned and belittled publicly by Objecivish thugs and their also-rans. Did you think you were immune to the destructive power of the tools you use on your enemies and soon-to-be-former friends?"

From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newpaper site.

Someone sent me this quote, suggesting that the unnamed people at the unnamed list are we the living here. They are howling mad? Sounds awful.

So, Janet, are you familiar with earlier chapters of this story, or what? Have you read the actual history/narrative that your quote is but one facet/reflection? Are you familiar with the characters, their Grid, their life-histories? I ask this because with a sloppy application of The Rules Of Everything, you seem to know just who and what and how the actors are aligned in moral order. In this sytematic slop, the individuals are but particles in a field, obeying the Law of Foucault. In other words, you are feeding someone's delusions. He should pay you. Oh, and is it true that you describe the reception you have recieved here as the actions of a Howling Angry Mob -- in another forum? If so, how do you answer the inaccuracy, and how will you demonstrate good will here? if you indulge in off-site self-inflating reports of your Victory Against the Rubes, may we view you with contempt rather than amusement? If you are indulging in self-regarding reportage elsewhere, and this kind of offsite sneering is your norm -- your Dominant Discourse -- what advice will you give us? -- interpretation A: Janet is TROLLING-- -- interpretation B: Janet is a good faith interlocutor -- interpretation C: Janet is Phil as read through Jeff Walker

Similar things in schools around the world pop up in the news now and again. The key words I usually look for in news reports are hysteria, conversion disorder, mass psychogenic illness ... but the best descriptor or clinical term to my mind is mass sociogenic illness. If a case of a mystery illness does not consider the possibility or mention such things in initial reports, I usually wait a few weeks. Often the mystery is cleared up (in section F, below the fold). Not to say that these outbreaks cannot be mould/environmental toxins/gas leaks/Radon poisoning/monoxide poisoning, or whatever. That is what serious public health inquiries can discover. If there is no discernable physical cause after professional investigation, then the medical/diagnostic concepts of sociogenic illness is put forward, or an ICD or DSM Dx is applied. I rarely find the Dx satisfactory, because by this point the story turns to "Buncha Hysterical Goils" -- and those who have suffered frightening symptoms are not always likely to be probed for the actual individual stresses and strains that left them vulnerable. Thus, of course, the Goils have to suck it up -- so whatever inhumane regimes they live under at school (or home) continues on. I will have a deeper look, but it would not surprise me if the environment that the girls/sick girls inhabit in this case is extreme in one way or the other. As for Erin B sailing in to find the cause, no comment.

And she seemed so nice at first.

I spoke to an old friend on the phone today. Not a friend of long-standing, but married to the man that made my musical career. The conversation, at times sad, was a good one. We exchanged vows of mutual assistance and cooperation. She will get my help writing a proposal, and I get her help in editing a brief memoir.** It made me think of crazy-seeming things that are profoundly sane, somehow. In that spirit, and in the spirit of a thread filled with irrelevant delights and videos, here is another offering. It has absolutely nothing to do with any theme in this thread -- and yet somehow (Saussurean flux?) it is all about Phil. ____________ ** I might be in another movie! Not as a performer, but as a character. I say might be, because, well, although I am in the book that the movie is based on, there are no guarantees that the memoir as published will feature all of us stray ravers from the Old Days. Here's a link that covers the movie news. It wil be of interest probably only to Carol (whom I will beseech to stalk the production once it begins filming (if it shoots in Toronto). I want to be in control of stories of my life, and so the reason for me to get that memoir of those times done before the premiere ....

Yes, but this apothegm reads much better translated -- with intermediate steps at Catalan, Hebrew, Farsi, German and finally back to English: Nietzsche és en mi en el camí de unzeitgemass com ell diu, com el intempestiu. ניטשה הוא unzeitgemass הדרך שלי כמו שהוא אומר, כמו intempestiu. آیا منظورتان این بود : نیچه است unzeitgemass راه من به عنوان او می گوید، مانند intempestif. Unzeitgemass Nietzsche ist mein Weg, wie er sagt, wie intempestif. Nietzsche is my way out of date, as he says, as intempestif. Speaking of Baudrillard, this video from an affiliated studio captures, for me, the shining clarity of his prose. As one wag said, "The abstract structure of relationships which a particular language imposes on the underlying substance shared by all." That is just so true! I want to bathe in it, but it is a grid, and I cannot. As Baudrillard's niece says in the video, "Maggle on my shit!"

If you are referring to me, smartass is okay, but I prefer uomo morde. Please don't get me wrong. I am enjoying your posts. I appreciate Deleuze as I enjoy the products of our local chocolatier. Of any great French intellectual of the late 20th century, I choose Barthes above all. He was a brilliant writer and an honest human being, and he did not self-intoxicate as did the megalomaniac Lacan or the faux-Magus Derrida (not to mention the fraud Judith Butler and her monks and devotees). I enjoy your posts as I might enjoy an enormous cake fussed and plastered and splendid, or a pillow full of candy-floss: a confection, sometimes absorbed as a visual/mental delight, but otherwise impractical as a food. You have fun, and clearly relish your devotions to post-modernism. And reading Rand through other writers is a engaging pursuit. You seem to be good at it, and find great fellowship with others of similar bent. All to the good, and bless you for following your intellectual tastes unrestrained by convention or by the responses of rubes and smartasses. That said, I am no Freudian. I loathe Freud and consider him a charlatan. The damage Freudianism has done to psychotherapy (even without Lacan's demented elaborations) is hard to estimate. Freud led directly to McMartin Dayschool, Renee Frederickson, E Sue Blume, Judith Peterson, Bennett Braun, and others even more demented. You no doubt are familiar with the last fifteen years of scholarship (from Webster to Esterson by way of Crews). I am on that boat ... If, of course, you are not referring to me, I scurry away in shame.

Lordy, what will Linz do when he finds out there is a real 'pomowanker' loose here? I am tempted to cross-post. But, I am not that evul. In the meantime, Michael (and those who have been in this thread since the beginning), the worthies at ARCHN just published another in their recent series, this time dealing with brain anatomy/emotion/empathy/morality/sociopathy. It seems quite pertinent, though perhaps not alluring to fans of Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault and lesser lights of post-modern theory, its gush, bumf and grime. Zizek is of course in a class of his own, where philosophy meets critical theory meets world-shaking events. And of course, he is not dead. “Every time someone puts an objection to me, I want to say: 'OK, OK, let's go on to something else.' Objections have never contributed anything.” "A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window”― Gilles Deleuze, Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

I won't touch the fragile formatting above in my fulltext original Usenet exchange. Suffice to say that the left caret is a feature of discussion from a parallel/older time. Discussions automatically were 'threaded' and multiple commenters could be quoted in a single page. As can be seen from the extensive headers at the top, the entire fucking point of all of this is to provide a unique identifier and a reference to quoted material. Phil's stupid partial aping of the old Usenet formatting is not even close to the utility of the old ways. That longwinded note above is designed to highlight my style. It seems to have hardly changed over the years. Persistent, loquacious, unwilling to be bullied by anyone. If Phil persists in his stupidity, I will open a new thread devoted only to old OWL-list posts by him (yes, I was on OWL). Grundy said (in a post somewhere above): >.'raems' a fo noitcarter a rof rO > >.rewsna na rof GNITIAW LLITS > >?yltcaxe erehW ?taht -yas- ehs did - etouq tcaxe na taht sI > >]SSW[ seyE ehT nI eM kooL TON oD reh I say, wipe your own butt, Phil, before giving unsolicited lessons in toilet training.

Grundy is all worked up again. Regaring this (emphasis added): Now, I am told that Grundy is grinding the gears over this. Grind grind grind. Here are the facts, Grundy. I have the link and the URL right here. And you want it. Here's one deal, Grundy. I could post that link and URL. I could post it without a quid pro quo, not because you whined and fussed, but for the record. So, here is the final deal. Take it or leave it. -- YOU answer one question from my recent posts addressing your bullshit on this list. -- YOU answer using either conversational quoting or the OL convention.** If I judge that you have answered one single question put to you by me, in the form I demand of you, I will post the link and the URL documenting Diana&amp;amp;#39;s strange behaviour. NB -- the venue in which Diana did her strange dance was ObjectivismOnline (not Noodlefood). ______________________ ** It has been explained to you over and over again how stupid and unreasonable is your usual habit of introducing quotes from other list members in discussion.&amp;amp;nbsp; But I think perhaps your insistence on using your own shonky bullshit is because you once learned the left-caret convention in your mailing-list days. For the benefit of the folks who came to the internets after the beginning, after Usenet, after mailing-lists, I have to give a little bit of a lesson. It is not compulsory. You are not chained to the desks, and you may leave the room, go have a piss, whatever. The information is for information. Long ago, when Philip Agamemnon Micawber Coates began tormenting interlocutors online, mailing lists were very common (Phil mentions the OWL list, and Ellen has mentioned some of the history of the developing online 'ListLand' permutations. I can't be bothered to look that up right now. Now, a 'mailing list' in electronic terms is simply a bit of automated, standard software. There are tens of thousands of these existing today. They might be know by their email addresses (torture-learning@list.ufuckmeup.harvard.edu, for example) or by other appellation (perhaps Craxed Windbags Trapped In A Bus Shelter). A participant 'subscribes' to the electronic mailing list. by sending an ordinary email message to a special email address (might be subscribe@list.ufuckmeup.harvard.edu). Now the participant (depending on how she manages her subscription) will now receive all messages (individually or in digest form) sent to the list. And the participant may answer any such message sent to the list. Which brings us to the conventions. This will be familiar to anyone who was or is active on Usenet. And now a digression on Usenet. Usenet was and is the equivalent of an enormous compilation of mailing-lists, but the messages are delivered not to individuals, but to 'Groups'[ The groups are given unique identifiers. For example, the place where you (once upon a time) went to rant about crazy internet loons is called alt.usenet.kooks. The place you went (way back when) to discuss Satanic Ritual Abuse/recovered memory therapy issues with scientists and concerned activists was sci.psychology.psychotherapy. OK, I have cut a few corners in this explanation ... but it is all to bring you to a couple of examples of what the exchanges and dustups and debates and harangues looked like -- both on Usenet and on email mailing lists. The old left caret, or angle-bracket. This symbol of Phil's instransigence > Right. So, back when Phil was active on mailing lists, I believe this is what an exchange might have looked like as delivered via Usenet (which archived postings were collected by the old Dejanews, folded into and since bought by Google -- which is now why you can read Usenet via Google Groups) rom: William Scott Scherk <wssch...@bcgroup.net> Subject: Armistice [was Re: Dear Ms Blume [was Re: Reply to "S.A. Jordan"]] Date: 2000/08/06 Message-ID: <8mkieg$o1p$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Deja-AN: 655168742 References: <8mk9ki$13km$1@twwells.com> To: wssch...@bcgroup.net Followup-To: sci.psychology.psychotherapy X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x56.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.244.160.183 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Aug 06 20:39:44 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDscherkw Newsgroups: alt.support.dissociation,sci.psychology.psychotherapy In article <8mk9ki$13k...@twwells.com>, anon-8...@anon.twwells.com (e) wrote: > William Scott Scherk <wssch...@bcgroup.net> wrote: > > >In article <8miroi$2ek...@twwells.com>, > > anon-8...@anon.twwells.com (e) wrote: > >> William, > >> > >> fwiw, i'm not sure why ppl, e.g., you or mic, think that > >> strangers should drop what they're doing and respond to your > >> concerns. iirc ESue is busy with an article and book. it seems > >> rather presumptuous and intrusive to send her letters or > >> materials to review in order to persuade her to alter her > >> priorities or pov to fit your agendas. > >> > >> and why ESue? just wondering. > >> > >> thanks for spoilering, although you didn't need the double > >> spoiler. > > > >Well, some might remember that I only occasionally can respond online in > >the summer months. I write letters to people instead. So shoot me. > > > > :-] > > hey, that's my line. and i mean it. ;) i didn't know that you > couldn't usually reply online during the summer. i doubt that > most ppl here knew that. Yeah. > > > >Ms Blume is a public figure in a public place. She refuses to engage > >with "them" or "Mr Jerk" or "FMSFers" here, so I offered her the option > >of examining information at her leisure. Apparently that filled her with > >horror, anger and alarm. > > first, i should tell you that i enjoy your writing. i laughed at > this, as i think you probably intended. :-] > > second, for the benefit of any asders who are reading, i don't > think of you as an FMSFer. i wondered at first bc iirc you'd > characterized van der Kolk as a kook. In discussion with Olavi @ spp? I think you do remember correctly. I will say this on vdK: 'confirmation bias.' But my education on his researches continues. > i still wonder why you > swallowed the FMSF line so completely before checking things out > for yourself. (i may have you confused with someone else. if so, > i apologize.) I do trust some of the respected scientists on the advisory board. Beyond that, I generally sip, savour and spit most shoddy science, whatever its provenance. > however, you seem to have changed your mind about > some things, including vdk. if nothing else, that shows me that > you are willing to listen to information that contradicts your > pov and to change your beliefs based on new info. i like that. Well, maintaining my self-image requires I follow basic precepts of critical thinking (!) > > i'm basing the above upon fairly limited information. i > occasionally read spp, where i have seen some of your posts. i > don't read witchhunt, to which i think you sometimes contribute, > or other fora or websites to which you may contribute. My tone is within a fairly narrow range -- from sassy to provocative -- in these fora. What I most prefer to do is collect information, pore over it and then present what I discover in bites that can be 'swallowed.' > still, my > guess is that you're funny, smart, and generally reasonable. Nope. Saucy, sassy and slippery when mud-wrasslin' (!). Good guess, though . . . > > third, i don't think Curio is a big issue either here or for > ESue, although she can speak for herself about that. i don't > think asd is the proper forum for discussing Curio or related > topics. > > Yup. Which is why I . . . oh, never mind. > >I certainly would have let the matter drop had she not again took a > >surly swipe at me and my friends here at a.s.d, as I hope I had made > >clear in the "Dear Ms Blume" posting. > > You've taken swipes at her here. What do you expect? In this instance, better. However, anyone can read what I wrote to Cliff in article <38ED8E89.6F426...@netbistro.com> At the bottom of that article, my signature-generator appended a link to the collected Usenet postings of Curio re: Braun. E Sue responded with article <38ED8E89.6F426...@netbistro.com> She expectorated on me, e! > > >Does she think that only those *she* deems survivors are worthy of > >our ears and our consideration? I do not. > > I doubt that she thinks that. But that seems like a rhetorical Q > IAE. Okay . . . rinse, please . . . > > > >Some might also remember that she introduced this entire mess by stating > >baldly that she would take Curio's presentation over mine in a > >heartbeat, > > apparently she knows curio. you've characterized yourself as a > skeptic, As Missourans (?) say, "Show me." I have a skeptical mind. So shoot me. > which in this particular controversy generally means > "unskeptical about the FMSF side but skeptical about the other > side." ??? I am a skeptic. I accept the standard meaning: 1. a person who questions the validity, authenticity, or truth of something purporting to be factual, esp. religion or religious tenets. [1565-75; < LL scepticus thoughtful, inquiring (in pl. Sceptic, the Skeptics) < Gk skeptikós = -skept (os), v. adj. of sképtesthai to consider, examine (akin to skopeîn to look; see -SCOPE) + -ikos -IC] To my way of thinking, skepticism is the most useful blade in our mental toolkits -- it alerts, protects and provides an intellectual 'scythe' -- a means to cut our own paths through the thickets of nonsense we encounter in our slog through life. Sharp, perhaps menacing to those who keep to the sidewalk, but oh so very necessary. > given ESue's pov, i'm not surprised that she'd believe > Curio over a skeptic. Well, the blue-rinsers do generally walk only where their walkers (or scooters) will take them. Seriously, I believe we should *always* hear from a skeptical person before we set off on our journeys. Sometimes certain well-trodden paths lead only to danger and delusion (or a grizzly den). > > why did you characterize yourself that way? esp here? To tell the truth, to tell the truth about myself. Doing so helps me maintain my personal integrity.. > > fwiw, you would probably get a better reception here if you > didn't portray yourself as a skeptic (i.e., i'm in the hip pocket > of the FMSF). just a suggestion. ;) as long as you do that, > many ppl will react badly to you and even those who don't will > wonder why you've portrayed yourself that way. IMO it makes you > look like a troll, at best. As we say in Canada, "je me sens bien dans ma peau" -- I am a skeptic and really am doing okay with that so far . . . :-] . . .and mic says I look like a dude, not a troll, thank you very much. . . > > >when I noted the existence of Internation Postal > >Reply Coupons for those SASEing her from outside the USA. > > > >Yes, that stung me, as I am sure was intended. > > really? it bothered you that someone you don't know would take > another's word over yours? even if that other was Curio? ;) See above. I wrote 'stung' -- 'irked' would also have worked. > > fwiw, i've e-mailed with Curio a couple of times. she wasn't at > all like she is on spp. (i know someone else whose opinion i > respect who agreed.) since i doubt that ESue reads spp, her view > of Curio is probably very different than yours. > > it's interesting to me that it would bother you When a respected professional disses me online, I . . . oh, never mind . . .. > i understand > that bc it might bother me but that always puzzles me bc it's so > illogical. Uh . . . I am missing something here. Sorry. > why do you care what ESue thinks about you? I don't give a f*** what she THINKS! I care about . . . oh, never mind . . . > > >Turn the other cheek when it is slapped by a nice little old lesbian "shrink," in > >public? > > > >No. > > > >Yes, I hoped to change her mind about *me* -- > > i hope that she does. > > >I have also long hoped > >Curio would imagine me as a normal flawed human being instead of a > >monstrous ravening hyena, an Ur-artifact of the worst of an imagined > >backlashing spp "cabal." > > > >Go figger . . . > > > >Thanks, e, for the quiet words. I do not want to intrude at a.s.d, but > >on occasion I will indeed write here. I hope some understand why I do > >so. > > i'm unclear on the concept. > ;) Which? The concept of William Scott Scherk trying to establish his voice on a.s.d -- a place where he can occasionally discuss matters of intense personal interest with, well, people like you? Er, what? > why do you care what we think > about Braun and Peterson? are they even practicing? "Do no harm.' Yes, Peterson may be victimizing a patient as I write. It MATTERS. It matters to you. It matters to me. It matters (though she ignores the import) to E Sue. It matters. 'T' issues MATTER in a.s.d. Because . . . 'caveat emptor' > > >For those who do not, I again ask forgiveness for trespassing on > >tender soils . . . > > thanks for being so gentle with most of us here, William. i > appreciate it. > > e You are the first to welcome me. I appreciate that very much. I owe you one (I have the latest Pope and Olio, plus reprints from Bernice Andrews . . . plus about 85 kilos of other stuff which I am sure you have already read!). > > ps ESue isn't a bad person, William. Neither are you. I wish you > two could see that but, in the mean time, I hope that you'll > leave each other alone. Entendu, e, entendu. Dorénavant commence l'armistice! Merci mille fois. > > -- > For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or e-mail: > h...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message > ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator > ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Right. I forgot the denouement. How embarrassing. Right. How deeply depressing. However, I think that Phil must have attended the movie, even if he was not able to do so on the opening weekend(s). Somewhere on the internets we might find his review of the movie.

NB -- to Grundy herself and to the other Grundies of the OL universe, this is a Trivial Thread. Please do not comment if you find it boring or wrong. All Grundy comments will be monitored and harshly assessed by The Snark Pack. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Over at Noodlefood, Doctor Comrade DMH has come out swinging against the new 'Watch out for Diana, she is poison' website. Here is a selection of remarks and comments from a post that responds to these terrible people and their terrible, intolerant, and poisonous identification of DMH as a dangerous heretic. This could be subtitled On a Self-Hoisting Petard. All I get out of this is the familiar Judgity judge judge stomping-moose dance. That its is now being performed on Diana is a good thing. That the moose-stompers are more deranged and sectarian, and more hysterical and sloppy than she is ... that is just gravy, sweet white cornstarch and suet gravy. The Ick Factor in Objectivism. Diana Hsieh denies reports that she favours the eating of babies. Ye gawds.

Lovely, George.