Max, I think alot of us silent onlookers to your feud think that rs7/error404 is OK, and you're an obsessed stalker. No offense, just clueing you in to public opinion. Don't believe me? Make a poll.
The more you paint the person who posts under the RS7 or other handles as someone with problems, the more it illustrates your own disease and compulsion not to just let it go. If you are sane and in control, you have a choice of whether or not to respond...so the conclusion is that you either are not sane, or continue to choose to respond to a personality that you define as having mental problems. One common working definition of addiction is performing the same action over and over again, yet expecting different results. You seem to me to be clearly under the influence of some type of addictive relationship with this personality, demostrating repeated compulsive and obsessive tendencies with your responses. A truly sane and balanced person, who is secure in that knowledge, need never make someone else out to be insane or wrong in order to defend themselves or make themselves right in the eyes of others.
Who do represent in the group you label as "public opinion?" Second, if you have read any my non-acrimonious posts to RS7, then you will know that in some respects, the ones you know, I think he's not that bad a soul. As far as being an "obsessed stalker," first I don't think you have any idea of the gravity of the definition. However, if you are using RS7's extremely low threshold, I can assure you, I must be; but then it becomes a matter of his truth, not "the" truth.
ArogueTrader, youâre the most ridiculous pontificator on ET. You fabricate ludicrous theories and apply false facts of your own manufacture to promote them. Your double standard has your foot in your mouth most of the time. For example, here is your latest proclamation, gathered from years of clinical studies, no doubt. A truly sane and balanced person, who is secure in that knowledge, need never make someone else out to be insane or wrong in order to defend themselves or make themselves right in the eyes of others. Yet, here is what you post: âFor a while I had questions about your sanity. Your story provided me with the answersâ âYour sarcasm and bile is yet another example of passive aggressive behavior, and is consistent with a narcissistic approach to life.â âmy preference would be to have a clinical psychologist perform a full evaluation of your behavior to paint a picture of a wounded child who continues to have problems with authority figures, or authority concepts.â âClearly you are very emotional, and have need of expression of that part of your personality when you are not in control of a situation.â ââ¦speaks volumes about the egocentricity and apparent narcissism of your internet personality.â âYour comments, followed by a signature of "sincerely" are indicative of a mental disorder.â So according to your own lofty theorem youâre not a âsane and balanced person.â But that's ok, your posts definitely are hilarious.
"A truly sane and balanced person, who is secure in that knowledge, need never make someone else out to be insane or <b>wrong</b> in order to defend themselves or make themselves right in the eyes of others. " ...so everyone who's ever participated in a public debate is insane?
Well, according to ArogueTrader, yes; it's one of his many dictums to ET. Of course, as the Supreme Emperor, it doesn't apply to himself.
Is there a difference in your mind between a public debate of issues, and a flame war? Say you call me a name. I can call you a name back. You call me a name back, ad infinitum. Say I point out behavior of yours that conforms to a standard that is considered abnormal, or obsessive by neutral bystanders. What can you do then? You could call me a name and not address the statements made of your behavior. You could deny the accusation and leave it at that. Or could you counter the observations with reason for the behavior, or explanation of behavior? Many people have observed the interaction between Max and RS7, and many have come to the similar conclusions that I have. Max has produced no real defense of the behavior, except to attempt to attack the credibility or character of those who are reaching the similar conclusion about his behavior. Does his attacking the credibility or character of those pointing out his behavior prove effective in defending his behavior? Is this method of attacking others when one cannot defend themselves seem logical to you, or is does it come under the category of a logical fallacy? In my opinion, this defensive attack behavior is typical of the common internet flamer---that is their strength, and that is where they will always end up doing in the end, as they finally reach a point where they can no longer either just walk away, or accept that they can't counter the accusation or issue with a plain, simple, reasonable and common sense explanation. In the end, when it comes to the internet and public communications those looking on will eventually reach their own conclusions, won't they?
Oh, yes, many. Name them, all four of them. Why are you so defensive about an attack on your credibility? You can stop worrying about your credibility, a simple reading of your posts reveals you don't have any. The fallacy in your latest harangue is that FIRST, you must have decisively proven your conclusion, which you have not.
Max, you may be right. I've met neither you nor RS7/Error, so I have no way of knowing 100% if Error is full of B.S. or if you simply like to egg a response from him or have deeper issues of your own. But one of you, preferably both, has to be the grownup here and just let it go. Both of you have taken your dispute to a level that reminds me of some junior-high school spats I had with classmates. Just.....let.....it......go.