<snip>
>>The only thing left to do would be to go over exactly what was happening in my
>>mind at the time(s), and I don't want to do that; it's very personal;
>
>If I read you correctly, you say you don't want to do it, and in the same
>sentence you do it:
You read me incorrectly, Oh great and powerful Tad (pay no attention to the
man behind the curtain...). By "exactly", I meant specifics, of course.
<snip>
>It looks like a locked-up ego crying for help.
HELP!! LEMME OUTTA HERE!! -Bzzzzzzt- OW!!
>Here it comes. (Of course
>you can ignore it, but please be gentle on little Tad, he is very
>sensitive). Would you try -- just as an experiment -- the sentence
>completion technique?
Oh, heck, why not....but just one, and in a public forum, so I can bolster my
faltering ego with, let's face it, a rather self-indulgent and unworthy
anticipation of peer praise resulting from my obviously formidable intellect and
rapier wit.........
Nah.
<snip>
>> I know this is unsatisfying. You'll have to file me in with Richard on this
>>one, I guess (Although, to be fair, Richard seems to care enough to write a
>>self-help book. I don't. I'd rather bear a child to help somebody. It's
>easier.)
>
>It's OK.
It's past OK (2 blocks north of self-delusion).
>You see, it sounded to me, you had a lot of good advice on
>ego-tearing.
Heh. Let's face it, Tad: if you really believed that, you wouldn't be trying to
prod me, would you?
>I was interested *how* you do it, that's why I asked.
And that's why I answered (believe it or not). Do you mean something's unclear?
You'll have to be more specific.
>When it
>comes to sharing the technique, you are not satisfied with what you say,
>blame it on little Dan and compare the big Dan with Richard. Why are you
>doing it?
Doing "it"? Do you mean "Why attempt to share observations when the anticipated
results might be unsatisfying?", or "Why am I being disingenuous in my self-
presentation?".
You'll have to be more specific.
But in the mean-time, let me make a couple of observations:
A: You're on a Brodie-Jihad.
B: The tone of your responses to my posts changed dramatically the instant
I applauded Richard for a specific accomplishment.
You seem to have a lot of emotional investment in the anti-Brodie meme. Why?
Sure, his replies are often curt and cryptic. So what? Ignore them. Sometimes
he posts inanities as bait. Don't bite. Who cares? Beg off the thread and ignore
it. As long as you are truly content that you are getting something worthwhile
out of the list itself, why even ask why he does it? You don't /really/ think
he's /dangerous/, do you? How? Even if he is, do you honestly think that
"exposing" him on some obscure little mailing list is going to irradicate the
"danger"?
Of course, if you're actually Richard posting as Tad, feel free to continue...
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------
initial conditions = data (conception)
control of data = information (conception to puberty)
control of information = knowledge (puberty to marriage)
control of knowledge = wisdom (marriage to divorce)
-------------------------------------------------------------