PDA

View Full Version : from Horgan & Johnson


graz
08-11-2011, 03:14 PM
I am not someone who believes that mental health professionals are the only recourse for the mentally troubled/ill.

Suicide is always an option. Have you considered it?

sugarkang
08-11-2011, 03:40 PM
Suicide is always an option. Have you considered it?

What's wrong with you?

graz
08-11-2011, 03:52 PM
What's wrong with you?

Language is so imprecise. Was badhat suggesting that she stands against others who believe medical intervention is the only remedy? How did you read it? Why bother posting it if it is only meant to convey that she shares a view with any thinking person. Namely that, any and all options are worth considering. Duh.

How did you "read" my reply? All I was asking was if she recognized that an alternative to medical treatment is sometimes less pretty. Too glib? Aren't you comfortable with exploring ideas?

badhatharry
08-11-2011, 03:58 PM
Language is so imprecise. Was badhat suggesting that she stands against others who believe medical intervention is the only remedy? How did you read it? Why bother posting it if it is only meant to convey that she shares a view with any thinking person. Namely that, any and all options are worth considering. Duh.

How did you "read" my reply? All I was asking was if she recognized that an alternative to medical treatment is sometimes less pretty. Too glib? Aren't you comfortable with exploring ideas?

I was responding to this post:

"There are a LARGE NUMBER of people who get through a diagnosis of schizophrenia without long term use of drugs and their bad effects. It's not at all apparent to me that many participating in this forum are even slightly familiar with these trends and movements beyond just labeling them "anti psychiatry" which of course many are. Seriously, guys, there are lots of people out there cobbling together treatments of their own, with help from friends and family members and the occasional professional. I know such a scenario must conjure up images of shotguns and violent psychotics to many of you, but that just ain't the reality."

graz
08-11-2011, 04:01 PM
I was responding to this post:

"There are a LARGE NUMBER of people who get through a diagnosis of schizophrenia without long term use of drugs and their bad effects. It's not at all apparent to me that many participating in this forum are even slightly familiar with these trends and movements beyond just labeling them "anti psychiatry" which of course many are. Seriously, guys, there are lots of people out there cobbling together treatments of their own, with help from friends and family members and the occasional professional. I know such a scenario must conjure up images of shotguns and violent psychotics to many of you, but that just ain't the reality."

OIC. And I guess you would agree that those who bypass medical treatment aren't all satisfied? Duh, right?

Wonderment
08-11-2011, 04:07 PM
I read it as an invitation to BHH to kill herself. Way over the top, unpleasant and uncalled for.

graz
08-11-2011, 04:25 PM
I read it as an invitation to BHH to kill herself. Way over the top, unpleasant and uncalled for.
I wrote it, I know what I meant, and have explained it.

sugarkang
08-11-2011, 04:29 PM
Language is so imprecise. Was badhat suggesting that she stands against others who believe medical intervention is the only remedy? How did you read it? Why bother posting it if it is only meant to convey that she shares a view with any thinking person. Namely that, any and all options are worth considering. Duh.

How did you "read" my reply? All I was asking was if she recognized that an alternative to medical treatment is sometimes less pretty. Too glib? Aren't you comfortable with exploring ideas?

Deflect if you want. In the past, I've defended your penchant for trolling, even when at my expense. But, there's a difference between trying to be simultaneously mean and funny vs. just plain undignified. Carry on however you think appropriate, I guess. I don't file complaints.

TwinSwords
08-12-2011, 12:25 AM
I wrote it, I know what I meant, and have explained it.

Maybe you should have said these things, instead:

"...you are a supreme dick."
"...you amoral charlatan."
"...you fucking cock."
"...you fucking ass."
"...you can shut the fuck up."
" This is what makes you a piece of shit; merde, if you like."

Those are all things that sugarkang (the Sugar King) said to ledocs, and which BhTV finds perfectly acceptable.

sugarkang
08-12-2011, 01:14 AM
Those are all things that sugarkang (the Sugar King) said to ledocs, and which BhTV finds perfectly acceptable.

Uhh.

1. I called graz out on his comments (as did Wonderment before me), but I did not call the BHTV police.
2. Regarding ledocs, it is perfectly legitimate for me to defend my reputation, especially when I am being slandered. I've asked ledocs repeatedly to come up with the proof. He could not find it. I am adamant that he does not have it because he's a lying at worst and misremembering at best. I suggested that he should ask BHTV staff to look for the alleged words I've said. It can't be found because they do not exist.

ledocs still has not apologized. In America, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

I'm perfectly fine with people having a low opinion of me. I'm not fine with people spreading lies about me. And at this point, I believe I've built up enough of a reputation where people can give me the benefit of the doubt when someone like you attempts this bullshit.

uncle ebeneezer
08-12-2011, 02:10 AM
Good thing Ozzy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Solution) doesn't post here.

ledocs
08-12-2011, 09:44 PM
I'm pretty sure that bhtv does not find that sort of discourse perfectly acceptable. It was all so over-the-top that it didn't really bother me much. Also, I played a part in evincing all that, there are things I said that I probably should not have said. I think I might have behaved suboptimally.

Sugarkang, I hereby extend my humblest apologies to you for ever having suggested that at some point in the past you threatened to filter me. I don't know what could have inspired a calumny of such monstrous proportions on my part. Clearly, you are right to say that your reputation may have suffered irreparable harm if others were to believe that you threatened to filter me. I will try to avoid ever again making an outrageous assertion of this kind about anyone, and especially about you. What damages do you think are in order here, apart from this abject apology? I could offer you an old collection of "The New Yorker" magazines, but you will have to go to Bordeaux or Toulouse to get them. What about a Tootsie Roll?

AemJeff
08-13-2011, 12:12 AM
I'm pretty sure that bhtv does not find that sort of discourse perfectly acceptable. It was all so over-the-top that it didn't really bother me much. Also, I played a part in evincing all that, there are things I said that I probably should not have said. I think I might have behaved suboptimally.

Sugarkang, I hereby extend my humblest apologies to you for ever having suggested that at some point in the past you threatened to filter me. I don't know what could have inspired a calumny of such monstrous proportions on my part. Clearly, you are right to say that your reputation may have suffered irreparable harm if others were to believe that you threatened to filter me. I will try to avoid ever again making an outrageous assertion of this kind about anyone, and especially about you. What damages do you think are in order here, apart from this abject apology? I could offer you an old collection of "The New Yorker" magazines, but you will have to go to Bordeaux or Toulouse to get them. What about a Tootsie Roll?

Heh - it almost seems a shame to spend the effort crafting fine irony when the subject of it appears to be demonstrably immune to any such message.

sugarkang
08-13-2011, 01:46 AM
Sugarkang, I hereby extend my humblest apologies to you for ever having suggested that at some point in the past you threatened to filter me.

That was some weeks ago with many people attempting to portray me as a "wingnut" all at once. Many were taking my words out of context and assuming a lot of bad faith. So, you were lying at a moment when mischaracterizations about me were frequent. That moment was not in a vacuum. May I remind you that my anger unleashed the second time I had confronted you about it. Perhaps you were unaware or insensitive to this fact and there was no malice on your part.

Thank you for finally acknowledging the truth, all your sarcasm notwithstanding. And I extend my apologies for all of my expletives, without sarcasm.

ledocs
08-13-2011, 09:00 AM
Sugarkang says:

Many were taking my words out of context and assuming a lot of bad faith. So, you were lying at a moment when mischaracterizations about me were frequent.

Regrettably, you learn nothing, or you simply refuse to let this die, for perverse reasons of your own. I don't care too much about the invective and profanity, as I just said. On the other hand, you have now accused me of lying at least three times, and that I do care about. That accusation is completely outrageous, as well as outrageously stupid, and if I cared enough about anything you say I would complain to the bhtv staff and try to get some redress. What possible reason would I have to make up a story about you issuing a threat to filter me? I am not part of any plot to misrepresent you. You must realize that calling someone a liar is infinitely more serious than accusing someone, perhaps mistakenly, of having issued a threat to avail himself of the Ignore List. But perhaps you do not realize this, in which case you are criminally stupid.

If I cared enough about this dispute, I might try to get the staff to find the interchange I have repeatedly referred to, because, as it happens, I am reasonably confident that I would be proved right here. In fact, I remember that a third party, either aemjeff or claymisher, I think, intervened to say that what you had written, the post which had prompted me to erupt, an eruption which in its turn then elicited your threat, was difficult to understand. What you said to me was probably not, "I am going to filter you." I think it was more like, "I will not be reading you [or perhaps talking to you], in the future," which I interpreted to mean that you would be filtering me. And I can accurately paraphrase what I then said to you, which was, "Fine, it's no big loss to me." I would hazard the guess that I have a much better memory for online interactions in which I take part than you do (by which I also mean that I would guess that my memory for conversations in which I take part is superior to your memory for conversations in which you take part), and this despite the psychotropic drugs I have taken recreationally. (I was interested to hear that John Horgan is a former acid head. I was not a head, but I did not abstain either.) What is possible, but unlikely, in my view, is that I have confused "sugarkang" with another commenter. The reason I think this is unlikely is that I also have a distinct memory of the decision to filter "sugarkang," of how strange I thought that pseudonym was, of wondering what that was supposed to connote, and of what occasioned the decision.

But the much bigger point is that this is all so trivial, and yet you insist on calling me a liar about it. At the same time, you want me to debate you in public? Ocean, please, prescribe something, the man is sick. I think there is evidence of a brain lesion here. This reminds me of a blues song by J.J. Cale that I heard for the first time here in southwest France, "Call the Doctor." That's a good song.

In conclusion, SK, for everyone's sake, I think you should drop this, and, above all, I think it is extremely improper to be calling people liars in this cavalier way. It makes no difference anymore whether I am right or wrong about the underlying facts, so I'm not disposed to look into it any further. You want an apology? I don't think so. An apology to you, under these circumstances, would be most inappropriate. No, it works the other way. You apologize for calling me a liar.

sugarkang
08-13-2011, 09:29 AM
You apologize for calling me a liar.
You're right, that was careless of me.

I meant to say that you accused me of things that I have not done.
These were things that I've asked you to prove, but you could not.
These were things that I was confident that you could not prove, and you did not.

You're right. I should not have called you a liar, because I can't prove you're liar. I should have said that you completely disregarded the truth of your statements and did not check to see whether, in fact, they were true when I asked you to provide evidence. This happened more than once. Each time I called you out on it, you insisted on your excellent memory.

It's possible you're not a liar; but it's absolutely certain that you didn't bother looking for the truth, either. And like that, olive branches disappear.

Ocean
08-13-2011, 09:34 AM
Ocean, please, prescribe something, the man is sick. I think there is evidence of a brain lesion here. This reminds me of a blues song by J.J. Cale that I heard for the first time here in southwest France, "Call the Doctor." That's a good song.



See? How fast you gave in! ;)

ledocs
08-13-2011, 10:11 AM
Sugarkang:

It's possible you're not a liar; but it's absolutely certain that you didn't bother looking for the truth, either. And like that, olive branches disappear.

No, this is also patently incorrect. As I have told you, I used the available Search function in this software to the best of my abilities in order to find the interchange. The Search function appears to display a maximum of 500 records, and it will not go beyond a year backwards in time. I have also discovered that combining a "Keyword" search with a username search turns up garbage, it simply does not work, it's one or the other. I'm pretty good at this computer stuff, although not as good as many others on this board probably are. I also searched my hard disk, because I save some of my posts, many of the longer ones, but there were no long posts in this alleged interchange, and the whole thing was trivial, in my mind, so it is not surprising that I saved nothing. I can also add that I was on a filtering binge at the time I decided to filter you. I don't have too much patience for strictly ideological debate in which facts and arguments play little part and posters become mainly interested in displaying their wit and personality. Then there is the further question of what constitutes a decent argument.

I haven't asked the bhtv staff about this for two reasons: (1) to do so would be demeaning to me, because the dispute is trivial; (2) the truth about the underlying facts in this trivial dispute is now irrelevant to me, because the only thing that matters to me now in all this is that you have repeatedly called me a liar.

I probably spent at least two hours of my time looking for the alleged interchange. The fact that I did not find it means little to me, for the reasons I have given. Only a childish time-wasting and obsessive crank who can't stand to lose an argument would ever have indulged you this far. You should never have stopped taking your meds.

sugarkang
08-13-2011, 10:34 AM
I probably spent at least two hours of my time looking for the alleged interchange.
...
Only a childish time-wasting and obsessive crank who can't stand to lose an argument would ever have indulged you this far.

Hah. I completely agree.

Oh, and thanks for looking for the statements that I never said.
Also, thanks for acknowledging that you couldn't find anything.
That concludes this murder mystery hour.

ledocs
08-13-2011, 10:56 AM
Oh, and thanks for looking for the statements that I never said.

And thanks to you for revealing so cogently in your ostensibly concluding words that you write like a child.

chiwhisoxx
08-14-2011, 03:42 AM
http://h8.abload.de/img/i_like_where_this_thregng6.jpg

ledocs
08-14-2011, 07:57 AM
There are reports of expanding logoterrorism, of experts in asymmetric logomachia. These are mostly disaffected autodidacts who find refuge in very unlikely nooks and crannies, but fears that these terrorists will obtain a nuclear weapon or its propaganda equivalent are greatly exaggerated, and they are currently fighting with very small and outdated Russian armaments for which ammunition is hard to get. Their attempts to infiltrate the West with propaganda have usually foundered, because their literature often appears to have been written by computer-generated translation programs. Stratfor opines that these forces, primarily individuals with no obvious ideology and no real government support, can be ignored and should occasion no further expenditures of time or money by any social group in possession of even the most modest intelligence capability.