Sarah Palin opposes NY Republican—Dede Scozzafava not conservative enough

nothing to write, is that right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You Tiassa actualy cites thing prpoerly why don't you go look up his sources.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, but maybe some reading classes may help or rereading with the aid of a dictionary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they must be perfect then.:shrug:

or so they think, i dont think so at all.

 

you may just be fan of the formatting and not realize it.

that said, what is it with this crew that gets so defensive when they feel a member of the pack has been slighted?

 

whatever happened to individualism?

 

Notes Around

People still need to be able to connect the dots. I can see how some conservatives would fail to see the connections between an ancient holy text and the contemporary conservative wing of the GOP. And one does need a somewhat liberal perspective before the ironies become clear.

• • •​

You can always ask me about whatever confuses you. Or is this some issue you really want to pick with Joe?

• • •​

Yes, I understand that some, when faced with the task of comprehension, find dismissal the easier route.

Additionally, I don't particularly mind that you apparently have trouble spelling my name correctly, but I would ask you to think about the implications. If correctly spelling a word that is on the page in front of you is that much of a task, people might start doubting other aspects of your reading and writing skills. And if your reading skills are in question, it becomes harder to take whatever excuse for analysis you offer seriously, especially when such responses take on the appearance of angry, illiterate tantrums.

And, to be certain, I've had some pretty inexplicable typos before. For instance, just yesterday I wrote "not" instead of "now" in a circumstance where it actually mattered. With two keys in between those letters—and accessing them with different fingers—I'm hard-pressed to explain to myself how that one happened. Indeed, as it slipped through my cursory proof of the text, I'm left wondering if it isn't a Freudian slip on my part, except the issue pertained to moderator permissions and not the usual subjects about which I am most prone to those errors.

To the other, that particular typographical error is not common for me, unlike your inability to spell my name correctly.

 

:bugeye:

where does that impression come from?

 

are you sure you are not overcompensating for something? this is very common.

 

Onions and Apples

That would fall within the rubric of Psychopathology in Everyday Life, Freud's 1901 paper explaining the nature of what we now call the Freudian slip.

The big questions would be what I am overcompensating for and why this particular manifestation emerges instead of some other.

We might also ask what it is about certain factions that, when presented with a more complex construction than they are accustomed to, they respond by trolling. Except, well, it's not actually that much of a mystery. People want to have something to say, but they're aware at least subconsciously of their own limitations, so they lash out, transferring the object of their anger from themselves to someone else. It's a form of projection, a classic ego defense mechanism.

It's not even the first time in this thread this has happened. Take a look at #43 and the subsequent responses. You (#46) and Buffalo Roam (#45) went after Salon instead of actually addressing the assertion, which could also be found, in an earlier form, at Juneau Empire (#47). Yet, even with that secondary source to support the Salon article, neither of you were inclined to take up the actual assertion. At least Mr. Galt, who wished to redefine his prior statement, attempted to address the issue. And here, once again, are you and Buffalo Roam choosing to criticize what you refuse to address.

Oh, I don't know, maybe it was when you wrote,

"why dont you sum it up joe. didnt say much at all but was nicely formatted."​

Obviously, you missed something. Perhaps it's merely a contextual issue; looking for onions in a box of apples, you might be inclined to point out that there aren't many onions in the box. But, then, you're looking in a box of apples.

And I would think the part where you asked Joe to show you the onions in the apple box, instead of asking me, reasonably suggests you're trying to pick an issue with Joe.
____________________

Notes:

Heffner, Christopher L. "Ego Defense Mechanisms". Psychology 101. April 1, 2001. AllPsych.com. November 2, 2009. http://allpsych.com/psychology101/defenses.html

 

i suppose he was impressive in 1901.

could be many things. these are questions you have to ask yourself.

i do sense a huge amount of overcompensation from a handful of people. you should appreciate someone pointing this out to you.

Joe congratulated you and i was curious what parts he was referring to. He still hasnt responded to my asking him what he found useful in that post. The reason he hasnt is because when asked specifically what he liked about that long winded and no substance post he really didnt know.

 

Wrong, you asked for summarization, nice try.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and you never did.

Its pointless to respond here anyway because some mods have it in for me and are acting like children.

i said 'coolie' (and was easy to see that i was referring to a person rear) the other day and got a warning for that?

 

I am not obligated to summarize someone elses post for you. You should be able to do that yourself.

 

but that is the point Joe. i didnt think you could have summarized it because there was really nothing there and you proved it.

 

This and that

He's still the standard on some things, especially a phenomenon named after him. You essentially proposed a redundancy; that's all I was noting.

Indeed. Such self-examination is essential to a healthy psyche.

Actually, as Joe has pointed out, that's not what you asked.

The only reason I am not bothering to write such a summary for you is that I doubt your motivation in asking Joe. It's an easy claim for you to say there is nothing of substance in the post because no rational person is going to bother to ask you to prove that negative assertion; it can't be proven.

If I thought you genuinely cared what the post was about, I would be happy to attempt a condensation suited to your needs. However, I'm unsure even how to inquire as to the basic problem you're having, since you're hiding behind a meaningless negative assertion that neither you nor anyone else who might make it can support.

So ... to grab a basic problem not quite at random, do you even understand the context of that post?

• • •​

A General Inquiry

Who is P.J. Herman? (See thread tags.)

It's a new name in this issue, and a thread search turns up no reference to this person.

 

now you are being gratuitously condescending.

what do you mean pj herman?

 

Um ....

Are you not aware of such a thing as tags? Look just above the Quick Reply box, John. You'll see a list of subject tags applied to this thread. PJ Herman appears in the list, but the name does not occur anywhere in the thread.

So I'm just curious. Who is this Mr. Herman?

 

and why are you asking me?

 

What question are you asking about?

Asking you what?