I support your judgement about "Medicalizing" your opponent's arguments with the belief of having some practical value. Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > An anonymous twit writes: > > > Anger expressed by commission is usually justified by laudable motives, > > e.g. concern for the well-being of the victim. The expression of the > > anger is dictated by the desire to wound while concealing the intention > > to wound -- even the existence of the anger. This is not to spare the > > feelings of the victim but to wound them more effectively. The intent is > > to provoke counteranger with such subtlety that the victim blames > > himself and believes his anger is not justified. That way, people with > > PAPD can assume the role of innocent victim (Kantor, 1992, > > pp. 178-180). They may make directly hostile statements because they > > fail to perceive their own motivating attitude, perceive their hostility > > too late, or believe that their attitude can be concealed. > > Can't we do without Victimologist prattle on a cryptography and privacy > list? Shrinks should be next after all the lawyers are fed to the lions. > > "Medicalizing" your opponent's argument, instead of responding to it, is a > tactic of police states, religious nuts, controlling relatives, and > idiots. > > Which one are you? > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
