On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> psuedo-intellectual bullshit wannabe using big words

Nothing of the sort. Your myopic debasory projection is simply your own
impotence.

> transfers its own subjective contents onto
> > the object – and then perceives those contents is transference as if
> > actual attributes of the object.
>
> and this is your definiton of a "mask"? a mask lets the subject project
> certain qualities onto the object???

Drivel.

> wrong AGAIN …

Not at all. And no matter how much you stomp your feet and froth at the
mouth it will not be wrong.

> if anything, a mask permits the subject to aquire and
> project the qualities of the object (not the other way around).

Is that so?

> well, wait
> a minute … if the "subjective contents" includes one's ideas about the
> perceived qualities of the object then … hmmmmmmmmmm

Oh right. Talk about pseudo-intellectualism.

> Indeed, inability to distinguish between
> > the subjective and object is treated as the hallmark of primitive mind and
> > some psychoses. Even Buddhism negatively so regards, as this conflation of
> > object and subject is considered the root of all suffering: attachment.
>
> yes, attachment/possession is the cause of suffering … but "attachment"
> and "mask" are NOT interchangeable terms.

As if that is even REMOTELY what is implied.

> well, wait a minute … maybe they are. i'm beginning to understand your use of the term "mask". very
> interesting, i must confess.

No really. You're attempting to project an idiotic misinterpretation
onto what was written, substitute the actual content with
the idiotic misinterpretation, so you'd have a basis to condescend.


Illiterate ape.

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> no, it is an observation about you.

No, it isn't. You're not capable of observations: merely projections.

> yes, i was

No, you weren't.

> yes, i was

No, you weren't.

> > Not at all. Nothing of this is about 'me'.
>
> yes, it is.

No, dearest it isn't.

> no, your hypocrisy is revealing and very, very funny!

The only hypocrisy is the one woshful projection in your brain.
Nor is it funny–laughter is not a method of condescension.

> > Any more delusional arrogant drivel?
>
> no more than yours

No dearest. I am not you. The only one spouting delusional arrogant
drivel is you.

> >
> > > > Illiterate ape.
> > >
> > > i know you are but what am i?
> >
> > No dearest. The illiterate ape is you.
> > That cheap 'deflecting' trick of abrogation of responsibility
> > doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.
>
> wrong, AGAIN

Not at all. Quite correct.

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> PARANOID FOOL …

No dearest there is nothing 'paranoid' or 'foolish'
about what I wrote. It was an observation on what you're doing.

> i was trying to understand your use of the term "mask" …

No, you weren't. You may tell yourself that you're doing whatever you
please, yet it'll not change anything.


> guess i got it wrong.

You weren't even trying.

> of course, the beauty of the situation is that you
> are complaining about the same exact thing others say to you:
>
> "you don't understand me …"
> "you mis-interpret what i wrote …"
> "you don't get me …"

Not at all. Nothing of this is about 'me'.

Your illiterate misinterpretations are your own problem.

> *LAUGHING*

I know. Just can't help it. MUST condescend.

> tell it to your therapist, ya bitch

Any more delusional arrogant drivel?

> > Illiterate ape.
>
> i know you are but what am i?

No dearest. The illiterate ape is you.
That cheap 'deflecting' trick of abrogation of responsibility
doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> > No, it isn't. You're not capable of observations: merely projections.
> >
> > > yes, i was

Insistence will certainly alter your impotence.

> >
> > No, you weren't.
>
> yes, i was

Impotent knee-jerk.

> >
> > > yes, i was
> >
> > No, you weren't.
>
> yes, i was

As above.

> >
> > > > Not at all. Nothing of this is about 'me'.
> > >
> > > yes, it is.
> >
> > No, dearest it isn't.
>
> yes, it is

As above.

> >
> > > no, your hypocrisy is revealing and very, very funny!
> >
> > The only hypocrisy is the one woshful projection in your brain.
> > Nor is it funny–laughter is not a method of condescension.
> >
> > > > Any more delusional arrogant drivel?
> > >
> > > no more than yours
> >
> > No dearest. I am not you. The only one spouting delusional arrogant
> > drivel is you.
> >
>
> no, you are

Facile attempt at abrogation of responsibility.

>
> > > >
> > > > > > Illiterate ape.
> > > > >
> > > > > i know you are but what am i?
> > > >
> > > > No dearest. The illiterate ape is you.
> > > > That cheap 'deflecting' trick of abrogation of responsibility
> > > > doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work.
> > >
> > > wrong, AGAIN
> >
> > Not at all. Quite correct.
>
> yes, very wrong

Not at all. And no matter how much you froth at the mouth–
all you are exhibiting is impotent denial.

Which leads back to the original–and real reason why you are doing
this: because I addressed the fact that your actions are motivated
by lack of power of any sort, and you fancy that violence,
appropriation, brute force, your own abrogation of responsibility,
and general lashing out at whatever comes across your path that you
'dislike' is a valid method of existence, moreso that one should
be supported by and over-rides the Us constitution.

Furthermore, you expressed an incessant desire to see that
that violation of basic human rights, brutality, ignorance,
and debasement and devaluation of humans be passed on as
governmentally enforced laws.

All you are dearest, is an ignorant dictatorial brute.

You can shout 'wrong AGAIN' all that you please, but you're not
convincing anyone besides putting yourself into stupor,
flipping yourself on your back, and spinning your wheels.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

> yes, you are

Facile finger pointing.

> > Nobody is convincing anyone dearest.
> > Avoid projecting your own knee-jerks onto me.
>
> jerk knee

Drivel.

> yes, you are wrong

It's quite apparent that I am not.
Among other things, you're simply attempting to derail the
'conversation' into childish posturing, in order to avoid replying
to what is written to you.

> you are disappointed that my "empty burble" affects nothing … thanks for
> the compliment.

No, I am not 'disappointed'. Your wishful projections
are meaningless. And there was no compliment.

> liar

As above: calling me a 'liar' isn't going to get you out of
responsibility.
So, care to explain why you fancy that violation of basic human
rights should be passed on as a governmentally supported function?

> in EVERY way

More impotent knee-jerks.

> > can you do something besides self-debase and scream?
>
> thanks for asking

Evidence is : no.

I'm not sure in what delusional bubble you live in, but what impulse
drives your 'artistic posturing' is quite evident. You want to destroy
and misuse that which a. has more power than you b. you have no ability
to understand c. cannot create d.threatens your ego.

And even worse, you fancy this self-debasory behavior 'victorious'.

Rather to the opposite: you're revealing yourself to be the ignorant,
immature brain obsessed ape who is spastically hung up on
'controlling' and 'murdering'.

so entertain us all and say it again: wrong AGAIN.

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> > Insistence will certainly alter your impotence.
>
> moron

You are indeed.

> keep repeating yourself … maybe you'll convince yourself

I am not repeating myself, nor convincing anyone.

> > Facile attempt at abrogation of responsibility.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Not at all. And no matter how many times you scream 'wrong AGAIN'
I will not become any more wrong-er.

> keep repeating yourself … maybe you'll convince yourself

Nobody is convincing anyone dearest.
Avoid projecting your own knee-jerks onto me.


> WRONG … repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat,
> repeat,repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat,
> repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat,
> repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat,

No dearest, i am not wrong. And it's quite apparent who is repeating.
The whole of your behavior is easily summarizable under 'childish
stomping of your feet and screaming 'WRONG!'. Unfortunately,
your empty burble affects nothing.

> Furthermore, you expressed an incessant desire to see that
> that violation of basic human rights, brutality, ignorance,
> and debasement and devaluation of humans be passed on as
> governmentally enforced laws.

> liar

Not at all. This is exactly what you did.

> All you are dearest, is an ignorant dictatorial brute.

> wrong AGAIN

Not in the slightest.

> >
> > All you are dearest, is an ignorant dictatorial brute.
>
> wrong AGAIN

As above.

> >
> > You can shout 'wrong AGAIN' all that you please, but you're not
> > convincing anyone besides putting yourself into stupor,
> > flipping yourself on your back, and spinning your wheels.
>
> wrong AGAIN

Self-explanatory.

can you do something besides self-debase and scream?

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42