"SwStudio" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<RN%
[email protected]>...
> > I only made an observation of an act of behaviour
> No, you assumed something. There was no "act of behavior".
> That's the part you assumed. What there was, was a simple
> correction, with no deep-seated, emotional meaning or
> ulterior motive at all.
I am perfectly aware that this discussion is growing
increasingly absurd at a huge rate mainly because I don´t
manage to get a single thing across to you and/or you´re
doing your best to read and write past me - but a) as a
final effort (on my part) to clarify and bring about some
sort of common understanding and b) because I do deeply
resent your false accusations:
The "correction" was, of course, the act, and that it was
unarguably a completely unfounded and quite unnecessary
correction was the fact that made it, quite objectively, an
"act of behaviour".
There was absolutely no need to assume or attribute any deep-
seated, emotional meaning or ulterior motivate to it in
order to judge it that of a self-important prig; it was one
as such, in itself.
> The basis for making the correction was only to ensure the
> ongoing conversation would be easier to follow. I forget
> what it was that I was supposed to have said. All I know
> is I remember reading it, thinking "I didn't type that",
> and making a quick reply to correct Donovan, who read my
> reply and we had a little chuckle over it and that was it.
There was, I repeat, no need whatsoever to make it easier to
follow, as no normal, half-awake reader could possibly have
seen in that post a single line that you´d have been
supposed to have said; Donovan´s small insignifcant error
(of including a previous sender line) could not conceivably
have caused any confusion or confusion to anyone but a self-
important prig.
It was splendid of Donovan to apologize and fine of you to
kindly accept it and jolly good for both of you to have a
little chuckle over it but:
1) that doesn´t in any way diminish the essential
priggishness of your "correction, and
2) nothing, no thread or exchange of messages is ever only
between the persons who´re involved as authors; all
messages and every little thing said in them also belong
to and, indeed, are equally directed at everyone else who
might become their readers. Therefore - to refer back to
where this particular bit of thread drift started - every
act of priggishness is directed not only at its nominal
recipient, but at the entire newsgroup community.
> Then you started with the psychological issues, primal
> fears and emotional disorders. I fell like I should be
> talking to lamp posts and living in a homeless shelter
> after your analyzation of my words.
Please get it into your head that I have never entered any
psychological issues asuch as primal fear or emotional dis-
orders into this discussion. You seem to have a habit of not
reading very carefully and a certain habit to extrapolate
rather wildly in the direction your misinterpretation leads
or allows you to lead.
In hindsight, it was incredibly stupid of me to respond to a
quite-beside-the-point statement (aboutyour perceived state
of emotion) with what was intended asa friendly return of
your humorous introduction of Freud to this discussion a few
lines earlier; if I´d even suspected that you´d interpret as
my seeing or insisting on or my "case" being built on seeing
or even suggesting any "psychological issues" behind your
act of behavious, I wouldn´t have made it - but in any case
you´ve read much more into it than anyone can reasonably
do.
> > I made mp claim whatsoever of knowing your emotional
> > state. However, since life itself has taught me that pre-
> > race tension can manifest itself in various ways, such
> > as a greatly increased irritability, a strong tendency
> > to behave like a pompous **** *or* like a self-important
> > prig, I did suggest that this could have been an
> > axplanation.
> You suggested nothing. You felt (in your own words) that I
> may very well have "greatly increased irritability, a
> strong tendency to behave like a pompous ****,*or* like a
> self-important prig"; all from these two short sentences:
It was incontestable that you´d behaved like a self-
important prig. The only open question was whether you were
like that permanently - which would be a character issue,
not a psycho- logical issue, let alone an emotional
disorder - or whether this was a temporary thing, and this
led me to suggest (in the form of a smiley-tagged question:
"Did you, too, have a key race during the weekend?
") a
temporary cause.
Please do see the difference between two things: 1) what I
suggested about you, and 2) what I listes as some of the
more common behavioural symptoms of pre-race nerves (which.
of course, need not all manifest themselves simultaneously
or in the same person).
> "I didn't say any of this, Anders Lustig did. It looks
> like you are quoting me, as my name is there but nothing I
> said is."
> Incredible.
When something seems incredible, it can be a good
question to ask oneself: "Am I only dreaming?". In this
case, you haven´t been reading what I wrote, you´ve been
dreaming it up.
>
>
> > Besides, since my general impression hadn´t been that
> > you are a self-important prig all the time, it appeared
> > sensible that there may have been a temporary cause.
> Did it ever occur to you that there ... umm... was
> no cause?
If it wasn´t a temporary thing, then there wasn´t a cause,
it´s clear as a whistle and I did allow for that
possibility: you are a self-important prig "24/7/365" - and
that isn´t something that must have a cause...
> > One doesn´t have to be a faithful disciple of Freud to
> > remind you that we are not always aware of either our
> > motives or our deeper mental states.
> Oh my god, I just thought the thread would be less
> tangled, easier to follow, etc, if I threw in the
> correction. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, Anders. Let go.
Keep your cigars out of this!
It is, again, a charasteristic of the self-important prig to
perceive that he´s only doing it for the common good or what-
ever, he does not have the least idea and he cannor accept
the notion that what he does might be priggish.
But, relax, man: it´s no big deal! Some of the nicest
guys and the best of men are or can be self-important
prigs at times
> If anything, I admit to not liking mess that's easily
> preventable, like a NG thread with jumbled quotes. It's
> hard to live with the deep- seated emotional scarring and
> trauma this behaviour has caused... I'll try to solder on.
I´m pretty convinced that my remarks have not shattered the
core of your being, charred the corners of your self-picture
or left you muttering incomprhensibly at street corners.
> > And it is *characteristic* for a prig that what he
> > thinks he does is "simply a correction"!
> Sure, to an idiot who thinks that there's emotional
> reasons behind
> it.
To repeat, while I may be an idiot, I didn´t play Freud,
Jung, Reich or any of the more modern chaps here.
> > And break my effing leg? Is that what you want?
> No, Anders. There was no hidden meaning behind my "go for
> a run statement", either. I don't desire for you to break
> your leg.
No, but that´s only because you know there´s no way I´ll
become half as fast as you...
> > I feel much better now, thank you - I´m not as
> > seriously ****** off as I probably should be by your
> > astounding reluctance to consult a dictionary and
> > enlargen your vocabulary
> Of course...alll this happened not because you read
> into things, but because I don't know the word
> "priggish". Right.
Not all this, but everything that ensued from your running
down the wrong street *did* happen because you didn´t know
the word, didn´t bother to consult a dictionary or didn´t
even stop to consider that there might be a reason why my
choice of word didn´t fall on any of the ones you listed.
(Someone else, certainly, would´ve seen no point in trying
to steer the discussion back and up the right street...)
Responsibility is a serious thing, you know, also in a light
discussion
Anders
> cheers,
