Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am a licensed mental health professional. I have made no diagnosis of you. Your posts are not lucid. They are disjointed and disorganized because
you do not take any of my posts as a whole. You break them down into sections which destroys the continuity. By the time you are through, I just
don't know what you are trying to say, as you posit nothing of real substance, except that you disapprove of my position.
If this were true, and you really didn't understand what I am saying to you, how come you don't simply ask for specific clarification?
You aren't fooling me. You may think I'm far younger than you, but I have lived long enough to know that I don't have any trouble making myself
understood, and that when someone is sincerely interested in dialogue, one asks for clarifications rather than finding flimsy shelter behind such
So if you were sincere in what you just said, you will take the last post I made to you on this topic (or better yet: all the ones you have ignored),
and tell me what you want to have explained to you. I am saying this for form: just to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think its painfully
apparent that if you actually were interested in debate, you would have done this without my prompting.
Maybe you think this is debate. I don't and frankly, I am just at a loss as to how to respond to such nonsense, so therefore I do not! In one case,
I responded with humor about your taking your meds and hitting the sack, which even those of my profession can do in a venue such as this. And when
you referred to your "lucid assessment," I just had to tell you that your assessment is not lucid. It is overly concrete in some cases and overly
abstract in others.
Why are you only able to say this abstractly? Why can't you point to precisely where you were thrown off? Anything to avoid facing what I have
actually said to you, and which noone else seems to have had any problem understanding...
So in the process of breaking all my posts down into bite-siza chucks, you miss the spirit of the post and fail to take into consider the post I might
be responding to. In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Great theory. Can you demonstrate how this works in practice? How have I done such a thing? My posts are here for you to demonstrate this if it is
indeed what you believe...
In six years of specialized education, including a year of intensive clinical training and five years of experience, I've gotten pretty good at this.
Do I think your mentally ill? No. You just need to get the chip off your shoulder, develop some finesse, and learn to present your own position
directly rather than assaulting the position of another in such a piecemeal, disorgainized manner. Learn to present a thesis, develop that thesis and
summerize your conclusions. That's what called an essay.
How touching. Thank you. I'll remember that word. Es-say. Very good.
Now, once you have finished the grade school lesson, perhaps you will wake up to the fact that you are the only one on this board or any other that
has run away from my arguments with such persistence. When you have finished coming up with creative excuses, perhaps you will return to the topic of
the thread and answer some of my points. They don't have to be presented to you in thesis format for you to understand them.
It is obvious to me that you do not like me or the things I stand for and so it is not important to you that we exchange ideas. It is only important
that you "deconsruct" my posts into components that are meaningless without the total context, for the sole purpose of discrediting me. Only a fool
would fall into such a trap. Those who agree with you in your assessment of me will applaud your effort. Those who can see through your charade will
at least understand my position.
Of the two of us, I am certainly the most interested in exchanging on topic ideas. My deconstruction of your ideas occured because they were weak and
unable to hold up. Don't blame me for that. The exchange commences when you return and show me that perhaps I underestimated the point you were
making, or misunderstood it. You have done everything in your power not to commence this exchange... So I logically conclude that you cannot.
I do not respond to you because you are obviously trying to entrap me and in doing so, you don't give me anything of substance to respond to. And
just because I don't repond to you doesn't mean that I have not had good dialogues with those who have chosen to do so in a non-confrontational
Well I'll remove yor final excuse: I did not mean to be confrontational, but I do not mince my words, and I say what I think. There, now that you
realize I just want to talk about the subject at hand (already), perhaps you can respond to my points?
I have debated with extremely belligerent people before. Take a tip: the best tactic is to calmly remain on topic. You have done the opposite in the
face of my alleged 'confrontational' posts: you have completely avoided the topic. Another reason why I doubt the sincerity of your excuses not to
confront my reasoning.
And before you call me a troll, take a look at all the contributions I have made to this site in such a short period of time--about 15 posts per day,
the last time I checked, and numerous contributions to Collaborative Fiction.
I am a contributor to this site and just because I avoid those who are openly hostile and I use the most light hearted means I can muster to do so,
does not define me as a troll. If anything, you have trolled for me. Read your own posts.
Well if you are sincere, and we got off on the wrong foot, please accept my apologies and rest assured that I will make sure you cannot use my
behaviour as an excuse again.
Ok, now are you ready to debate? The ball is in your camp, as it has been since the beginning.