|
Post by lolly on Nov 25, 2013 22:46:53 GMT -5
Her sole purpose for coming here is exploring meltdowns. Hello!? ;-| It makes sense to go where the meltdowns are plentiful in order to study them. Who's always at the scene of the crime? ::) It's simply the age old strategy of blaming the victim. It's a patterned behavior and it's well documented in literature on bullying, abuse and/or violence. At the core of it is a power-play... domination, superiority or what have you... all notions of power. At the very least, one can easily see that it is patterned and repetitive behavior. The first indicator is the use of 'you' in proportion to 'I'. 'I' is used when we speak from where we are, it's self reflective. 'You statements are assertions cast upon others. The blame game uses 'you' statements. In the third party 'you' become 'she' 'he'... not 'I'. One can not use 'I' in blame.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 26, 2013 2:32:11 GMT -5
It makes sense to go where the meltdowns are plentiful in order to study them. Who's always at the scene of the crime? It's simply the age old strategy of blaming the victim. It's a patterned behavior and it's well documented in literature on bullying, abuse and/or violence. At the core of it is a power-play... domination, superiority or what have you... all notions of power. At the very least, one can easily see that it is patterned and repetitive behavior. The first indicator is the use of 'you' in proportion to 'I'. 'I' is used when we speak from where we are, it's self reflective. 'You statements are assertions cast upon others. The blame game uses 'you' statements. In the third party 'you' become 'she' 'he'... not 'I'. One can not use 'I' in blame. What exactly are you doing differently?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 26, 2013 3:15:10 GMT -5
Her sole purpose for coming here is exploring meltdowns. Hello!? Ah!...so you don't just have her 'purpose' pegged, but her 'sole' purpose...? Nice painting Reefs. Seems to me she's interested in exploring the mindset(s) of those who see insanity and experience overwhelm when they become embroiled in what they regard to be a 'meltdown.' There is a quite a difference. In short, I'd say she's been looking on and seeing some here whose walk does not match their talk. Yes, that's what I mean by 'troublemaker', as in imagining problems.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 26, 2013 3:17:45 GMT -5
I don't remember stating it with confidence. What did that look like? Was it the tone of my voice or the way I held my head high? I thought I remembered the screen name, and some vague recollections about the person associated with that name doing some word lawyering, but that's about it. Nothing that I could, or would, bring into this forum. I also don't see where I failed to 'come empty'. You're painting up a storm right now, Figs, and you've got nothing at all to go on. This is a witch hunt, pure and simple. Do you think if I threw myself on the mercy of the court that I could get a suspended sentence? Another cool smiley. Had ta steal it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 26, 2013 3:20:30 GMT -5
If there's war every time she engages the forum, isn't her battle percentage 100%? No-brainer. Could be his calculator needs fresh batteries.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 26, 2013 3:22:37 GMT -5
Her sole purpose for coming here is exploring meltdowns. Hello!? It makes sense to go where the meltdowns are plentiful in order to study them. Who's always at the scene of the crime? The criminal?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 26, 2013 4:33:56 GMT -5
No-brainer. Could be his calculator needs fresh batteries. Maybe Duracell Tzu can help out?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 26, 2013 4:34:25 GMT -5
It makes sense to go where the meltdowns are plentiful in order to study them. Who's always at the scene of the crime? The criminal? I think she means Top.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 4:47:53 GMT -5
So Reefs used the term "meltdown" to describe 'leafs stated interest in this idea of "the fog".
The association that immediately popped into my head was one of my all-time favorite tunes:
Now the applicability of the tune in this context is certainly ironic ... but if you think about the state that occurs when we throw ourselves into debate-mode, when we allow ourselves to indulge in the madness of right and wrong, we sort of melt into the foolishness and futility of the battle.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2013 4:58:21 GMT -5
I was trying to place Autumnleaf there, but came up empty. Can't imagine who you thought she was...... Do you take the term "came up empty" there as in "coming empty"? IOW: is that what coming empty means to you? I'm not interested in the current factual instance at bar btw, it's more a question of how you interpret the abstraction of "coming empty".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:18:22 GMT -5
If there's war every time she engages the forum, isn't her battle percentage 100%? That's not the metric I was using. It seems like a steep charge to prove if you are so inclined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:26:41 GMT -5
It does seem like you must have some sort of image about her because you thought you knew her previously. There must be something there. No, there really isn't. It only looks that way if you're studying Figs' latest painting. Here's what I'm going on: You said " I believe I know you from another forum." That implies that you have a current impression of someone which matches to a memory of someone. In other words, you have a current image of someone in your mind that matches with a past image of someone. So then " I don't have an image about you from elsewhere" makes not a whole lot of sense. That's why I said the above. On the Figs painting theme, that's something you've brought in, unless you are implying that autumnleaf is Figs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:40:09 GMT -5
Are you serious? Please tell me that you are just kidding! 1. In this post you higlighted every instance of autumnleaf's use of the word "war" (5 times out of 204 total words, or 2.45%). 2. In this post, I counted the number of times you used war (3 times out of 67 words, or 4.48%). 4.48% > 2.45% Using your metric -- the amount of times a word is used in a post indicates a person's focus -- it is easy to conclude that you have the greater focus on "war." I did add a density factor, dividing the number of each word instance by the total words used in the post. That seems fair doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 26, 2013 9:06:36 GMT -5
Are you serious? Please tell me that you are just kidding! 1. In this post you higlighted every instance of autumnleaf's use of the word "war" (5 times out of 204 total words, or 2.45%). 2. In this post, I counted the number of times you used war (3 times out of 67 words, or 4.48%). 4.48% > 2.45% Using your metric -- the amount of times a word is used in a post indicates a person's focus -- it is easy to conclude that you have the greater focus on "war." I did add a density factor, dividing the number of each word instance by the total words used in the post. That seems fair doesn't it? What's that got to do with anything?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 9:23:00 GMT -5
1. In this post you higlighted every instance of autumnleaf's use of the word "war" (5 times out of 204 total words, or 2.45%). 2. In this post, I counted the number of times you used war (3 times out of 67 words, or 4.48%). 4.48% > 2.45% Using your metric -- the amount of times a word is used in a post indicates a person's focus -- it is easy to conclude that you have the greater focus on "war." I did add a density factor, dividing the number of each word instance by the total words used in the post. That seems fair doesn't it? What's that got to do with anything? What do you mean by 'that'? And what do you mean by 'anything'?
|
|