For Kelly Jones

[Blair]

- but you must have missed some enlightened behavior based on unattached logic, reason, and non-attachment - like Dan turning this into an illustration of causality

That's the transcendence I would expect from Dan.

rather than just booting prince out on his heavily worn welcome mat.

And that's the all-too-human pettiness I would expect from you. (But not Kelly)

Are we learning something here?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

rather than just booting prince out on his heavily worn welcome mat.

And that's the all-too-human pettiness I would expect from you. (But not Kelly)

Are we learning something here?

Prince,

Go through all of your posts. Add up how many of your posts are just heckler's remarks, and how many are posts of substance.

My point was that although this was the worst of your posts, it was not so far out of the ordinary that most admins on most boards would have considered that the last straw, evidence that your behavior is simply escalating, and no explanation needed because there could be no excuse for that.

Most admins on most boards would only give a chance for explanation after a post like that if the member had displayed a near-stellar record of positive contributions to the board. Your track record isn't.

Prince, do you now understand why my descriptor was part of a valid point, and not "pettiness?"

It is not an unreasonable ad hominem by any means

Sinking to the level of ad hominems is sinking to the level of ad hominems. It is not raising anyone up. Are there any stories of Jesus or the Buddha raising anyone's awareness by using ad hominems? Have you ever seen David, Dan or Kevin use ad hominems? I earlier linked this video of Kevin's where he not only speaks out against ad hominems, but he specifically speaks out against the ad hominem of mental illness. If using ad hominems worked, don't you think that the wise would use them?

I'm not the only one on the forum who seriously wants prince to lift his game.

Prince had actually made some improvements, but he did a lot of backsliding after your ad hominem attack.

If prince is to "lift his game" it is prince who must want this. You can want it for him all you want, but that is your want. I can understand your noble desire to inspire greatness in prince, but ad hominems prompt people to want revenge; they do not inspire people to new heights.

[Blair]

Regards prince, he has openly shared some details about his childhood traumas, which he hasn't yet learnt to overcome. There's nothing to be ashamed of, in any intrinsic way, for that..

There's that patronising tone again. You are far more a typical woman than you want to admit, if you want my 2 cents worth of psycho-analysis.

-
My given name is Blair. If one of the moderators can change my account from prince, that's fine.

[uncledote]

Regards prince, he has openly shared some details about his childhood traumas, which he hasn't yet learnt to overcome. There's nothing to be ashamed of, in any intrinsic way, for that..

There's that patronising tone again. You are far more a typical woman than you want to admit, if you want my 2 cents worth of psycho-analysis.

-
My given name is Blair. If one of the moderators can change my account from prince, that's fine.

I don't think Kelly's statement are patronising. That's your interpretation, or if you want to get all philosophical or pseudo-religious on us - your skewed hermeneutics. In my opinion the Prince has become a Pauper.

Lots and lots of blunt, cynical 'one liners' don't provide anything constructive for anyone to build on...

Perhaps you are related to that infamous British Prime Minister Tony?

[Blair]

Lots and lots of blunt, cynical 'one liners' don't provide anything constructive for anyone to build on...

They do if you are paying attention to the goal, not the defense.

Perhaps you are related to that infamous British Prime Minister Tony?

Blair is my first name, but yes I am related to the Scottish Clan from which the surname originated.

[Dennis Mahar]

Elisabeth,

Sinking to the level of ad hominems is sinking to the level of ad hominems. It is not raising anyone up. Are there any stories of Jesus or the Buddha raising anyone's awareness by using ad hominems? Have you ever seen David, Dan or Kevin use ad hominems? I earlier linked this video of Kevin's where he not only speaks out against ad hominems, but he specifically speaks out against the ad hominem of mental illness. If using ad hominems worked, don't you think that the wise would use them?

True nature is the source of Language.
Language is the evidence of true nature.
In language you can point to the presence of true nature.
Language can't describe true nature and any attempt to describe it discloses the inadequecy of words.
Once it's clear it can't be described, then it's seen it can be transmitted, then people can get it in the transmission as long as they are listening with the intention to get it.
It's a maddening state of affairs but there it is.

The telling of those coming from true nature is in their being and their sharing. The transmission.

And yet there is a Languaging mode in the wise that lacks ad hominem, wild accusation as you indicate Elisabeth, as I tend to think.

The wise recognise 'who you really are' as true nature is always/already perfect and ad hom doesn't quite fit the picture. It just wouldn't occur to be speaking to true nature in that way. Insulting perfection is absurd.

'Tough love' happens in the course of transmission but that's not ad hom.

We are all of the same essence and also existentially different in our languaging modes and conceptual structures.

It's so interesting.

[Kelly Jones]

It is not an unreasonable ad hominem by any means

Sinking to the level of ad hominems is sinking to the level of ad hominems.

There are genuinely rational circumstances where it is possible to refer to a person's psychology and behaviour in a metaphysical conversation, and it not be a fallacious form of argument, as in the typical argumentum ad hominem. The latter is where one tries to discount an argument based on a person's psychological attributes, etc. whilst the argument is absolutely unrelated in content to the arguer's own personality, lifestyle, psychology, or anything to do with them personally. That's why it "doesn't work". But where it does work, is where the argument presented is actually dependent on that information for its validity. For instance, if someone is arguing that they personally understand something, yet clearly don't, and their style of self-expression indicates how much they are lying (e.g. swearing, personal attacks/defensiveness, evasiveness, hostility, etc.) then the ad hominem is relevant. Their argument is about their own personal understanding --- it is based on them personally.

Do you see this?

It is not raising anyone up. Are there any stories of Jesus or the Buddha raising anyone's awareness by using ad hominems? Have you ever seen David, Dan or Kevin use ad hominems? I earlier linked this video of Kevin's where he not only speaks out against ad hominems, but he specifically speaks out against the ad hominem of mental illness. If using ad hominems worked, don't you think that the wise would use them?

Kevin is talking against fallacious argumentum ad hominem. For instance, accusing a person with whom you disagree of having a mental illness. It's clearly irrational. He's not talking about pointing to a genuinely existing mental illness, or psychological blockages, as causes for a person's inability to reason. The latter exists, and therefore has to be part of a rational person's observations when dealing with same.


Yes, one with a mental derangement of some sort won't make any genuine changes unless they really want to. But there's no reason why a stimulus towards such a desire can't be created by another person. In fact, such criticisms and pressures can be extremely powerful means.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

He's not talking about pointing to a genuinely existing mental illness, or psychological blockages, as causes for a person's inability to reason. The latter exists, and therefore has to be part of a rational person's observations when dealing with same.

As an inquiry.
Does it work?

If the purpose of GF is to disclose true nature or true identity, then any attribution put upon another is forcing a false identity on them.

GF is about First Principles not the delusions of empiricism.
Many people come here falsely labeled by the delusions of empirical psychologists and psychiatrists and armchair psychologists.
True identity can never be damaged in any way except that Worldhood can force a 'story of a me that is damaged' on a personhood...and the personhood believes it.

It's GF's purpose to enlighten the personhoods who arrive that this false identity that worldhood has encumbered them with, that has them suffering, is in fact not their true identity.

How much of so called mental illness and psychological blockage is just a story that a me has been lumbered with by empiricism, in a quest for a vulnerable me to get an explanation of itself for itself?

GF's aim is to disabuse a person of those kinds of false beliefs, isn't it?
That they're just thoughts that have no basis in reality.

[Kelly Jones]

Dennis, the shift from the false self to true only happens if a person is in the "human realms", with a good mind for thinking. They have no deep personal investment in the false self because of this.

But if someone has damaged emotions, such as from experiencing child abuse, or other early traumas in life, then they're usually carrying psychological stuff that prevents them from really achieving a human birth. When anything really challenging arises, that childhood distress resurfaces, like a child's habitual worry, and they naturally become agitated, nervy, easily offended, and angry. So, there's going to a deep emotional attachment to the false self there. It's too much to ask that they "leap" or "transcend" --- they have to go through the process of transition. They need to form a better self-concept first. Even though they won't be born in the human realms for a while, they'll be climbing out of hell. That's all that can be realistically expected, and also, it's a stupendously liberating thing for them.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

they have to go through the process of transition

How does GF facilitate that process of transition.

Pam, I'm putting your point forward about withdrawing adjectives and adverbs as instruments of creating false identities.
What do you think?

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: Pam, I'm putting your point forward about withdrawing adjectives and adverbs as instruments of creating false identities.

What do you think?

Dennis, the only true [permanent, real, unchanging] identity is that of pure awareness, which is attained only when one is purified of all karmic seeds of lifetimes of sense interpretations. My pointing out the use of adjective and adverbs by individuals to analyze a 'self' is one way of awakening one to the inherent falseness of using these things and calling them truth, for adjectives and adverbs arise from the karmic-sense realm, which is not the realm of TRUTH, but of individual truth. Which by its very definition of being individual, is a realm not of truth at all, but of belief.

Discernment in this realm of karmic-sense interpretations of belief has its own circle of good and evil wisdom discernment. The embracing of positive dualities such as courage, integrity, strength of conviction, calmness and gentleness in order to overcome negative dualities such as fear, lack of integrity, lack of conviction, agitation and aggression do indeed produce a state of mind that is conducive to living a moral, harmonious intellectual, sense life, giving rise to using adverbs and adjectives that help sustain just such a 'good' life. And also, of giving this individual a language to use to aid others in being lifted up to discover the same harmony of positive dualities that they themselves, have discovered. But this is not the true self of the realm that produces no karma of dualism or human words, the realm of form emptiness or pure consciousness, called Father Consciousness [biblical metaphor], and Amala Consciousness [buddhist metaphor].

No man who remains of breath has attained purity of awareness of Father or Amala Consciousness so as to never use human words that address time, space, distance and matter [nouns, adjective and adverbs], even those who have become aware of their purpose to become pure enough to BE this consciousness. From Wiki, on Nirvana, [which I also identify as Christ Consciousness], ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana ~

Each liberated individual produces no new karma but preserves a particular individual personality which is the result of the traces of his or her karmic heritage. The very fact that there is a psycho-physical substrate during the remainder of an arahant's lifetime shows the continuing effect of karma.

However, to those who are dedicated to being purified completely of their psycho-physical substrate, obedience to using adjectives and adverbs carefully and precisely so as to not create new karmic seeds in themselves or another becomes their life's work. Therefore, such a person does not engage in psychological interpretations or in the categorization of 'selves.' To do so is to potentially produce karma in oneself and/or in another, karma that will eventually need to be examined and 'rooted out.'

It all comes down to how deep one wants to go into the discernment of themselves.

[paco]

"Lay yo head-on my shoulder."

@pac shakur

[paco]

Dennis, the shift from the false self to true only happens if a person is in the "human realms", with a good mind for thinking. They have no deep personal investment in the false self because of this.

But if someone has damaged emotions, such as from experiencing child abuse, or other early traumas in life, then they're usually carrying psychological stuff that prevents them from really achieving a human birth. When anything really challenging arises, that childhood distress resurfaces, like a child's habitual worry, and they naturally become agitated, nervy, easily offended, and angry. So, there's going to a deep emotional attachment to the false self there. It's too much to ask that they "leap" or "transcend" --- they have to go through the process of transition. They need to form a better self-concept first. Even though they won't be born in the human realms for a while, they'll be climbing out of hell. That's all that can be realistically expected, and also, it's a stupendously liberating thing for them.


.

Denise Meyer,

What?

If thought created a thought out0g. How can it be proven, by mishap, or mistic.? Thought proven? Well, not just yet. Our query of relativity, A+A is a bonibor of some kind of substance that equals self realization. Like the cup that fell from the steeple on genius forums index.

[Kelly Jones]

they have to go through the process of transition

How does GF facilitate that process of transition.

For starters, this place isn't actually for them. It's for people in the Genius realms, who are ready for it.

Virtually everyone has psychological issues, but some people have serious stuff to work through. It's not just a small part of their mind, but deeply-ingraved attitudes. There are many "hardened flakes", to put it succinctly, who are attracted to GF for the wrong reasons, which I won't enumerate here. It's my belief that the overwhelming majority of these will never reach the genius realms.

Sure, I'm all for people getting out of the lower realms, but let's face it - this ain't the place for doing that. It's not designed for garden-variety psychological therapies. They should see an expert, like a psychologist who can give them suitable advice.

Maybe, when that's done, they might not be interested at all in this venue. Life will appear differently, with new possibilities. So be it. At least the motives will be in the right shape by then.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dennis, the only true [permanent, real, unchanging] identity is that of pure awareness

It's not just pure awareness is it?
It's also Present and Cognises doesn't it?

It's always up and about, always here isn't it?

It's identifying, differentiating, reacting isn't it?
It is itself. A=A.
The ontological principle.
Permanent, unchanging.
Dealing with the changing appearance of the empirical reality.

Getting into trouble with attaching to belief in false identities?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There are genuinely rational circumstances where it is possible to refer to a person's psychology and behaviour in a metaphysical conversation, and it not be a fallacious form of argument, as in the typical argumentum ad hominem.

Yes, there is a time and a place where it may be permissible or even useful to discuss mental illness, even particular mental illnesses by name as attached to particular people. Under appropriate circumstances, that would not be an ad hominem.

What you are using now is the red herring fallacy. You have found an occasion when mental illness is appropriate to be discussed, attempted to pass it off as relevant to ad hominems because the example of ad hominem being discussed is mental illness, and hoping that this will make the actual point go away.

Your original ad hominem was not intrinsic to a "metaphysical argument."
Subject: APOCALYPSE or FAIRY TALE?

Lumping everyone together is hardly a scientific method. Prince is himself, with rather deep admitted psychological issues, and cannot be taken as exemplary by anyone. Except you, of course, with your smouldering resentment of this forum, and need to find shallow objections to defend your own tastes.

You were just mad and threw prince under the bus to try to get the heat off you. You could have made your point by simply saying that prince speaks for himself, and his caustic remarks are only a reflection of prince.

As for what Kevin meant, I hope that Kevin will clarify his meaning for himself. I don't like to speak for others when they are able to speak for themselves.

Yes, one with a mental derangement of some sort won't make any genuine changes unless they really want to. But there's no reason why a stimulus towards such a desire can't be created by another person.

People with or without mental derangements must have the desire within themselves for change.

Yes we can be a cause of desire in another person. However, calling someone mentally ill or deranged is significantly unlikely to cause a desire for positive change. It is possible, but not likely. If it were likely to do something good, it would be called useful language. It is not - it is abusive language.

In fact, such criticisms and pressures can be extremely powerful means.

Yes, such criticisms and pressures can be extremely powerful. They can cause someone who was making some progress to not only revert to his previously abusive language, but to exceed his previous harshness into a whole new realm of venom. In other cases, abusive language has caused everything from people giving up and not trying anymore to people killing their abuser; so yes, such criticisms and pressures can be extremely powerful means.

[Kevin Solway]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but my position on ad-hominem is the following:

The only thing that matters is that a person is speaking the truth. It doesn't matter whether a person has a mental illness since people who are mentally ill can still speak the truth.

Therefore when it comes to matters of truth the question of mental illness should not arise.

If a person is not speaking the truth it might be interesting to speculate on the reasons why they are not speaking the truth, but that kind of speculation should be done privately, unless the person requests otherwise, and the speculation may be entirely misguided.

[Kelly Jones]

What you are using now is the red herring fallacy. You have found an occasion when mental illness is appropriate to be discussed, attempted to pass it off as relevant to ad hominems because the example of ad hominem being discussed is mental illness, and hoping that this will make the actual point go away.

The actual point is how to deal with a person who can't handle rational discussions, but reacts with unwarranted hostility. Ignoring that behaviour seems downright idiotic. One has to characterise it, to work out the best way to deal with it. Maybe it isn't a mental illness, but deliberate. But if the excessive hostility is deliberate (i.e. there is a rational purpose behind it), then it ought to be working to a particular goal. I don't see any such conscious goal in prince's ongoing hostility and outright rudeness. The name-calling and private giggles aren't even Zennish, like in the oppositional, Diogenes-like character.

Simply put, the behaviour doesn't suggest intelligence, but resentment. The actual situation is basically this: prince jumped onto cousinbasil's bandwagon (this thread), because he is outraged about my criticisms of his hostility and aggressiveness towards others here, as being founded in his mental illness. Now, why would he get so outraged, if the criticism is completely untrue? Obviously, it touches a raw nerve.

Your original ad hominem was not intrinsic to a "metaphysical argument."
Subject: APOCALYPSE or FAIRY TALE?

Lumping everyone together is hardly a scientific method. Prince is himself, with rather deep admitted psychological issues, and cannot be taken as exemplary by anyone. Except you, of course, with your smouldering resentment of this forum, and need to find shallow objections to defend your own tastes.

You were just mad and threw prince under the bus to try to get the heat off you. You could have made your point by simply saying that prince speaks for himself, and his caustic remarks are only a reflection of prince.

Carmel's argument was that misogynistic viewpoints are exemplified by the likes of prince - e.g. impatience and intolerance. In other words, the argument had nothing to do with prince per se. He was nothing more than a symbol for her. I simply clarified that his attitudes were one of mental illness - since I do regard that behaviour to be mentally ill. I would have said Carmel was mentally ill also (but I think she already knew that).

Yes we can be a cause of desire in another person. However, calling someone mentally ill or deranged is significantly unlikely to cause a desire for positive change. It is possible, but not likely. If it were likely to do something good, it would be called useful language. It is not - it is abusive language.

Well, if someone genuinely has a mental illness, then clearly they'd be deeply antagonised by others stating this fact openly, just because their illness makes them unable to judge the situation level-headedly. I've run foul of people for this reason, because I stated they were insane or mentally ill on a metaphysical level (i.e. the majority are thus) --- and they were actually diagnosed with conventional mental illness. This is just bad luck. It wasn't abusive language on my part, but telling the reality as I see it. Unfortunately, they'd been so afraid to talk of their illness that the damage was done before I knew it.

I prefer to treat all people like adults. If they get riled by that, then too bad.

KJ: In fact, such criticisms and pressures can be extremely powerful means.

EI: Yes, such criticisms and pressures can be extremely powerful. They can cause someone who was making some progress to not only revert to his previously abusive language, but to exceed his previous harshness into a whole new realm of venom. In other cases, abusive language has caused everything from people giving up and not trying anymore to people killing their abuser; so yes, such criticisms and pressures can be extremely powerful means.

I'm sorry, but it's not my fault if someone can't handle the truth. Tiptoeing around people with anger issues is playing with fire. They have to learn to experience the personal effects of their anger, and ofttimes the best way is for them to feel the physical and psychological pain of anger - e.g. chest pain. Unfortunately, many won't learn to control the horrors and violence of their behaviour until they personally feel how damaging it is.


.

[cousinbasil]

The actual situation is basically this: prince jumped onto cousinbasil's bandwagon (this thread), because he is outraged about my criticisms of his hostility and aggressiveness towards others here, as being founded in his mental illness. Now, why would he get so outraged, if the criticism is completely untrue?

You know better than that, Kelly. You may not get "outraged" by anything, but a normal person will bridle when something completely untrue is said about him in a public place, which this is, especially when the untrue thing is defamatory.

And this thread is not my "bandwagon," as I have barely contributed to it. I started this thread, if I remember correctly, as a response to your thread which "called me out" for calling you a shit shoveler. You should know that I meant that in the best possible way. I was under the impression we had buried the hatchet over that one. I am resisting the urge to dig it up again (perhaps if I had a shovel...) The reason being the way you keep trying to justify diagnosing prince/Blair's mental condition instead of admitting you may have been mistaken.

[Kelly Jones]

I'd be delighted if Blair didn't have a conventionally diagnosed mental illness. That is, if his insanity is the normal run-of-the-mill type. ;-) It would be good news for all.

Anyway, I've neither defamed nor lied. Blair has actually admitted to childhood traumas. I think he had third-degree burns, and was attacked by a dog as a child. He was rather upset about it. My speculation, that this still continues to affect him, may or may not be relevant. If it's not relevant, great. Then let's just have an end to the spitting and biting, and not waste any more time raising concerns about his behaviour.


.

[Kelly Jones]

calling you a shit shoveler. You should know that I meant that in the best possible way.

Actually, not at all. The best possible way it could be taken, would mean something no sane person would be complaining about.


.

[cousinbasil]

I'd be delighted if Blair didn't have a conventionally diagnosed mental illness. That is, if his insanity is the normal run-of-the-mill type. ;-) It would be good news for all.

This is just too funny. You simply can't help yourself.

Anyway, I've neither defamed nor lied. Blair has actually admitted to childhood traumas. I think he had third-degree burns, and was attacked by a dog as a child.

No, you haven't lied. But thinking you are right all the time doesn't make you right all the time.

If you say prince is mentally ill and he is not, and you say it in a public forum, which this is, then I would say that is defamation.

You didn't even know his first name until now, yet you cannot bring yourself to retract your labeling of him as "mentally ill."

Everybody has childhood traumas. For a sensitive person, childhood itself can be an ongoing trauma. I am pretty sure if prince Blair is mentally ill, then so are most people who reach adulthood. Including you and me.

This thread was not supposed to be about Blair. You are not a doctor, Kelly, no matter how intelligent you are. Just think how fast this thread would sink if you were to admit an error and watch it drop.

[Dennis Mahar]

Uncledote
Lots and lots of blunt, cynical 'one liners' don't provide anything constructive for anyone to build on...

Blair
They do if you are paying attention to the goal, not the defense.

Blair is disclosing his posting style as strategy here.
That's what I saw.
Oftentimes striking deftly at grandiosity.

Anyway, it would really be useful if he were to explain the 'game'.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The actual point is how to deal with a person who can't handle rational discussions, but reacts with unwarranted hostility. Ignoring that behaviour seems downright idiotic.

Actually, if a person actually could not handle rational discussions, the best course of action usually is to ignore the behavior because no progress could be made. If the person is unable to handle rational discussions and is causing a significant disturbance, the next level is to remove that person. Any intervention beyond that with a person who is actually unable to handle rationale discussions is best left to professionals in a professional environment.

Well, if someone genuinely has a mental illness, then clearly they'd be deeply antagonised by others stating this fact openly, just because their illness makes them unable to judge the situation level-headedly.

Even if someone does not have a mental illness, they are likely to be antagonized by being called mentally ill. Doing so in private can be a way of dismissing everything a person says as being unworthy of even being considered, and doing so publicly is usually a way of encouraging others to to dismiss everything the person says as well.

I think that your underlying thought is that everyone who is not a fully enlightened buddha is mentally ill. Where that as a stand-alone thought is good insight, and actually has more technical accuracy than going around and calling all unenlightened people women, there is a difference between being unenlightened and being mentally ill.

Unfortunately, many won't learn to control the horrors and violence of their behaviour until they personally feel how damaging it is.

This is true. There was someone in my childhood who physically beat me on a regular basis, and continued to do so until she was a teenager with a boyfriend who physically beat her. She told me later that getting beaten herself, she "suddenly realized this wasn't too cool."

However even that is not what you did. Your attack on Blair was not correlative with his behavior, so all that you showed him was that the world is a little uglier than he previously thought, and that the esteem that he had for you was misplaced.

Carmel's argument was that misogynistic viewpoints are exemplified by the likes of prince - e.g. impatience and intolerance. In other words, the argument had nothing to do with prince per se. He was nothing more than a symbol for her. I simply clarified that his attitudes were one of mental illness - since I do regard that behaviour to be mentally ill.

Actually it was Alex Jacob that you were refuting

Spiritual traditions do not necessarily stand in opposition to each other, men do. One must be willing to take a look at the underpinning of 'deep resentment' that informs Q-R-S as well as Kelly. Something seethes here. After all, what gives 'acid' its bite, hmmmm? No one of them shows this level of self-knowledge, as far as I have seen, and oddly enough this makes the 'acid' only that much more...caustic. One finds that lovely, unchanging, fossilized causticity in our precious, snarling Prince...who will undoubtedly go to his grave in the thrall of this 'mood'. I suggest this is not really 'spiritual growth' or even 'human growth'...or 'Buddhist growth'!...but something more akin to a romantic poets love of his process of dying.

Kelly attempting to refute Alex's proposition that QRS, Kelly, Prince, and others named later are more caustic than promoting of growth by Kelly throwing ad hominems at prince does more to prove Alex's point at least in regards to Kelly than it does to refute it.

In fact, the last couple of pages of this thread seem to exemplify what Alex said in that same post in regards to you:

Kelly, as is usual and predictable, pours her 'acid' on the Fromm-list, sits back and watches it hiss and bubble and melt. With at least some genuine respect for her I would suggest that, pretty much across the board (no pun intended) this is her favorite activity.

You are trying to justify your statements as being for prince's best interest, when clearly that was not your intent at the time. You have pulled out enough red herrings to feed a village. Now you are even calling Carmel mentally ill when you know that she can not even come here and defend her reputation. I am beginning to suspect that your attachment to appearing right to others, at least in your eyes (meaning you want to think that others think that you are right, whether or not they actually do) may be making you incapable of rational discourse about this topic at this time. I suggest that you devote much of this day to examining your attachment to "being right" before you do work yourself into a state of not being able to handle rational discussions.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Please someone bring back the hominem. Christ!