Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Peter Ceresole on 6 Jun 2010 12:24 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Yes of course, it's me who is being gratuitously rude and you that is > the picture of reasoned debate. Normally, yes. And if you've missed it, it demonstrates what I said about your incompetance at understanding human relations. -- Peter
From: Peter Ceresole on 6 Jun 2010 12:30 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > And others continue to plonk on at James and to try to isolate him. This is simply untrue. -- Peter
From: James Jolley on 6 Jun 2010 12:38 On 2010-06-06 17:03:41 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) said: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > >> Journal of NGPsych (2010) >> pp297-302 Kocurban S.E. & Neumayer P.F. Ox.U.P. > > Your grovelling apology for your unfounded claims is accepted. > >> And there's no reason to pussyfoot around James because he's blind. > > There is a need to understand his psychology because he's blind. That's an interesting and relevant issue. For me, it's about looking after yourself. I'm not a selfish type, but i've had difficulties in my life, been robbed in my own home being one such. Hense, my need to be in control of my situation as much as possible. MY partner is obviously an enormous help, being sighted. This opens up other avenues of interests for me. > I see > several people stating loudly, and incorrectly that everyone and anyone > must understand Rowland's psychological state and fall over backwards to > accomodate it (although being a nasty fucker isn't a recognised mental > illness, Not sure if snipping midsentence is leagle but.... I see this also. There is a strict sense of morality where Rowland is concerned, but he'd never offer the same ethics back to the rest of us. > yet)[1]. The same people seem to have not one shred of empathy > for blindness *as a psychological as well as a physical condition*. I'm not sure if that's true or not. Blindness has been very much made simple via the media. The blind are listless and helpless generally. If you're not a Stevie Wonder you're climing everest or something. Life's just not like that really. > >> I don't pussyfoot around you just cos you're a grumpy old fart. > > I don't ask you to do that. I ask you to spare a moment's thought for > someone who is being abused. So far there's little evidence of > consideration being given to anyone other than Rowland, a person whom > I'm tired of talking about since he deserves neither sympathy nor help. He also denies he needs help half of the time himself. I recall one time he said that we're all amature psychiatrists trying to judge him etc. I actually think he gets a kick out of people jumping up and down for him quite honestly. > > [1] Cheap shots very much expected. You've probably already had a few by now yes. Mind you, I probably have, but will be interested in discussing things with the posters.
From: Steve Firth on 6 Jun 2010 12:44 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > And that's Peter's fault because..? > > > > > > > > Because he takes part in those attacks. > > > > > > An example of which would be..? > > > > The attacks that he makes on James in this group. > > An example of which would be..? An actual usenet article example, since > you appear not to be picking up on that? <sigh> I tell you what, when you and the rest of you start to back up your whinings with quotes I'll start looking up message IDs. The current "I can't see any abuse" line is making me retch.
From: Richard Tobin on 6 Jun 2010 12:49
In article <8721jtFp42U1(a)mid.individual.net>, James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: >> I can understand people standing up for themselves, so I ask again, how >> do you propose to do that? Are you just going to shout back at him in an >> equally rude and offensive way? >I'm not going to just take things if that's what you're suggesting. Why not? It would solve the problem. -- Richard |