Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: D.M. Procida on 5 Jun 2010 10:08 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > <1jjm6ss.ln6nsk1b7hvn1N%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > > Seriously, Tim, you need to stop yelling at me and look to your own self > > for a solution to the problems you are suffering. > > I'm not suffering from any problems - not at least of the variety under > discussion. You on the other hand drop into aggressive behaviour WITH > EVERY POSTER HERE eventually. And yet you seem unable to see this > MASSIVE CLUE as a pointer to the fact that its YOU that has the problem. > > And yet you allege you have scientific training. The mind boggles. So, Rowland suffers from some serious mental health issues, and at times like this is not amenable to reason. Yet you seem willing to keep up your end in an interminable series of pointless angry exchanges. Is it satisfying? Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jun 2010 10:21 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > In article > > <1jjm6ss.ln6nsk1b7hvn1N%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, > > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > > > > Seriously, Tim, you need to stop yelling at me and look to your own self > > > for a solution to the problems you are suffering. > > > > I'm not suffering from any problems - not at least of the variety under > > discussion. You on the other hand drop into aggressive behaviour WITH > > EVERY POSTER HERE eventually. And yet you seem unable to see this > > MASSIVE CLUE as a pointer to the fact that its YOU that has the problem. > > > > And yet you allege you have scientific training. The mind boggles. > > So, Rowland suffers from some serious mental health issues, and at times > like this is not amenable to reason. <cough> A more balanced angle might be `seems to some to not be amenable to reason'. To me, it seems more like those who like insulting me are not amenable to reason. Who is it defines `everyone but me' as suitable to make such judgements, but `not me' as being so? > Yet you seem willing to keep up > your end in an interminable series of pointless angry exchanges. Mmm - I'm learning to quell my tendency to try to engage with these people, since I have learnt that all they are trying to achieve by criticising me is the pleasure of watching me howl in pain. My current approach is plain for anyone to see, and of course the shits who like abusing me will insult me and abuse me because of my current approach, but I think it's the right one. I'm working on not merely rejecting all the abusive criticism I get as worthless abuse, but actually ignoring the details so I don't get wound up, taking instead the much more sensible line of analysing the mental dysfunctions of the sickos who behave that way towards me. Yes, I know *I'M* ill in the head - but so are the shits who enjoy winding me up. They seem unable to admit their own flaws... > Is it satisfying? To him, probably. I think that if he does get satisfaction from such behaviour, it's certainly a sign of some sort of mental health problem. And yes, it takes one to know one, if you like. I do not deny that I have mental health problems - minor ones, problems that are not serious problems provided that I'm not wound up by people who like to poke me until I howl. What I find strange is that those who take pleasure from such deviant behaviour seem incapable of assessing their own behaviour - any time I suggest they do that, I get more abuse. A shame that so few people seem willing to address that issue. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Paul Womar on 5 Jun 2010 10:37 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Some people here seem to like winding me up with personal abuse because > they like to make ill people suffer. To me the issue seems to be that you are extremely sensitive and take offence at anything thay is not in complete agreement with you (and based on one of my recent posts - even things that are in total agreement!). Then we have this stragne situation where you seem to be happy to acknowledge you have these problems when speaking generally, but can't accept that these issues are in play when it comes to any specific conversation. I say it's strange, it's probably perfectly normal actually to behave in the circumstances. That all said, many people here also suffer from the same kind of issue in that we accept generally you have issues, but yet we always fall in to the trap of treating you as if those issues don't exist and then are suprised/disappointed/upset when you take offence. Like now, for some reason, I'm writing this genuinely trying to be honest and reasonable, and hoping, maybe even expecting you'll think the same but past experience should make me think that's highly unlikely. So in response to the single quote I left in, I think people generally try and interact with you as they would most other people and when your reaction is not what they expected, thier behaviour changes, and yes that quite quickly then gets to goading and baiting you because of the way you've reacted to them in the past. Their responses to you are are no more because they like to make ill people suffer than your responses to them are because you like to make 'healthy' people suffer. -- -> The email address used in this message *IS* valid <-
From: James Jolley on 5 Jun 2010 10:47 On 2010-06-05 15:37:10 +0100, {$PW$}@womar.co.uk (Paul Womar) said: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> Some people here seem to like winding me up with personal abuse because >> they like to make ill people suffer. > > To me the issue seems to be that you are extremely sensitive and take > offence at anything thay is not in complete agreement with you (and > based on one of my recent posts - even things that are in total > agreement!). Then we have this stragne situation where you seem to be > happy to acknowledge you have these problems when speaking generally, > but can't accept that these issues are in play when it comes to any > specific conversation. > > I say it's strange, it's probably perfectly normal actually to behave in > the circumstances. That all said, many people here also suffer from the > same kind of issue in that we accept generally you have issues, but yet > we always fall in to the trap of treating you as if those issues don't > exist and then are suprised/disappointed/upset when you take offence. > Like now, for some reason, I'm writing this genuinely trying to be > honest and reasonable, and hoping, maybe even expecting you'll think the > same but past experience should make me think that's highly unlikely. > > So in response to the single quote I left in, I think people generally > try and interact with you as they would most other people and when your > reaction is not what they expected, thier behaviour changes, and yes > that quite quickly then gets to goading and baiting you because of the > way you've reacted to them in the past. Their responses to you are are > no more because they like to make ill people suffer than your responses > to them are because you like to make 'healthy' people suffer. Nice reply and a good thoughtful one. I'm sure it'll be on deaf ears with him though, which is a shame. His famous killfile still applies whenever it suits him, never mind, he'll always be this way.
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Jun 2010 10:57
Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: [snip] > > So, Rowland suffers from some serious mental health issues, <sigh> Only just noticed this. I'm quite disappointed in you: They are *minor* mental health problems, as I keep on pointing out... *Serious* mental health issues, according to the standard rules, are things like psychosis and schizophrenia and other problems which cause delusions and raving lunacy (it's the only phrase that does the job - I've dealt with people who *DO* suffer from that sort of thing[1]). I've had formal diagnoses from several different consultant psychiatrists which have been quite definite about me *NOT* suffering from any of those - and they've told me I'm not paranoid, either. So I've got these pukka formal diagnoses from the actual experts who have actually assessed in for real in real life. What makes you think you know so much more about me and mental health issues that you're in a position to provide an alternative assessment of me and my problems? > > and at times > > like this is not amenable to reason. Yet you seem willing to keep up > > your end in an interminable series of pointless angry exchanges. > > > > Is it satisfying? > > Not really :-) Which is quite an interesting claim - so you're obsessed with taking action which gives you no satisfaction. This action provides no benefit to anyone, creates nothing, and annoys a lot of people. And you claim you find it unsatisfying to behave like that. If anyone wanted any evidence that this Tim Streater poster is in fact mad need look no further - what reason other than pure insanity could there be for his behaviour? Rowland. [1] I once dealt with a drunken knife-wielding psycho. By which I mean someone threatening everyone in sight with a pair of big sharp knives, and that person did in fact have a pukka diagnosis of psychosis from a pukka consultant psychiastrist who'd done a pukka assessment (and too much booze inside 'em). I've met the seriously scary nutters, known them quite well in some cases. I'm not that mad myself, but I am very good at dealing with people who are that mad. How come? I know how to avoid winding 'em up, basically. <shrug> Last time, it was some loony I'd never seen before in Burger King. It was me who defused what could have been a nasty situation - this bloke was wanting to wind up the staff by smoking, and the staff member trying to deal with him was doing it The Wrong Way such that it could have turned out very very nasty indeed - I smelt the potential for violence (the loony was a big scary looking fella; the short fat staff member was reacting by `coming the heavy', the fool - but I think the loony was *hoping* he'd get that sort of response so he'd have an `excuse' to - well, who knows? I thought it'd be best to defuse things before it got that bad and since this was an obvious loony we had here, it was a job for me). I cranked up the charm, turned on the smile, and got on the case. Burger King drone retreated, thankfully - he could see he was getting it wrong and that I wasn't. He watched with a learning face on, so there's hope for him yet. I ended up pointing the loony concerned in the direction of what I hope ended up helping him. Had a long chat outside in the sunshine - he was in a *bad* way, all because he couldn't get any mental health care either, for similar reasons to me. So it goes. I tell you again: in real life, I'm nothing like what you think of me. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |