Re: The Lime sock on Stephan Pickering and NAMBLA

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:04:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:25:35 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
>

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 0:13:13 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:07:50 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 16:51:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 15:52:18 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 13:38:34 +0000, MichaelMonkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:41:04 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
>

That's okay, Pendragon, but I think George Dance has some things to say
about the poem, since George Dance was the person who mentioned MFH in
this thread.
>
HTH and HAND.

>
Based on George's reaction to the previous comments of my colleague, Dr.
NancyGene and myself, I should think that he would want to stick a "No
Trespassing" sign on his father's lawn.

>
I see HarryLiar is still miffed that I called the comments of him and
"Dr." NastyGoon psychobabble (which is why he's started calling our
psychoanalysis of him "psychobabble"),

>
Neither one is qualified to make a diagnosis of any kind, physical or
mental.
>
And so it goes.

>
Granted, my interest is more geared to the psychology of
self-development than toward the treatment of mental illness (i.e., I
consider myself to be a psychologist, not a psychiatrist), but I have
studied both sciences quite thoroughly, from a Freudo-Jungian
perspective, and lack only the hands-on experience of a patient-doctor
relationship.  In short, I am not merely tossing around psychological
terms (psychobabble) without understanding them on as close to a
clinical level as is possible for a layman to attain.
>
>

I honestly don't recall your having previously used the term, George.

>
I certainly can't call you a liar for that. Both Will and I have
commented on your selective memory.

>
True, Harry/Pendragon's poor memory is infamous and legendary in the
Usenet newsgroup archives.

>
Since I'm the one who backs up his statements with archival evidence, I
should think that were hardly the case.
>

>

But that of course belongs in the
"Psycho-epistemology" thread; you're only bringing it up here

>
I noticed that thread has been conveniently buried lately, perhaps it
needs a slight bump.
>

I suspect that all (me, NancyGene, and yourself) used it when we were
discussing your poem in the past...

>
I seriously doubt that either "Doctor" Peabrain or "Doctor" NastyGoon
referred to their own efforts as psychobabble.

>
Definitely sounds too self effacing for them to do anything like that.

>
An example of "psychobabble" would be George's recent misuse of the term
"transference."  My colleague and I actually know our subject.
>
>

but I really don't care enough to
bother looking it up.

>
Exactly, because the Usenet newsgroup archives will most likely prove
you wrong, Harry/Pendragon.

>
It would require a great deal of time to discover who first used the
term, and I  can't see how it has any importance.  Based on George's
propensity for second-handing ("Tit for Tat" in George's mind), the odds
are that he was, and is, just parroting it back without fully
understanding the meaning,
>

>

Of course you don't care to look anything up before talking about it.

>
And then when the archived evidence is provided, Pendragon/Harry (or
Nancy Gene) simply shuts the fuck up about it until it "goes away."

>
I call bullshit.
>
You create multiple versions of each thread.  We refute your "archival
evidence" in three of them, but overlook the fourth (especially when
it's been buried under 50+ of your necro/slurp/Hello-Jordy posts).
>

But that, too, belongs on the "Psycho-Epistemology" thread.

>
Indeed, that thread is currently buried.
>
No surprise there.

>
There shouldn't be.  You're the one who buried it.
>

>

I'm calling yours "psychobabble" because your misuse of psychology-based
terms like "transference" make it clear that you have little to no
knowledge of the subject.

>
As if the armchair psychiatrists Pendragon and Nancy Gene are qualified
to make such a diagnosis.
>
They're not.

>
You're repeating yourself, Donkey.
>

>

Thank you for giving me something I *can* call you a liar for, Lying
Michael. In point of fact, you were copying the term "psychobabble"
before you accused me of misusing the term "transference" (which I may
well be; it looks like psychological jargon for what's commonly called
"projection")

>
Nailed it.

>
Nailed what, Donkey?  Psychobabble is a commonly used word.  I strongly
doubt that George introduced it to a.a.p.c., but then I don't see how
"copying the term... before [I] accused [him] of misusing the term
'transference'" has anything to do with projection -- or... how
"copying" a term and misusing a different term are even remotely
related.
>
>

>

Okay, we've heard your misrepresentation, Pendragon, I said George Dance
might have something to say about his poem.

>
I still think this is true ^^^

>
I'm sure that George Dance has plenty to say about his poem.  He's
already admitted that he's only interested in discussing his own poetry
here.

I didn't see him post that.
Are you sure you're not misrepresenting George Dance again, Harry?

Of course I'd prefer that readers read my poem, and my own comments on
it, rather than HarryLiar's psychobabble about it. So I'll be happy to
post and talk about it again when I have time.

>
>
Excellent.

>
LOL!  George Dance thinks that he has "readers."
>
--

At least he knows you're hanging on every single word.
😏