Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Chico's paradoxes 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Chico's paradoxes
Chico wrote the following at another forum, Inphinet.net:
http://inphinet.net/threads/sociopaths- ... #post-5800

Quote:
Sociopaths and their polar opposites, who I call "saints", are not the same, even though both are human and share many of the same qualities. I always envision a bell curve which charts the distribution of sociopathic tendencies within a population. At the extreme left end, we have the sociopaths. At the extreme right end, we have the saints. Most of us fall somewhere in between. Some of us are more saintly than sociopathic. Some are more sociopathic than saintly. In effect, sociopathy exists in varying degrees among all people. Saints have almost none, sociopaths have an abundance.

If we were to chart the amount of empathy in a population, we would essentially get the same curve. Sociopaths have low empathy, saints have high empathy.

Although I have used the word "saints", I am not using it in the religious sense. To me, it means people who are exceptional do-gooders. I may confuse some people by that word choice, but I have used it for a long time to label the right-most side of the bell curve, as it was the best word I could come up with. Can you think of a better word?


What Chico doesn't tell you is that it was I who introduced the Gaussian normal distribution as a way of understanding the topic of sociopathy ... here at United People after I couldn't stomach his idiotic obsession with the topic any longer or for that matter, his lack of scholarship. I also originated the term saints here on this forum (in the larger narrative of the right side of the Bell Curve) ... as opposed to the clinical terminology, empaths, that Chico often advances as he works his compulsive obsession, sociopathy, across all forums and all threads.

One would think that Chico, a self-labelled empath and man with self-promoted integrity (indeed, he describes himself as a truthseeker at the aforementioned Inphinet forum) ... one would think that such an honorable man
would at least give credit before he steals another man's arguments and modeling. So be it.

In any event, here's that post of mine again:
viewtopic.php?p=18315#p18315

beginExcerpt
It was a qualitative illustration, not a quantitative one. The qualitative modelling could have been equally rendered using any quantile (e.g. median, tercile, quintile ... decile ... percentile).

In real life, any object or parameter of study would be expected to be distributed according to the Gaussian normal distribution. The study of psychological makeup is no different.

In a 2-set modelling, sociopathy would be the entire left side of the neutral center (e.g. median) ... and empathy, the entire right side.

In a 4-set modelling, sociopathy and nonempathy would both be on the left side of the neutral center (e.g. the median which is also the tail end of the 2nd quartile) ... and nonsociopathy and empathy would both be on the right side. More the further, nonempathic and nonsociopathic cases would be closer to the median then either sociopathy or empathy ... and would have substantially greater populations.

Indeed, the Gaussian normal distribution would push sociopathic cases beyond the 1st standard deviation of psychological makeup to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th deviational outliers on the left side; equally, push empathic cases beyond the 1st standard deviation to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th deviational outliers on the right side. In the extreme degrees, we see the general separation of the genetic sociopaths and empaths from the environmental sociopaths and empaths ... because the genetic cases tend to exhibit psychological characteristics beyond a threshold level.

There is more to the mathematical modelling of psychological makeup then you are able (or willing) to grasp, Chico.

FWIW, my own psychological makeup belongs to the community of 3rd deviation empaths ... my reactive temper prevents me from becoming part of the truly gifted community of 4th deviation empaths, e.g. the saints.

If I were to hazard a guess about you, your psychological makeup appears to belong within the 1st standard deviation. I'm just not sure which side of the median. As such, you're either a nonsociopath on the empathic half of psychological makeup; or a nonempath on the sociopathic half. To be sure, an undistinguished middling brand. Ironically, my uncertainty about your locus on the psychological makeup axis, is a best case scenario for yourself. There are those that have privately suggested to me that you exhibit tendencies that are common to 2nd deviation sociopaths or worse. But I see enough hiccups of empathy from you, here and there, that suggest to me that you're probably no worse than a garden variety nonempath, and no better than a garden variety nonsociopath.

From boring dirt worms to slithering grass slugs to frenetically flying lemon moths to milk-spotted fluttering butterflies ... the garden runs the gamut of possibility even within the mundane confines of the 1st deviation, wot? I do have uncertainty about your psychological profile, Chico, but it's of the warranted kind.
end


And we know that Chico did not originally hold the arguments he expressed at that other forum, for in the very following post immediate to my United People post (on the Bell Curve distribution of psychological tendencies), here's Chico's rebuttal:
viewtopic.php?p=18316#p18316

beginExcerpt
Quote:
Chico wrote:
Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
In a 2-set modelling, sociopathy would be the entire left side of the neutral center (e.g. median) ... and empathy, the entire right side.

This is utter nonsense. No wonder you are so lost.

end


Say what?? Chico claims that Zook is utterly lost? But didn't Chico just basically copy my "utterly lost" arguments over there at Inphinet forum? Of course he did.

Good folks, the one constant about Chico is that he is not genuine. He is what he accuses others of being. And he isn't what he describes himself as being. Need more convincing? Okay, here's another example. Chico implied on his personal blog that Hitler was a sociopath.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/chicodoodoo/

beginExcerpt
FIAT REALITY

The system that is in place is a pathological system that is at odds in a very profound way with the being or nature of most people. People of conscience are being ruled by people with no conscience. This fact is the primary injustice and is the basis for the other ills of society.

(As you read the following partial list of sociopathic traits (more here and here), think of how they apply to Hitler, Mussolini, Bush, Cheney, Blair, Obama, etc.)

- An obvious trait of sociopaths is the complete lack of conscience. They lack any sense of remorse or empathy with others. They cannot feel the suffering of others.
- Sociopaths are experts at using talk to charm and hypnotize their prey.
- Sociopaths are irresponsible. Nothing is ever their fault.
- Another trait – and a very important one – is their ability to control the flow of information.
- Sociopaths are incapable of deep emotions.
- Sociopaths are experts in knowing how to push our buttons, to use our emotions against us.

Lobaczewski’s contribution is his analysis of the way the different types of psychopathic types work together to form a system where people who are clinically pathological have the positions of power and rule over people who are psychologically normal.
end


... yet ... when I argued that Hitler was not only a sociopath but also a Rothschild bankster puppet, Chico dismissed that idea without considering the documented evidence and quickly propped up Hitler as a nonsociopath. Say what?? Chico claimed in his earlier blog (in 2010) that Hitler was a sociopath exhibiting all the sociopathic traits. Now, he claims that Hitler is not a sociopath. Is Chico suffering from two sides of mouth syndrome?

Of course he is. But it becomes quickly understandable to those who have the patience to rummage through the archives here at United People ... that Chico is not who he claims to be. That Chico is indeed a gatekeeper of information in the duty of the bankster empire, and that his primary task is to label genuine truthseekers with the tarbrush of sociopathy. Just like those who hurl the shibboleth "antiSemite!" around in an attempt to stop investigation of the Holocaust or anything that might damage the Rothschild bankster agenda.

Chico is somewhat successful at gatekeeping because he mixes 75% to 90% truths in with his fictions. This is to gain the confidence of those he is tasked with deceiving. He belongs to the fifth column; as such he is here to spread disinformation about the cause of the global evils which is identifiable as Rothschild bankster organization, and shift the blame instead to the psychology of evil. The psychology of evil, of course, exists in all human cultures. By shifting the cause of virtually all the global evils from the directing tribal bankster organization to the directed nontribal human species gives the tribal controllers all the opportunity to commit more evil and deflect all blame.

Indeed, by using fifth column conArtists like Chico as a pied piper to obstruct genuine discussion and channel the unaware into cul-de-sacs of lost purpose ... by using the fifth column, the perpetrators of evil win as all blame then dissipates into a timeless space where good and evil have been doing battle since the beginning of moral time.

Shortly, I will post my own understandings of sociopathy in a series of audio recordings. Understandings gleaned from my own direct observations and by reading the literature of great writers from antiquity to about fifty years ago, when writing was of top quality and less beholding to the agenda of the tribal-controlled publishing houses.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:52 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
Howdy, Zook! Glad to see you are alive and well. Back for another try at crucifying Chico?

:face:

OK, let's dance.

UncleZook wrote:
What Chico doesn't tell you is that it was I who introduced the Gaussian normal distribution as a way of understanding the topic of sociopathy ... here at United People after I couldn't stomach his idiotic obsession with the topic any longer or for that matter, his lack of scholarship.

I'm sorry, Zook, but I have been using the bell curve ever since I learned about it in college biology in 1974. It is only natural that I would use it to describe the distribution of sociopathic tendencies in the human population.

UncleZook wrote:
I also originated the term saints here on this forum (in the larger narrative of the right side of the Bell Curve) ... as opposed to the clinical terminology, empaths, that Chico often advances as he works his compulsive obsession, sociopathy, across all forums and all threads.

I was using "saints" before I joined Avalon in 2011, which is where our paths first crossed. I personally don't use the word "empaths".

UncleZook wrote:
Say what?? Chico claims that Zook is utterly lost? But didn't Chico just basically copy my "utterly lost" arguments over there at Inphinet forum? Of course he did.

Don't be ridiculous. I don't copy you when it comes to information on sociopathy, because you are quite mixed-up on the subject, despite being a sociopath yourself. Or maybe you just pretend to be mixed-up, as a ploy to mask your true psychology. Your behavior, however, is typical of a sociopath, and gives you away.

Anyway, you made a beginner's error when you stated, "In a 2-set modelling, sociopathy would be the entire left side of the neutral center (e.g. median) ... and empathy, the entire right side." Sociopathy lies at the extreme left side of the bell curve. It does not begin at the median line, which would make half the population sociopaths! Utter nonsense, Professor Zook. It's a bell curve, and bell curves do not describe 2-set models. They describe distributions of traits within a population.

UncleZook wrote:
Say what?? Chico claimed in his earlier blog (in 2010) that Hitler was a sociopath exhibiting all the sociopathic traits. Now, he claims that Hitler is not a sociopath. Is Chico suffering from two sides of mouth syndrome? Of course he is.

Back in 2010, my knowledge of Hitler was mainstream, meaning the official version. In other words, I was still brainwashed about Hitler at that time. It wasn't until I started researching the Holocaust that I realized we may have been massively lied to about Hitler as well. So I researched that possibility, and lo and behold, it was indeed the case.

UncleZook wrote:
Chico is not who he claims to be. That Chico is indeed a gatekeeper of information in the duty of the bankster empire, and that his primary task is to label genuine truthseekers with the tarbrush of sociopathy.

"Genuine truthseekers" like UncleZook, for instance? :lol: :lol: Still trying to clear your "good name" from the sting of being exposed as a sociopath? Same old Zook!

UncleZook wrote:
... as such he is here to spread disinformation about the cause of the global evils which is identifiable as Rothschild bankster organization, and shift the blame instead to the psychology of evil. The psychology of evil, of course, exists in all human cultures. By shifting the cause of virtually all the global evils from the directing tribal bankster organization to the directed nontribal human species gives the tribal controllers all the opportunity to commit more evil and deflect all blame.

This is the same old argument that you have lost umpteen times already. Why do you keep repeating it? Oh, right, Hitler pointed out that the Jewish sociopaths used this very tactic. Repeating the Big Lie is what sociopaths do.

UncleZook wrote:
Shortly, I will post my own understandings of sociopathy in a series of audio recordings.

Good, that should be interesting. I hope you don't repeat your enormous gaffe about half the population being sociopaths!

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:05 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
Howdy, Zook! Glad to see you are alive and well. Back for another try at crucifying Chico?
:face:
OK, let's dance.


Your self-contradictory statements are innumerable ... so any perceived crucification by you is self-earned.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
What Chico doesn't tell you is that it was I who introduced the Gaussian normal distribution as a way of understanding the topic of sociopathy ... here at United People after I couldn't stomach his idiotic obsession with the topic any longer or for that matter, his lack of scholarship.

I'm sorry, Zook, but I have been using the bell curve ever since I learned about it in college biology in 1974. It is only natural that I would use it to describe the distribution of sociopathic tendencies in the human population.


Of course you know about the Bell Curve. Who doesn't? Only, you didn't introduce it here on the topic of sociopathy, I did. And when I did, you proceeded to ridicule it by calling it utter nonsense. IOW, you were too busy attacking the messenger that you didn't care how your attacks would affect your own message.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
I also originated the term saints here on this forum (in the larger narrative of the right side of the Bell Curve) ... as opposed to the clinical terminology, empaths, that Chico often advances as he works his compulsive obsession, sociopathy, across all forums and all threads.

I was using "saints" before I joined Avalon in 2011, which is where our paths first crossed. I personally don't use the word "empaths".


viewtopic.php?p=14980#p14980

beginExcerpt
Personal interactions with a sociopath can be especially disturbing for an "empath", meaning someone with a well developed sense of empathy. This is because most empaths do not know about sociopaths and do not recognize them. Because empaths typically believe everyone has empathy, they simply don't recognize that some humans have none. And this is precisely where the sociopath can do the most damage, because all sociopaths know about empaths and know how to recognize them. This knowledge is power, and we all know how sociopaths are attracted to power, and how they use that power to control others. This means sociopaths often target empaths. This article shows how it happens.
end


Appears that what you say now and what you had said in the past ... are at mutual odds. Of course, when one takes your track record of mendacity, fact-obfuscation, and fact-distortion into consideration, Chico, the chances are very likely that you are lying now (in the hope that no one will investigate the archives).

As for "saints" ... no one cares how you used the term elsewhere in other contexts and topics ... what is relevant is how you are using it now on the topic of sociopathy. I started using it in my Bell Curve modeling of psychological natures; and you have since copied my usage ... prior to that, you were using the term "empaths" and "people with empathy" in a phony attempt to appear clinical and authoritative (e.g. on the topic of sociopathy). The archives hold it.

The coincidence of you using both "saints" and "the Bell Curve" to promote an understanding of sociopathy _AFTER_ I posited that term and those arguments wrt the topic of sociopathy here on United People ... is too big to go unnoticed. Big enough to call you a plagiarist.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Say what?? Chico claims that Zook is utterly lost? But didn't Chico just basically copy my "utterly lost" arguments over there at Inphinet forum? Of course he did.

Don't be ridiculous. I don't copy you when it comes to information on sociopathy, because you are quite mixed-up on the subject, despite being a sociopath yourself. Or maybe you just pretend to be mixed-up, as a ploy to mask your true psychology. Your behavior, however, is typical of a sociopath, and gives you away.


A lot of innuendo ... to avoid answering the question. Typical Chico.

Quote:
Anyway, you made a beginner's error when you stated, "In a 2-set modelling, sociopathy would be the entire left side of the neutral center (e.g. median) ... and empathy, the entire right side." Sociopathy lies at the extreme left side of the bell curve. It does not begin at the median line, which would make half the population sociopaths! Utter nonsense, Professor Zook. It's a bell curve, and bell curves do not describe 2-set models. They describe distributions of traits within a population.


Your semantic sidestep is noted. Your idiotic rambling above indicates to me that you really don't understand the Bell Curve at all. The Gaussian normal distribution is symmetric about the y-axis. It has a positive half and a negative half. That's two sets right there. Each set has variability in it and this is a consequence of natural distribution. For example, if we are studying the distribution of heights ... we would have a mean height ... and half the population would be considered above this mean height and half the population below. The above the mean population would be considered the positive or tall half. The below the mean population would be considered the negative or short half. The entire negative half would be evaluated as being short; the entire positive half would be evaluated as being tall. Yes, there is variability in the shortness and variability in the tallness ... but make no mistake about it, there are two basic qualitative identifiers: shortness and tallness. Just like sociopathy and empathy are two basic qualitative identifiers of psychological behavior.

We then set dividers (e.g. standard deviations) to establish the variability in shortness and tallness. And these dividers have measurable quantitative meanings and descriptive qualitative meanings. We may choose the descriptive meanings in any arbitrary fashion. For instance, we may require individuals to be 2 std from the mean on the negative half of the bell curve for a qualitative determination of shortness. Or perhaps 3 std from the mean. Our arbitrary choice. If we set shortness as beginning from 2 std on the negative half; and tallness as beginning from 2 std on the positive half ... then those who are neither short nor tall (e.g. whose heights are between -2 std and +2 std) would be considered as normal height. Or we can set shortness/tallness as beginning at 0 std, e.g. the mean itself, in which case all the left side would be considered short and all the right side would be considered tall. Ditto for the 2-set modeling of sociopathy and empathy. We set arbitrary thresholds to define sociopaths (e.g. those who express 2-std, 3-std or 4- std sociopathic behavior) and empaths (e.g. those who express 2-std, 3-std or 4-std empathic behavior). The most populated part of the bell curve is usually referenced between -1-std and +1-std and this is where the distinctions between sociopaths and empaths are obscured because most individuals express both sociopathic and empathic behavior.

Get it yet, Cupid?

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Say what?? Chico claimed in his earlier blog (in 2010) that Hitler was a sociopath exhibiting all the sociopathic traits. Now, he claims that Hitler is not a sociopath. Is Chico suffering from two sides of mouth syndrome? Of course he is.

Back in 2010, my knowledge of Hitler was mainstream, meaning the official version. In other words, I was still brainwashed about Hitler at that time. It wasn't until I started researching the Holocaust that I realized we may have been massively lied to about Hitler as well. So I researched that possibility, and lo and behold, it was indeed the case.


So, you were ready to call Hitler a sociopath in 2010 without doing basic research? Why does that not surprise me? Wait ... you've been calling many of us on these sundry forums who disagree with you on virtually any topic, pick a topic any topic, sociopaths. How much real research have you done to actually determine that we are sociopaths? Your self-promoted opinions and innuendo don't count as research.
:jest:

In any event, Hitler was a sociopath on his own demerits (e.g. outside what the mainstream propaganda machine had to say about him). I made the case about Hitler's sociopathy very clear here and in my brief stay at Inphinet forum: http://inphinet.net/threads/was-hitler- ... #post-5088

beginExcerpt
As for the preponderance, I've offered it at length over at United Chico (which he casually ignores) ... and I had started offering it in bits here at Inphinet forum starting with Exhibit A (Norman Dodd's exposee of the minutes of 1909, CEF). I'd also briefly mentioned the Ha'avara agreement on which I opined that no empath would ever sign because no legitimate spirit has a right to displace an entire peoples (from their homes; then from their home country, then onto someone else's lands, etc.). I also remarked about Lebensraum, the death trap of the Russian winter which Hitler ordered for his soldiers (pulled from the Eastern Front), and other calculated mistakes that only a sociopath would endeavor. Etc.
end


Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Chico is not who he claims to be. That Chico is indeed a gatekeeper of information in the duty of the bankster empire, and that his primary task is to label genuine truthseekers with the tarbrush of sociopathy.

"Genuine truthseekers" like UncleZook, for instance? :lol: :lol: Still trying to clear your "good name" from the sting of being exposed as a sociopath? Same old Zook!


My good name has been earned. It doesn't need to be cleared. But I will drag anyone who tries to make mischief against it by attaching them to the pillory (e.g. the forum archives) so that they can enjoy partially-processed tomato juice. :lol:

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
... as such he is here to spread disinformation about the cause of the global evils which is identifiable as Rothschild bankster organization, and shift the blame instead to the psychology of evil. The psychology of evil, of course, exists in all human cultures. By shifting the cause of virtually all the global evils from the directing tribal bankster organization to the directed nontribal human species gives the tribal controllers all the opportunity to commit more evil and deflect all blame.

This is the same old argument that you have lost umpteen times already. Why do you keep repeating it? Oh, right, Hitler pointed out that the Jewish sociopaths used this very tactic. Repeating the Big Lie is what sociopaths do.

UncleZook wrote:
Shortly, I will post my own understandings of sociopathy in a series of audio recordings.

Good, that should be interesting. I hope you don't repeat your enormous gaffe about half the population being sociopaths!


When war becomes peace, slavery becomes freedom and ignorance becomes strength ... then loss becomes victory. And Chico, man of a thousand masks, you certainly are entitled to your delusional victories.

I think the good readers understand the bell curve better than you do ... at least well enough to understand the difference between quantitative measurements and qualitative descriptors. As for gaffes, you just made one now when you claimed that I argued that 50% of the population were sociopaths (implying zero degrees of separation between states of sociopathy). I did no such thing. For once degrees of separation are factored in, the primarily genetic sociopaths are taken to the extreme left of the bell curve and the primarily environmental sociopaths are confined near the mean. But here's the rub, the primarily environmental sociopaths are barely discernible from the primarily environmental empaths. Individuals in the normal mass between -1-std and +1-std tend to oscillate about the mean, sometimes exhibiting sociopathic behavior and sometimes exhibiting empathic behavior.

Indeed, most individuals are built this way, in oscillatory mode about the mean and in a tendency for regression to the mean. Mob mentality, by another name. This middling, mean, majority mass of mankind can be legitimately called sociopaths on occasion; and empaths on other occasions. It takes a fool to venture pigeonholing individuals (in the normative mass) to one psychological state for all times.

But hey, I must admire your courage to stand - sword in hand - against objective reality. Many have tried and others have been deterred by the sight of would-be warriors returning from the battlefield in a steady stream, as eunuchs, their battle cries long displaced by elevated octaves and some measure of contrition. You are that lone intrepid wolf that keeps on howling against objective reality and against all odds.

Defeat is not in your vocabulary, Chico. Instead, it's embedded in the forum archives - and hanging over your head like the figurative steel of Damocles - and when the normative mass awakens to your deceptions, this forum will once again return to its semi-dormant state as United Chico.


Pax

ps: I will post my audio recordings shortly as time permits.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:52 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
UncleZook wrote:
Appears that what you say now and what you had said in the past ... are at mutual odds. Of course, when one takes your track record of mendacity, fact-obfuscation, and fact-distortion into consideration, Chico, the chances are very likely that you are lying now (in the hope that no one will investigate the archives).

You are tedious, Zook. I used "empath", a word I don't like to use (I prefer "empathetic" or "people of empathy") because the article I was referencing used it. That's why I put it in quotes at the start of that post, as an indicator that it is not the terminology I usually use. And you twist that around to paint me as a complete and compulsive liar. You are such a sociopath!

Note: It is interesting that the article I referenced has been censored! It's gone. I did some searching and found another copy of the article here. Read it while it lasts. It's evidently a good one if I refer to it and it is eventually censored! That should tell us something about being on the right track.

UncleZook wrote:
I started using it in my Bell Curve modeling of psychological natures; and you have since copied my usage ... prior to that, you were using the term "empaths" and "people with empathy" in a phony attempt to appear clinical and authoritative (e.g. on the topic of sociopathy). The archives hold it.

Yes, I see your new angle of attack -- you are the original authority on sociopathy, not Chico. You used the specific words first, you had the ideas first, you presented them at UP first, so you must be the "first" authority we should turn to in order to understand sociopathy.

Do you really think we can't see through your bumbling plan?

I don't need to be THE authority on sociopathy, which is why I often reference other recognized authorities and experts in my posts concerning sociopathy. You, on the other hand, tend to reference your own vaunted discernment. On those rare occasions when you do reference authorities, you either reference deceptive authorities, or twist around the facts to fit your position. This has been documented here, as you well know.

UncleZook wrote:
Your idiotic rambling above indicates to me that you really don't understand the Bell Curve at all.

Another great example of accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance. You are so consistently sociopathic, Zook. It's wonderful.

UncleZook wrote:
So, you were ready to call Hitler a sociopath in 2010 without doing basic research?

Basic research gives you the mainstream viewpoint. To get an idea of the real deception, you have to investigate the cracks in the wall of propaganda we have been inundated with.

UncleZook wrote:
I made the case about Hitler's sociopathy very clear here and in my brief stay at Inphinet forum:

And your case was thoroughly refuted here as well, as anyone can judge for himself by reading all the related posts.

UncleZook wrote:
Defeat is not in your vocabulary, Chico. Instead, it's embedded in the forum archives...

Another great example of accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance. You are so consistently sociopathic, Zook. It's wonderful.


UncleZook wrote:
ps: I will post my audio recordings shortly as time permits.

I am looking forward to it.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:48 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
UncleZook wrote:
Appears that what you say now and what you had said in the past ... are at mutual odds. Of course, when one takes your track record of mendacity, fact-obfuscation, and fact-distortion into consideration, Chico, the chances are very likely that you are lying now (in the hope that no one will investigate the archives).

You are tedious, Zook. I used "empath", a word I don't like to use (I prefer "empathetic" or "people of empathy") because the article I was referencing used it. That's why I put it in quotes at the start of that post, as an indicator that it is not the terminology I usually use. And you twist that around to paint me as a complete and compulsive liar. You are such a sociopath!


Nice try. You've used the term "empaths" enough times in enough posts that to now claim that you don't normally use the term trips the light fantastic. And whether it's empath, empathetic, or people with empathy ... whatever you happen to use in the moment ... that's still a different clinical beast from the nonclinical term "saints". Indeed, I don't recall you using "saints" with any regularity wrt the topic of sociopathy prior to my using it. As for your compulsive lying, that evidence is swarming all over this forum like a plague of locusts. I do understand that the only way out of your predicament (one earned by false purpose) is to accuse your detractors of being sociopaths. So be it.

Quote:
Note: It is interesting that the article I referenced has been censored! It's gone. I did some searching and found another copy of the article here. Read it while it lasts. It's evidently a good one if I refer to it and it is eventually censored! That should tell us something about being on the right track.


What a load of tosh. There are many reasons why a article ceases to exist on a website anymore. Censorship is the most unlikely reason in this particular case because the social engineering elites want to pollute both mainstream and alternative stream consciousness with the topic of psychology ... so that when the masses get sufficiently programmed, the elites can transfer all culpability from themselves and their design of things to human psychology (which belongs to all humans). In effect, concentrating design control in few hands; and diluting responsibility for design results in all hands. The topic of sociopathy is just a another subset of the larger topic of human psychology elevated above its natural unremarkable import (wrt the global corruption and evil) to a position of extremely high import, indeed, as the causal agent responsible for all global evil. Genuine truthseekers understand the legerdemain. By contrast, fifth column trolls are actively suppressing awareness of this legerdemain.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
I started using it in my Bell Curve modeling of psychological natures; and you have since copied my usage ... prior to that, you were using the term "empaths" and "people with empathy" in a phony attempt to appear clinical and authoritative (e.g. on the topic of sociopathy). The archives hold it.

Yes, I see your new angle of attack -- you are the original authority on sociopathy, not Chico. You used the specific words first, you had the ideas first, you presented them at UP first, so you must be the "first" authority we should turn to in order to understand sociopathy.


Nope. I am the originator of the bell curve as a modeling to understand sociopathy HERE ON THIS FORUM. You then went to another forum and pretended that the modeling was yours; which is pretty absurd given that you had derided the very modeling here in this post:
viewtopic.php?p=18316#p18316

beginExcerpt
Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
In a 2-set modelling, sociopathy would be the entire left side of the neutral center (e.g. median) ... and empathy, the entire right side.

This is utter nonsense. No wonder you are so lost.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
In a 4-set modelling, sociopathy and nonempathy would both be on the left side of the neutral center...

Indeed, the Gaussian normal distribution would push sociopathic cases beyond the 1st standard deviation of psychological makeup to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th deviational outliers on the left side...

This is even worse utter nonsense.
end


Here, we note that Chico ridicules my modeling as utter nonsense; moreover, we note that the modeling is clearly about the bell curve and nothing else, with standard deviations to emphasize degrees of separation in sociopathy on the left side and empathy on the right side. Yet, over there at Inphinet forum, Chico has the audacity to claim that he has always argued about the bell curve nature of psychological natures (or something to that effect); even as he has previously decried the same modeling here at United People. Two sides of mouth? Yes. Plagiarism. Well, if we note that Chico has also copied my usage of the term "saints" to express the 4-std empath (in my modeling), heck ya!

I guess I should be flattered that Chico is learning from my insights. Indeed, he also now regularly refers to "organized sociopaths" as the root cause of global evil after I made irrefutable arguments that organization not sociopathy is the primary cause ... and, too, that sociopathy alone has no greater impact than irritating the immediate community around a given sociopath and therefore cannot account for the global evil. So Chico now takes some care to use the combined term "organized sociopaths" as often as he can ... because he realizes that it is easier to sell his phony argument about sociopathy being the primary cause of the global evil after he attaches the qualitative modifier "organized" to the term "sociopaths". A sly fox, that Chico.

But hey, at least my insights are not being wasted. Even fifth column trolls must recognize the obvious truths; else they lose their camouflage.

Quote:
Do you really think we can't see through your bumbling plan?

I don't need to be THE authority on sociopathy, which is why I often reference other recognized authorities and experts in my posts concerning sociopathy. You, on the other hand, tend to reference your own vaunted discernment. On those rare occasions when you do reference authorities, you either reference deceptive authorities, or twist around the facts to fit your position. This has been documented here, as you well know.


The argument that requires an appeal to authority is fallacious. As a rule with few exceptions, there are no authorities in soft science; just preachers and practitioners. Writers and readers. Publishers and buyers. Commerce is the essence of popular psychology; not any science worth spending too much time mulling over.

The gullible and the fifth column trolls often point to psychometric pseudo-authority in order to fill personal voids and hidden agendas, respectively.

Once again, there are exceptions to the rule of pseudo-scholarship (as it pertains to the soft science discipline of psychology). Exceptions include Pavlov's Dog, Milgram Experiment, Stockholm Syndrome, etc. ... and of course, the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo which confirms what I had been arguing all this time about organization being the root cause of the global evil, e.g. heirarchy not sociopathy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_ ... experiment


Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Your idiotic rambling above indicates to me that you really don't understand the Bell Curve at all.

Another great example of accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance. You are so consistently sociopathic, Zook. It's wonderful.

UncleZook wrote:
So, you were ready to call Hitler a sociopath in 2010 without doing basic research?

Basic research gives you the mainstream viewpoint. To get an idea of the real deception, you have to investigate the cracks in the wall of propaganda we have been inundated with.


In 2010, there were plenty of nonMainstream perspectives of Hitler to counteract the mainstream propaganda. This was four years after Loose Change had pushed a lot of us down the rabbit bore to investigate the Hidden Hand that rules the world. Of course, you can still claim that you did not research the alternative views of Hitler before you concluded that he was a sociopath back then in 2010, as hard as that is to believe, it is still plausible. What is not plausible is your current insistence that Hitler is not a sociopath after I had given you nonMainstream documented evidence of his complicity with the Rothschild Zionist Bankstering Empire (RZBE) prior to and during WW2. Hitler fits the mold of the classic strongman profile that the RZBE has been using all over the planet to control local human and natural resources using Rothschild carrot-fed local strongmen as knights of the empire.

FWIW, 100% of the cases of strongmen ruling over natural resources and humans ... without exception ... are case studies of sociopaths.

Predictably, puppet strongman Hitler expressed his sociopathy time and again during the Weimar Republic's descent into the Third Reich. Mein Kampf, which HItler takes credit for ... is a window into the mind of a racialized mindset that thinks it has all the answers to the large problems in its world (e.g. extreme megalomania).

As I stated earlier, Hitler was a sociopath on his own demerits (e.g. outside what the mainstream propaganda machine had to say about him). I mentioned the Ha'avara agreement on which I opined that no empath would ever sign such a document because no legitimate spirit has a right to displace an entire peoples from their homes, then from their home country, then onto someone else's lands, etc. I also remarked about Lebensraum, the death trap of the Russian winter which Hitler ordered for his soldiers (who were pulled from the Eastern Front where they were winning) and other calculated "mistakes" that only a sociopath working for puppetmasters would endeavor, such as withdrawal from Dunkirk to allow enemy Allied soldiers to escape. Hitler essentially sacrificed his own soldiers on the Western Front and the Russian winter, and allowed enemy soldiers safe passage out of their trap at Dunkirk. Hello??

Then there was Hitler's own abusive relationship with his niece, in which he essentially kept her prisoner until she committed suicide. Ignore the possible incestuous connotations of the relationship, consider the abusive control exerted by one human being over another. Is that what Chico alludes to as Hitler's nonsociopathic nature? Have we entered the Twilight Zone yet? Or is Chico willing to distort factual reality to advance his own assessments of Hitler, and virtually anyone that he cares to assess for whatever reason. I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
I made the case about Hitler's sociopathy very clear here and in my brief stay at Inphinet forum:

And your case was thoroughly refuted here as well, as anyone can judge for himself by reading all the related posts.


It was not only not refuted, your continuing insistence that Hitler was not a sociopath - based solely on your own convenient opinions - makes all your other contentions questionable at best. Indeed, the archives here at United people are littered with your mischief and fact distortions.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Defeat is not in your vocabulary, Chico. Instead, it's embedded in the forum archives...

Another great example of accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance. You are so consistently sociopathic, Zook. It's wonderful.

UncleZook wrote:
ps: I will post my audio recordings shortly as time permits.

I am looking forward to it.


Be careful what you wish for.

My audio recordings will leave no doubt about the agenda being pushed to displace culpability from where it rightfully belongs (in secretive, sinister, Rothschild bankster organization) ... and place it where it has no observable anchors (in human psychology, specifically, sociopathy).

But I'll be largely speaking to the ears of newbies stumbling onto United People, for your ears were already stuffed with cotton when you first created this forum, Chico. Fifth column ear gear, as it were.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sat Jun 04, 2016 5:35 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
UncleZook wrote:
You've used the term "empaths" enough times in enough posts that to now claim that you don't normally use the term trips the light fantastic.

You are tedious, Zook. I'm telling you I have never liked the word "empath" and have avoided using it. I have used it on occasion to match the terminology others were using, as a means of facilitating communication. If you want to call me a liar concerning my choice of words, that's fine. That is the crux of your "kill the messenger" attacks here anyway, and if you feel you can discredit me with such inconsequential arguments, have fun. I don't need your stamp of approval.

UncleZook wrote:
There are many reasons why a article ceases to exist on a website anymore. Censorship is the most unlikely reason in this particular case because ...

I agree with your first sentence, but not your second. It's an inconsequential argument anyway, since we don't know why it was censored.

UncleZook wrote:
Nope. I am the originator of the bell curve as a modeling to understand sociopathy HERE ON THIS FORUM. You then went to another forum and pretended that the modeling was yours; which is pretty absurd given that you had derided the very modeling here...

I'm not plagiarizing anything from you, tedious Zook. I was using bell curves to describe sociopathy before our paths crossed at Avalon in February of 2011. We even discussed the bell curve distribution of sociopaths in the population at Nexus, which unfortunately is lost for purposes of review. I discussed it at Avalon before I was banned and joined Nexus ( 1 2 3 ). Prior to Avalon, I was talking about it in my posts at MySpace, which were also lost by the machinations of that website, much to my disgust. If you want to call me a liar concerning my long-time use of the bell curve regarding sociopaths in the human population, be my guest. It's an inconsequential argument.

UncleZook wrote:
Indeed, he also now regularly refers to "organized sociopaths" as the root cause of global evil after I made irrefutable arguments that organization not sociopathy is the primary cause ...

Your arguments were well refuted, as anyone can read in the forum. I encourage people to read the posts and decide for themselves rather than take your word (or mine) for it.

UncleZook wrote:
The argument that requires an appeal to authority is fallacious.

Indeed, and I'm not trying to paint myself as an authority, but you are. That was my whole point. And now you are planning to enlighten us with audio lectures on the subject of sociopathy. If they are anything like your posts, we are about to be deceived and manipulated. And dumbed-down.

UncleZook wrote:
What is not plausible is your current insistence that Hitler is not a sociopath after I had given you nonMainstream documented evidence of his complicity with the Rothschild Zionist Bankstering Empire (RZBE) prior to and during WW2.

You have already made that argument multiple times, and it has been refuted multiple times. Instead of repeating it ad infinitum, as you are doing with all your other stock arguments, why don't you just point to the threads where that discussion took place and let people decide for themselves?

UncleZook wrote:
Then there was Hitler's own abusive relationship with his niece, in which he essentially kept her prisoner until she committed suicide.

Just link to our argument and let people decide for themselves, tedious Zook.

UncleZook wrote:
It was not only not refuted, your continuing insistence that Hitler was not a sociopath - based solely on your own convenient opinions - makes all your other contentions questionable at best.

Just link to our arguments and let people decide for themselves, tedious Zook.

UncleZook wrote:
My audio recordings will leave no doubt about the agenda being pushed to displace culpability from where it rightfully belongs (in secretive, sinister, Rothschild bankster organization) ... and place it where it has no observable anchors (in human psychology, specifically, sociopathy).

Your forum posts failed spectacularly to do that. I don't see why we should expect your audio recordings to fare any better, tedious Zook.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
UncleZook wrote:
You've used the term "empaths" enough times in enough posts that to now claim that you don't normally use the term trips the light fantastic.

You are tedious, Zook. I'm telling you I have never liked the word "empath" and have avoided using it. I have used it on occasion to match the terminology others were using, as a means of facilitating communication. If you want to call me a liar concerning my choice of words, that's fine. That is the crux of your "kill the messenger" attacks here anyway, and if you feel you can discredit me with such inconsequential arguments, have fun. I don't need your stamp of approval.


Empath is the proper clinical opposite of sociopath, that is, if one respects the Bell Curve distribution of psychological natures that you claim to have independently advanced long before I started advancing it on this forum. This is further proof that you adopted my bell curve arguments, for if it had been your own, the clinical term empath would have occupied half-share of your analysis, and not simply a term that you pretend to dislike.

The other term "saints" which I also introduced on this forum to explain the +4th-std and above empathic natures (in the bell curve modeling) was jointly adopted by you _after_ I gave my analysis. Quite simply, you are a plagiarist. Plagiarism is not inconsequential, tho' I suspect to a fifth column troll, it's just another day in the sandbox flinging sand at anybody he disagrees with.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
There are many reasons why a article ceases to exist on a website anymore. Censorship is the most unlikely reason in this particular case because ...

I agree with your first sentence, but not your second. It's an inconsequential argument anyway, since we don't know why it was censored.


Another subtle deception by two-sides-of-mouth Chico. First, he agrees that we don't know the reason for a document to no longer exist. Then in the next sentence he's already concluded that the article was censored, just that we don't know why it was censored. Say what?? The first sentence clearly states that we don't know why the article no longer exists, which means that we don't even know if it has, indeed, been censored. Yet Chico is ready to conclude that it has been censored. I submit that Chico has a sandbox understanding of free speech and censorship issues; just like his understandings on many other issues.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Nope. I am the originator of the bell curve as a modeling to understand sociopathy HERE ON THIS FORUM. You then went to another forum and pretended that the modeling was yours; which is pretty absurd given that you had derided the very modeling here...

I'm not plagiarizing anything from you, tedious Zook. I was using bell curves to describe sociopathy before our paths crossed at Avalon in February of 2011. We even discussed the bell curve distribution of sociopaths in the population at Nexus, which unfortunately is lost for purposes of review. I discussed it at Avalon before I was banned and joined Nexus ( 1 2 3 ). Prior to Avalon, I was talking about it in my posts at MySpace, which were also lost by the machinations of that website, much to my disgust. If you want to call me a liar concerning my long-time use of the bell curve regarding sociopaths in the human population, be my guest. It's an inconsequential argument.


But if what you claim above is true, then why did you remark that my 2-variable and 4-variable modelings of the Bell Curve distribution of psychological natures, which actually contributed something to the debate - was utter nonsense?

Don't bother answering, we already know the answer. A fifth column troll has no real purpose. So when someone that the troll is tasked with discrediting, advances a rational argument or modeling, the troll will then do everything to disrupt discourse ... even shout detracting remarks like "utter nonsense!" ... and then - as if his disrupting remarks meant nothing, the troll then adopts the same modelling as his own, even claim he had presented the modeling 5 years earlier.

FWIW, Chico provides no links to confirm that he had indeed made the modeling 5 years earlier. Two, he doesn't give us any indication that he had even explored the modeling beyond alluding to it. Just stating "Bell Curve" without analyzing the curve is not really informative. Three, why does he have to go back 5 years (in 2011) to retrieve his own purported bell curve modeling if he really believed in it strongly? What we do know is that he has disparaged the bell curve modelling that I provided here on United People. This is just more proof of Chico's fifth column trolling and messenger attacking.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Indeed, he also now regularly refers to "organized sociopaths" as the root cause of global evil after I made irrefutable arguments that organization not sociopathy is the primary cause ...

Your arguments were well refuted, as anyone can read in the forum. I encourage people to read the posts and decide for themselves rather than take your word (or mine) for it.


Your fifth column trolling attacks on my character - and my arguments - are not refutations of anything. Yes, the archives do hold it. And I encourage the good people to read the archives to find that elusive unicorn that Chico calls Refutation. Don Quixote had his majestic galloper Rocinante. Chico has his winged equine
Refutation flapping madly in the same sky as winged porcines.
:jest:

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
The argument that requires an appeal to authority is fallacious.

Indeed, and I'm not trying to paint myself as an authority, but you are. That was my whole point. And now you are planning to enlighten us with audio lectures on the subject of sociopathy. If they are anything like your posts, we are about to be deceived and manipulated. And dumbed-down.


Not at all. I've been reading the posts at Inphinet forum, and I must say, there is a lot of context and concepts missing. Which is why I decided to have a series of audio soliloquys on the topic of sociopathy (that cannot be easily disrupted by your fifth column trolling). In any event, you cannot be dumbed down any more than you are, Chico. So I invite you to listen to my audio series and get some insights on what is happening with the topic of sociopathy, a topic that seems to have come out of nowhere in recent years to infect both the mainstream and alternative stream thinking. Good and evil have always existed ... so what is new about it other than new coinages (empathy and sociopathy)? Listen, and educate yourself.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
What is not plausible is your current insistence that Hitler is not a sociopath after I had given you nonMainstream documented evidence of his complicity with the Rothschild Zionist Bankstering Empire (RZBE) prior to and during WW2.

You have already made that argument multiple times, and it has been refuted multiple times. Instead of repeating it ad infinitum, as you are doing with all your other stock arguments, why don't you just point to the threads where that discussion took place and let people decide for themselves?


There's that elusive unicorn, Refutation, again. Most of the Hitler threads have my contributions and exposition of Hitler as a strongman puppet of the Rothschidl bankster empire. You're desperate now ... which is why you're using Scientology techniques of asking for evidence after the evidence has been presented; and the location of evidence when the evidence is everywhere in the ubiquitous Hitler threads here on United People.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Then there was Hitler's own abusive relationship with his niece, in which he essentially kept her prisoner until she committed suicide.

Just link to our argument and let people decide for themselves, tedious Zook.


Already linked it at Inphinet forum
http://inphinet.net/threads/was-hitler- ... #post-5009

... and you had already replied to it
http://inphinet.net/threads/was-hitler- ... #post-5017

So your phony challenge to the readers is duly noted. If Hitler kept his niece a virtual prisoner, and he did, then that alone excludes him as a nonsociopathic spirit. Unfortunately, this destroys your fifth column hypo-hypothesis about Hitler being nonsociopathic. Which is why you must ignore the evidence ... and you have.


Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
It was not only not refuted, your continuing insistence that Hitler was not a sociopath - based solely on your own convenient opinions - makes all your other contentions questionable at best.

Just link to our arguments and let people decide for themselves, tedious Zook.


The scientological technique of continually asking the same question over and over long after the question has been answered ... or asking for a link location when the information is ubiquitous ... are staples in your toolbox of gatekeeping, Chico.


Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
My audio recordings will leave no doubt about the agenda being pushed to displace culpability from where it rightfully belongs (in secretive, sinister, Rothschild bankster organization) ... and place it where it has no observable anchors (in human psychology, specifically, sociopathy).

Your forum posts failed spectacularly to do that. I don't see why we should expect your audio recordings to fare any better, tedious Zook.


Tedious Zook? Sociopathic Zook hasn't worked all that well, has it?


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:41 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 10:26 am
Posts: 57
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
Wow Zook are these demonstrations of useless, incoherent ramblings the best you can do - although good on ya for your attempts to scour the internet so you can pluck "big words" and "big ideologies" to camouflage your circular arguments by trying to give the impression that you have a supreme and astute intellect. You never know, maybe one day some of it may come in handy for you. And seriously, who gives a f&*k about who used what word to describe something - I must admit I did chuckle over this absurdity - bit like arguing over whether shit is a better word than crap :lol:

What you may need polishing up on is another form of intelligence which when applied has profoundly powerful effects for coherently assembling "information" for the application of clear assessment, (or judgment), before making choices. It is neutral heart intelligence; and is NOT sentimentality, as many instantly imagine from the use of the word heart.

I honestly can't be bothered backing this up at the moment either but you may wish to investigate the advancing science revealing that the heart is another "brain" i.e. processor and transmitter of information. Instantly one may wish to consider in general terms: Hmmm what "network/matrix" is this brain connected to that the mind brain may not be. Hmmm do we have demonstrations of behaviour from people that are actually successfully accessing and using this "other brain", (simultaneously with the more commonly known "mind brain"), more than others? Hmmm wonder what benefits this could have to "intelligence" - are two brains better than one?

What a wonderful scientific expedition that will eventually tie in nicely to neurological pathways shown in the mind brain coupled to neurological pathways shown in the heart brain! And I'm gonna make a prediction here, just for the hell of it: Many people, but particularly psychopaths, are not accessing neutral heart intelligence in their decision making process, but . . . will be able to understand and master how to achieve this, in time, when this branch of science breaks through censorship . . . and it WILL!

So in the meantime, we WILL raise the bar globally on psychopathic testing for governing leadership/employment using brain images which will create a consciousness shift and subsequent change in our systems, until the bigger questions relative to philosophy, religion, spirituality, and cosmology are given greater tools to work with from advancing scientific heart brain consciousness studies.

No need for responses to my post as it is just a verbal objective-subjective pre-cognitive dump, just because, well I'm in the mood, so please appropriately ignore.

And "Uncle" Zook, don't bother, for until you can apply wilful, forceful change to your unintelligent looping, you are one of the last people I wish to converse with as your current self-deluded imagined power is as productive as blowing air through your mouth believing it can stop a hurricane.


Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:12 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
Zook, let's assume for a minute that:

  • I have plagiarized your work ( :lol: ),
  • that I'm employed by the Rothschild bankster empire ( :lol: ),
  • that I have a "sandbox understanding of free speech and censorship issues" ( :lol: ),
  • that I'm a fifth column troll ( :lol: ),
  • that I have not refuted your arguments ( :shock: ),
  • that I'm a gatekeeper ( :crazy: ), and
  • that my assessment of you as a sociopath is "an absurd insinuation". :face:


All of this is clearly "kill the messenger" type activity. Do I have to drop dead for everything to be OK again in your mind? Wouldn't you miss me after that? Would you still have a reason to get up in the morning?

Come on, Zook. You love me. You know you do. Why else would you keep coming back after all these defeats, and keep writing me these long "love letter" posts? And you love me because you know I am right. You especially admire me for having uncovered your secret, that you are a sociopath. But you love me even more because, in spite of knowing that you are a sociopath, I accept you for who you are. I respect you as a human being, I keep the door open for you, and I tolerate your little(?) eccentricities.

And you can't help but love me because, if we switched roles, you know that you would never do all of that for me.

Psychology is pretty amazing stuff, isn't it.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:22 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Chico's paradoxes
I don't know who this Gemma character is ... but I do know what a feeble mind churns out. And your post Gemma is so obviously feeble in its understanding of the point of this thread. This thread is to expose Chico's duplicity, not to credit Zook's elucidation of the bell curve modeling of psychological natures.

Chico calls the modeling utter nonsense here at United People (because I elucidated it) ... then he goes to Inphinet forums and essentially makes the same modeling and even uses the term saints as I had used it. Nonsense at one forum. Brilliance at another. Nonsense when Zook introduces it. Brilliance when Chico copies it.

Your feeble mind up to speed yet, Gemma?

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:01 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.