Actually this advice I personally didn’t need to hear from Chico because I did it off my own bat – hours of reading over many weeks – so nice try, again, Zook.
From the analysis of one who has actually spent the time investigating Chico’s on-line footprint, (which includes interactions with many personalities, not just yours), it is clearly evident that your citing of evidence in your repetitive attempts to amuse yourself now and again by going head-to-head with Chico,



are simply you relying on sound-bite duels of “his word against my word”, as it’s a no-brainer that not many readers would actually invest 100’s of hours of investigative reading into Your Case vs Chico’s; for at the end of the day mate most people couldn’t care less.

But I did! Because the issue of sociopathy is a major priority in my understanding of our world. So if I was going to begin to trust someone with information and discussions on the subject I needed to be sure they were legit.


BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! STAY TUNED FOLKS! For the next exciting installment of GobbledyZook, woops . . . GobbledyGook . . . Oh Dear, I am beginning to see why Chico “doesn’t actually have a problem with you” Zook.

You really are quite “charming” in a “sociopathic” way! And I can actually now say this without prejudice or malice, (even though my poor attempt at humour above is obviously sarcasm), because with my recent months of investigation and “training” in identifying sociopaths I now no longer feel the threat of becoming confused, intimidated, indecisive, apprehensive, trapped, or anxious about your sharings. It is a tremendously liberating sensation!

Hi gemma,

Just my opinion which obviously doesn't hold much weight in the online world. Unkindness in any guise falls on deaf ears. Hate, hostility, anger shaded by 'truth' is worthless to the akashic record keeper.

I'm not taking sides, passing judgment or doing anything that can be construed in that manner.

My one and only point is that negativity is why this world is in such a sorry state. And, honestly, if we can't own up to that, then we have missed the cosmic chariot, possibly for good. And, if one doesn't believe in cosmic chariots but tends to Earthly concerns only then consider those matters in the same light.

AlienHunter/AdammBomm/NotAPretender/Grand Inquisitor/RocketScientist/douchebag (that's all of them I can remember)

OK, Zook, a paddlin' it will be.

I will point out a few of your deceptions and manipulations that you use to twist the truth regarding "what happened at Rose's Inphinet forum", which you summarize here:


Let us begin.


1. Rose did not have "an open invitation for Chico to come to her forum". It was just an invitiation that I accepted right away to help raise awareness of Stephen's sociopathy. This is a very minor deception by you, I know, but it illustrates how you subtly ease into your lies.


2. "One of the first things he did over there was to attack a few of us indiscriminately with the label of sociopath." Wrong, Zook. All sociopaths I talked about in my first 30 posts or so at Inphinet were long ago identified by me elsewhere. There was nothing "indiscriminate" about my pointing out those sociopaths. It was all well-documented historical information. You just didn't like that your name was listed.


3. "Then I joined Inphinet to defend myself..." Not exactly. You joined to discredit me with a continuation of your UP attack on me for presenting evidence that Hitler was not a sociopath. While that could be construed as "defending yourself" (by killing the messenger), you would need a sociopathic mindset to see it that way. Good thing you have one.

Unfortunately, it appears Rose has removed the major posts and threads related to Hitler from Inphinet, so I cannot link to them. But here is where you asked Rose to create it for you:


And here you are confirming it:



4. "Rose didn't like that I was destroying her understanding of Chico as an expert." No, I don't think so. I suspect what she didn't like was your underhanded, deceitful, manipulative ploys to bend her to your will.


5. "When I warned her that her forum would become a tupperware club if she didn't critically address some of the big issues of our time, that tipped things against me." No, Zook. That's absurd. The "tupperware" comment was just the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. You already had so many strikes against you because of your own bad behavior that Rose had finally had enough.


6. "Previous to that point, a fun poll to determine if any Inphinet member was a sociopath, gave Chico 3 votes ... and Zook, 1 vote." That was no "fun poll". That was another of your deliberate deceptions and manipulations. You put so much emphasis on the fickle results of that poll, which was nothing but a popularity contest, as if popularity determines sociopathy. It doesn't, which I pointed out. I also refused to participate in that poll or recognize it as meaningful. I had already clearly stated that I was not at Inphinet to be popular, and I'll bet that entered into your "fun poll" scheme.


7. "I kinda rubbed this fact into Chico's face, after all, he started the negativity by calling me a sociopath on a forum in which I was not yet a member." That's not "negativity", Zook. That's reality. That's just matter-of-fact information. True, a sociopath would deem it negativity and spin it as a bad thing.


8. "I wasn't too perturbed that some member with an axe to grind had voted me a sociopath." Oh, is that the only reason someone would say you are a sociopath, Zook? Would they also say Chico is a sociopath if they had "an axe to grind" with him? Doesn't that make the "fun poll" a deception? A popularity contest? An invalid measure of sociopathy? Wouldn't a sociopath run with such a deception, as you have clearly done?

By the way, your "Was Hitler a sociopath?" poll was another of your deceptive and manipulative polls at Inphinet designed specifically as a tool to help you discredit me.


Well, that's eight examples, and I only needed a couple to demonstrate your deceptions and manipulations, Zook. Would you like me to go on? It's easy for me to point out how you twist the truth, given my understanding of how sociopaths think. It's even fun and rewarding, as it continues to demonstrate to me what a clever sociopath you are.

Here's something to chew on, it's just a starting point but it is relevant to sociopathy and all the confused bullsh*t that we encounter from day to day:

from the "Apocryphon of John". I studied John in college (just a class). There was some confusion as to who "John" actually was that even our visiting PhD Jesuit Priest from Notre Dame didn't seem to be able to decipher. Anyway:


"The four chief demons are: Ephememphi, who belongs to pleasure, Yoko, who belongs to desire, Nenentophni, who belongs to grief, Blaomen, who belongs to fear. And the mother of them all is Aesthesis-Ouch-Epi-Ptoe. And from the four demons passions came forth. And from grief (came) envy, jealousy, distress, trouble, pain, callousness, anxiety, mourning, etc. And from pleasure much wickedness arises, and empty pride, and similar things. And from desire (comes) anger, wrath, and bitterness, and bitter passion, and unsatedness, and similar things. And from fear (comes) dread, fawning, agony, and shame. All of these are like useful things as well as evil things. But the insight into their true (character) is Anaro, who is the head of the material soul, for it belongs with the seven senses, Ouch-Epi-Ptoe.

"This is the number of the angels: together they are 365. They all worked on it until, limb for limb, the natural and the material body was completed by them. Now there are other ones in charge over the remaining passions whom I did not mention to you. But if you wish to know them, it is written in the book of Zoroaster. And all the angels and demons worked until they had constructed the natural body. And their product was completely inactive and motionless for a long time.

"And when the mother wanted to retrieve the power which she had given to the chief archon, she petitioned the Mother-Father of the All, who is most merciful. He sent, by means of the holy decree, the five lights down upon the place of the angels of the chief archon. They advised him that they should bring forth the power of the mother. And they said to Yaltabaoth, 'Blow into his face something of your spirit and his body will arise.' And he blew into his face the spirit which is the power of his mother; he did not know (this), for he exists in ignorance. And the power of the mother went out of Yaltabaoth into the natural body, which they had fashioned after the image of the one who exists from the beginning. The body moved and gained strength, and it was luminous."

There might be some disagreement as to whether the 'archon' is truly supernatural.

Are you familiar with "The Prisoner's Dilemma"? The winning strategy in the iterative version is "tit for tat". Unkindness under a "tit for tat" strategy is met with unkindness in the next round. In other words, it does not fall on deaf ears.

I was thinking about this because showing kindness to a sociopath is a losing strategy in the long run.


How do you define "negativity"? I ask because from my perspective, the reason the world is in such a sorry state is because sociopaths almost always lead humanity. Those ruling sociopaths typically deceive and manipulate using fear tied to false positive spinning of the anticipated results.

Chico, being trapped in his deception, e.g. when he tried to claim I was distorting the events at Rose's Inphinet forum ... then being trapped a second time, e.g. when he tried to defend his original deception with a second one (his unsupported claim that I had accused Rose of manipulating poll numbers when, in fact, I had accused Rose of manipulating members to change their votes) ... has gone for the trifecta. He is now so desperate to defend his original false claim that he is prostituting himself to the pimp of semantics, e.g. he is quibbling over the negligible differences in the usages of "open invitation" versus "invitation". Need I waste any more effort on rebutting such intractable, dishonest, pathological behavior from the prince of prevaricators? Didn't think so.

Checkmate.


Pax

ps: Seems like Rose had indeed scrubbed the main thread in that forum that was discussing Hitler ("Was Hitler a Sociopath?"). But that's possibly because Rose exhibited less than creditable behavior in that and several related threads. Her manipulative behavior across a few related threads directly led me to excoriate her in my audiofile (Sociopathy Unplugged #13), and I believe it was the same thread in which I made my "tupperware club" comment (tho' I'm not sure about this, after all, it's been a while since I've been a member there). In any event, a forum that is unwilling to discuss such controversial subject matter as Hitler, deserves the label. Indeed, everything settled as it should in that particular game of "Truth or Consequences?" called Inphinet forums, which is now idled on a side road off the information autobahn. I wish Rose all the best in her next endeavor(s). I also suggest that forum administration is not her forte, perhaps not even her best recreation, at least not until she cleans up her own insecurities and psychological shortfalls.

Interesting that dilemma, but yes, altruism is the key which incidentally is something that the famous Ayn Rand had serious problems with. She was a sorry product of her Soviet upbringing but that is another post.

There is no winning strategy with a sociopath beyond disengagement and that is pretty much it. Either that or murder which is a conclusion I came to with my ex-wife. As I didn't see that as a viable solution I was really screwed until she divorced me...

Negativity just adds to the dynamic of downward spinning. Nothing really gained unless one has the patience to wait for the sociopath to self-immolate (which they always do in the end).

Game theory while not a game (if one considers game theory as applied to the Manhattan Project) is just a theory and a matter of probabilities. One might be wary.

Altruism is derived from empathy, which is why I find empathy to be the root key. Likewise, given that sociopaths lack empathy (and altruism) and have all the "talents" to rise to the top and become our insane leaders, sociopaths are the real problem that humanity must solve in order to evolve further.


There are lots of winning strategies that are effective against sociopaths, if we are truly knowledgeable about their psychology and thinking processes. Disengagement is undoubtedly the simplest strategy on a selfish level, as it solves the problem for the immediate victim, but does nothing to protect all future victims of the sociopath. This is why we must engage sociopaths. The ultimate engagement would be to identify all sociopaths and disqualify them from positions of power and control.


The problem is they do not always self-immolate. Witness George H. W. Bush or Henry Kissinger. Even when they do self-immolate, the damage they have done to humanity by the time of their demise is orders of magnitude greater than the gain of losing one sociopath.


Game theory is certainly no game. The insane strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction is the clearest evidence of that. It's a policy straight from the minds of sociopaths.

You are so predictable, Zook! How did I know you would focus your attack on the weakest point I made, and use it to dismiss all the strong points! Obviously, I knew it because you are a sociopath, and that's how sociopaths react.

Yes, I almost didn't include my first point. I kept debating its value, ultimately deciding to leave it in and watch your predictable reaction. And you did not disappoint! Bravo, Zook. You confirm once again that you are indeed a sociopath.

Another one of your "checkmates", Zook? Works for me ...

Nice to see you posting again, Gemma!


Zook is a useful sociopath in the context of United People. He really does help us learn more about sociopathy! He's not overtly destructive like GypsyWoman and her sock-puppets. He's not a pathological deceiver like dsimon3387. He's not revoltingly diseased like Atticus/Stephen. In other words, he's not a hard-core sociopath rated XXX, but a soft-core sociopath rated R.


I doubt Zook really understands what you are talking about, but I sure do! When you start to see through the typical deceptions of the sociopath, it is liberating! That's exactly what they were talking about when they said, "The truth shall set you free!" It certainly does.


Bingo! That's how Zook twists the truth for his own benefit, knowing almost no one will investigate and debunk his claims. I used to call this the "twist and shout" strategy that Zook is infamous for here at UP. He tried the same thing at Inphinet, thinking that a bigger audience would bring more success, but it didn't. Only the sociopaths there would support Zook's game, and there were only three: Shezbeth, Shadowself, and David. And only one at a time was active when Zook was plying his wares, with David showing up after Zook left. It was great theater, though. Sociopaths put on a great show!