Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 13  Next
General Sociopathy: a rational perspective 
Author Message

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
Didn't I say you have no choice but to ally yourself with UncleZook?

So disagreeing with you now is "proof" that I'm allying myself with UncleZook, your posts have devolved from retarded to delusional Chicodoodoo!

andywight wrote:
You're not even aware that a "psychopath and sociopath" are just labels from different era's describing the same thing!!!

I'm not sure how many times I've described the history of how sociopaths are labeled, from "the morally insane" to psychopath (which Hollywood redefined) to sociopath and now to the ridiculous title of Antisocial Personality Disorder (another redefinition by the sociopaths that control psychiatry). But clearly, you haven't been paying attention to make such a dim-witted statement.

Don't you hate it when someone produces evidence to back up what they say!

Psychiatry is what happens when psychopaths and sociopaths get a hold of psychology in order to twist it around to serve their purposes.

I rest my case! :lol:

You can twist history and shout it out almost as well as Zook, Andy! You must be trying to get on Zook's good side. Perhaps you are aiming to become UncleZook's sidekick?

GROW UP you idiot!

andywight wrote:
You couldn't even explain some basic software programing terms there, which like Sociopathy you also claimed to be an expert in!!!

You will say anything to character assassinate the victim you are stalking. Where's the proof of your accusations?

You were asked this back in January of this year:

chuck wrote:
Chikodoodoo, do you know what pruning is? Do you know how lightweight clients work? what's needed for a fully validating node? the purpose of an archive node? how cryptography works and what it relies on?

After giving you every reasonable opportunity to respond "chuck" then posted this:

chuck wrote:
Chico, you've lost all credibility. You admit you don't understand the technology (which is OPEN SOURCE) yet are haughtily asserting that it's certain to fail?

You're not even offering a remote theory of an answer to the question.

chuck wrote:
Your line of reasoning would have to reject everything, including gold. I am a professional coder, a web developer. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. I think you're erroneously extrapolating. If you were opining that it seems risky and asking questions to better understand the technology, you might be more believable. But I think you're haranguing because it makes you feel like you're in control in an unpredictable world.

As to "chuck" being a creditable witness or not would have to be the subject of another discussion, but the FACT REMAINS that Chicodoodoo has still not responded to these legitimate questions which can only point to the fact that Chicodoodoo quite simply is unable to answer them!

Name-calling, character assassination, false accusations, visciousness, game-playing, repetitive behavior, obfuscation -- you behave exactly like a sociopath, Andy. And you sure go to a great deal of effort to do all that in a pathetic little forum that no one reads. What normal person would do that?

As my posting record will clearly show I gave up on this "pathetic little forum" months ago, it wasn't until you started posting disinformation about Bill Still and personnel information on my family and me that I returned!

Do you find any part of my last statement confusing you low-life piece of shit?

I can tell by the way you project your inadequacies onto me that this is a subject of some discomfort for you. You obviously don't want to reveal your educational background. Why is that, Andy?

Not at all and I would advise giving members adequate time to answer your question before accusing them of anything Chicodoodoo! It just makes your premature arguments look desperate and inept!

I was educated in the United Kingdom to secondary school level, do you also want my exam results?

You're going to wait for as long as I desire, my poor Andy. I'm not leaping into the clever little traps your game-playing sociopathic mind creates. This is the same strategy you always use. It's the strategy of: "Oh yeah, well answer this!" And Andy will find no answer acceptable, and not answering is conceding defeat. It's a setup, a con-game. You know what kind of people are con-artists, don't you Andy?

Yes, you do know. Sociopaths.

I can't believe that your posting this shit, you must really think the people reading this are brain dead!

FACT #1

You make the comment that the documentary I posted was a "classic propaganda piece", which by your own definition would mean it contains lies!

FACT #2

I simply ask you to point out these lies!

FACT #3

You refuse to do this!

Conclusion:

YOU ARE TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT!!!



8-)

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sat May 10, 2014 4:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
Talk about outbursts, but I bet you Andy could fool a lot of people and spin this as a victim. :lol:

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Sat May 10, 2014 7:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
magamud wrote:
Talk about outbursts, but I bet you Andy could fool a lot of people and spin this as a victim. :lol:

So you have no comment to make on it's content, only it's author?

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sat May 10, 2014 7:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
Quote:
So you have no comment to make on it's content, only it's author?

A query?

What content is that?

I was observing your hypocrisy of judging outbursts when you do them in Spades!

Care to investigate that?

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Sat May 10, 2014 7:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
magamud wrote:
Quote:
So you have no comment to make on it's content, only it's author?

A query?

What content is that?

I was observing your hypocrisy of judging outbursts when you do them in Spades!

Care to investigate that?

If you mean a question or a request for information about something, then yes but rhetorical!

That what is contained within!

Very nice!

No!

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sat May 10, 2014 8:25 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9633
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
UncleZook wrote:
Your observations and descriptions of my behavior have no merit. Hate to be blunt about it, Chico.

Be as blunt as you want. It won't make any difference in the quantity of truth your statements hold.

Yours is an incredibly exaggerated and dismissive statement. So my observations and descriptions of your behavior have no merit? Do you have any idea how selfish that statement is? How arrogant? How deceptive? How manipulative? How dishonest? How sociopathic?

No one is qualified to observe and describe the behaviors of Zook except Zook or anyone else whose conclusions match Zook's. All who observe and describe something different than what Zook sees are without merit.

Yes, I see.

UncleZook wrote:
You misspelled etymology twice.

Yes, my mistake. I almost did it again in my prior post here, but I caught myself this time by checking with the dictionary. My spell checker didn't catch it for some reason yesterday. I apologize for the misspelling. I did mean to use the word "etymology".

UncleZook wrote:
Why is that important here? Because it shows that you have little care for the preciseness of meaning. Whether it be the definition of the term psychology; the definition of the coinage and con behind the meaning of Jew; or even a definition of the fluxing definition of words itself, etymology ... you have no regard for the preciseness of meaning.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, really? After reading thousands of my posts, you are going to claim that I have no regard for the preciseness of meaning? And you call yourself a truth-seeker?

:face:

UncleZook wrote:
Indeed, there is a word called entomology, the study of insects.

But let me guess -- the observations and descriptions of insect behavior have no merit.

UncleZook wrote:
And there is a word called etymology, the study of the origins of words and the evolution of their meaning over time. Poor spelling (as opposed to spelling typos) is symptomatic of a larger difficulty with the language. The propagation of error is a virtual certainty when one confuses words, their spellings and their meanings. Keep this in mind.

Great lecture coming from one who misspells more often than I do. I've already suggested to you twice in this forum that you spell-check your posts before you submit them (1 2). And this is despite my natural inclination to forgive misspellings (it's an empathy thing that you wouldn't understand), which I often do with your posts.

UncleZook wrote:
Yes, which is why those experiments have some degree of validity. Behavior is observable.

Observable, measurable, and definable. How can psychology be the study of the soul when "soul" is not quantifiable?

UncleZook wrote:
Psychology is the study of the soul. The evolution of the field has appended to the original meaning, but it has not supplanted it. True psychology remains a study of the soul as measured by an individual's behavior ... not a study of behavior for any other purpose. The very fact that the study of an individual's behavior is being used for other purposes (e.g. collective purposes like the Asch and Milgram experiments, even Pavlov's pups) exposes the corruption in the field of psychology.

Oh, please! Stop your BS.

UncleZook wrote:
Those experiments rightfully belong to the field of sociology. But those leading the corruption get around the preciseness of meaning by expanding the original coinage and meaning of psychology to hybrid terms like "social psychology". But that's a contrived evolution of the original meaning, for there is no natural bridge between the study of the soul ... and the study of the collective.

Oh, really! Are you going to tell me sociology is a "hard" science and that there is no overlap or connection between individual psychology and the psychology of groups? You are drowning us in BS, Zook!

UncleZook wrote:
Note the difference between psychology's original charter and pursuit and its modern detours ... and be apprised about the importance of preciseness in the meaning of terms.

Oh, another lecture in precision! You're just a wealth of hypocrisy, Zook!

UncleZook wrote:
When all is said and done, your request for the educational background of your debate opponents will be seen for what it is ... a desperate argument by fallacious appeal to authority.

Wait, let me guess -- you are an authority on psychology now that you've Googled it a few times, despite the BS about psychology that you continue to shovel higher and deeper. So you don't recognize authority when it is based on extensive study, experience, and knowledge in the field?

UncleZook wrote:
ps: To indulge your silly question, let me just say this ... I had never taken a single psychology course in my life (AFAIK).

Believe me, it shows.

UncleZook wrote:
Considered it to be too artsy and lacking the scientific rigor that my brain craves.

Doesn't scientific rigor typically benefit from a familiarity of prior work in the field?

UncleZook wrote:
Unlike you, Chico, I don't run from questions ... I punch 'em in the nose and watch them fall to the canvass. Then I hover over them to see if they have the guts to stand up again.

What was that Mags was saying about hyperbole?

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


Sun May 11, 2014 5:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
UncleZook wrote:
Your observations and descriptions of my behavior have no merit. Hate to be blunt about it, Chico.

Be as blunt as you want. It won't make any difference in the quantity of truth your statements hold.

I agree with UncleZook, your observations and descriptions have no merit, as proven in this and many other posts!

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun May 11, 2014 5:37 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9633
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
andywight wrote:
So disagreeing with you now is "proof" that I'm allying myself with UncleZook, your posts have devolved from retarded to delusional Chicodoodoo!

How did you come to that idiotic assumption?

andywight wrote:
Psychiatry is what happens when psychopaths and sociopaths get a hold of psychology in order to twist it around to serve their purposes.
I rest my case! :lol:

Oh, now I see how you come up with these idiotic assumptions! Thanks for the example. Let's analyze it.

You think that because I used the words "sociopaths" and "psychopaths" in the same sentence, I must consider them to be the same thing.

Andy, assuming that is plain dumb.

andywight wrote:
andywight wrote:
You couldn't even explain some basic software programing terms there, which like Sociopathy you also claimed to be an expert in!!!
You will say anything to character assassinate the victim you are stalking. Where's the proof of your accusations?
You were asked this back in January of this year:

What are you talking about? What "basic software programing terms"? Where did I claim to be an expert in sociopathy?

andywight wrote:
After giving you every reasonable opportunity to respond "chuck" then posted this:

"chuck" is just a Quark cheerleading troll aligned with kmonk (you) and the other sociopaths behind the Quark con-game (digitalindustry, jpmorgansnose, etc.) whose purpose is to character assassinate anyone critical of the Quark crypto-currency. There's no legitimacy in his questions, similar to how there is no legitimacy in your loaded questions. It's the same strategy. I don't have to explain anything to him about nodes or cryptography to point out flaws in the Quark crypto-currency.

andywight wrote:
As my posting record will clearly show I gave up on this "pathetic little forum" months ago, it wasn't until you started posting disinformation about Bill Still and personnel information on my family and me that I returned!

Do you find any part of my last statement confusing you low-life piece of shit?

Yes, I do. You never proved that any of the information I posted about Bill Still or your family was disinformation. All you did was embark on a vicious campaign of threats and character assassination against me. Why would you do that if you had any truth on your side?

andywight wrote:
I was educated in the United Kingdom to secondary school level, do you also want my exam results?

So you left the educational system at about age 16?

andywight wrote:
You make the comment that the documentary I posted was a "classic propaganda piece", which by your own definition would mean it contains lies! I simply ask you to point out these lies! You refuse to do this! Conclusion: YOU ARE TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT!!!

Yes, I think that's a very good summary of your usual reasoning process.

I've already pointed out that the documentary comes from a dishonest organization, the Church of Scientology, and how the documentary gives support to the Holocaust myth. I can certainly list more lies contained in the film, but we both know it wouldn't be enough to satisfy you, because your goal is not the truth. Your goal is to character assassinate me, which is why you reach your bogus conclusion. Do you really think you are fooling anyone?

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


Sun May 11, 2014 7:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 5:40 pm
Posts: 2156
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
andywight wrote:
So disagreeing with you now is "proof" that I'm allying myself with UncleZook, your posts have devolved from retarded to delusional Chicodoodoo!

How did you come to that idiotic assumption?

Can you please explain the context to this following comment of yours that I've highlighted in red before I answer your above question?

Didn't I say you have no choice but to ally yourself with UncleZook?

_________________
Think twice before you speak, especially if you intend to say what you think.

QRK: QifUSqn6ygXK61pEkm2g4iBY9ZcLw4g4su
FCK: FettxKyQVhsSURZt1XQxUTypwxEeBbTgUQ

Please visit http://forum.qrk.cc/ for all things Crypto!


Sun May 11, 2014 7:26 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9633
Reply with quote
Post Re: General Sociopathy: a rational perspective
andywight wrote:
Can you please explain the context to this following comment of yours that I've highlighted in red before I answer your above question?
Didn't I say you have no choice but to ally yourself with UncleZook?

The context is that, based on a wealth of posts in this forum, both you and Zook have exposed yourselves as sociopaths. But Andy loathes Zook, and Zook loathes Andy, so like oil and water, they won't mix. Having failed to defend their imaginary integrity against public exposure individually, they both suddenly see the necessity to join forces for mutual defense, rather than admit the obvious defeat. All of this was foreseen by Chicodoodoo, who predicted it publicly, much to the consternation of both Zook and Andy. Naturally, both Zook and Andy now have a common interest in discrediting Chicodoodoo. Thus an artificial emulsifier is born to allow oil and water to mix, much like the toxic Corexit that poisoned the entire Gulf of Mexico region after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

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


Sun May 11, 2014 8:06 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 13  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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.