Dissenting as usual...
Q wrote:
I am beginning to suspect that Truthseeker is not what he's "cracked up" to be (pun intended). There are far too many contradictions in his posts that reveal he doesn't believe what he's posting. He claims to be in a 'home stay' scenario to attend school and claims this was forced upon him by society. That could only be by choice. He abhors rationality yet claims he is rational. He claims education will eventually be the destruction of us all yet he claims to have studied psychology for years. Curious.
And Cris wrote:
I don’t believe truthseeker is capable of being manipulative in the way that Q suggests, but confusion, and all that that implies, is I think the most credible explanation.
I suggest the correct approach to such a condition is – to be sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant of the weak and wrong.
Gentlemen, you’ve both made valid points. The posting behavior of the member being discussed here is “curious.” Q is correct that there are contradictions in his/her posts. And Cris’s suggestion to be “sympathetic” and “tolerant” is often a good way to handle individuals who are in some way genuinely confused or underdeveloped. An idea to be considered, though not necessarily one to be swallowed whole.
A brief digression:
I have seen Internet fakes at work before. There are indeed people who get their kicks out of pretending to be something other than what they are. Again, I’ve seen them in action and a few can be incredibly convincing. I’ve seen one individual use several completely different Internet “personalities” in one forum alone, (not here), and carry on conversations with other of his different forum personalities to make it appear as though as many as 3-4 separate individuals were posting opposing arguments on the same thread. In this instance the individual was a
very intelligent person, a superb writer, “actor,” knowledgeable about virtually any subject, and as manipulative as they come.
I had prolonged email contact with this individual and made some of these discoveries over time, though some of his ‘deceptions' he confessed to me shortly before we broke contact. In hindsight, (which is frequently 20/20, is it not?) I see where and how he bent over backwards to “test” the intelligence and patience of those he’d been posting with. It was a game, make no mistake. And the same can be said of other “fakes” I’ve encountered. I could share much more and could point to members here that are possible fakes. Without hard evidence however there’s little purpose in doing so, and not all imposters are “bad.” But more, I don’t actually care if someone wishes to portray different personalities. That in itself is not important.
Am I an expert on Internet fakes? No. I can only share with you some of what I’ve experienced; I can only go by my experiences. Just my fortune (???) to have had a run of such experiences. But here’s the rub... Unless someone here at sciforums is keeping mum about it, none of us, presumably, really know anything whatsoever about the subject being discussed on this thread. Bottom line is that we only know what we know... and that is the
behavior we’ve witnessed here. Observable patterns. To read more into it than is plain for all to see is--and as some have admitted--an act of giving deference to “feelings,” intuition, and wishful rationalizing.
If you think that wishful rationalizing is justifiable in this instance, then do as you like. Follow your heart, or your conscience, your personal “creed,“ or “
believe” whatever it is that will allow you to live with yourself, or (for a few perhaps) to save face before your forum peers. Seriously, folks. This isn’t sarcasm or condemnation. It’s just honesty. Reply to whomever you like and do so for the reasons that make sense to you.
On the other hand, if you don’t go in for wishful rationalizing but prefer instead to allow the subject in question to take responsibility for his/her “behavior” thereby determining whether or not he/she will continue to receive your responses, or any of your time, energy or thought, then you at least will have given him/her a real chance to show whether or not they actually are sincere, or mature enough to comprehend the value of the opportunity they’ve been given. In fact, many such opportunities appear to have been given already, but “hope springs eternal” for some people.
And so as Q pointed out...
What triggered this thread was that Truthseeker once again posted his nonsense in a science forum. It was properly moved to another more appropriate forum. Thanks go out to the moderator. The Q however, became hostile and began to suspect that Truthseeker is flirting with us and making us all look the fool.
And Counterbalance submits that while it is true that Q, myself, or anyone can go elsewhere if we don’t care for the “pollution” left here by others, or their tactics, what has been
lost and what has been
gained by ’tolerating’ --nay, even encouraging-- the whimsical, undecipherable, and unrelenting intrusion of one who has been disruptive to the point that having a discussion like this seems at least somewhat necessary to some members?
If Q has, in fact, taken the time to read over so many incomprehensible posts in order to double-check his conclusions, and in order to speak up on behalf of himself, or for those who are tired of having interesting exchanges with other members interrupted, or with having entire threads hijacked because of one or more members seeming desire for childish retribution and one-upmanship, then CB applauds the Q for supporting what he values, even if doing so doesn’t allow him to “fit” well into any particular clique, providing he ever wished to.
Whether our “chains” are being yanked or not, we still have the fundamental right to
not encourage such anti-social behavior by adding fuel to an especially greedy fire; we can still choose
not to analyze (as though we were psychologists) what we cannot actually see, hear, or perceive in a physical or truly useful way; and at least some will think in terms of having a responsibility to preserve or protect what they value.
Summary: your chains are only going to be yanked if you let them be yanked.
~~~
Counterbalance
P.S. Cris, not so sure politics is your forte. Writing, yes, quite possibly. Politics....? Some good efforts so far, but...........
(Just thinking I’d throw in a bit of free, albeit brief and useless, analysis, just for the hell of it, since everyone else seems to feel free to analyze the [so far] unknowable “star” of this thread. Not like I actually know jack
about you.)
