Re: HAARP: High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

On 2008-05-18 00:21 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
> On May 18, 6:14 am, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On May 17, 5:22 am, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there is a mild issue of paranoia going on with people who
>>> come up with stuff like this. But it's not a disease, it's must
>>> insecurity or something similiar.
>> I think you are focusing too much on the threatening content that
>> dominates their preoccupations. If it were only a matter of pre-
>> occupation with threat and over-attentiveness to low-probability
>> threats, it would signify nothing more than anxiety, although probably
>> of clinical severity. The more pathological symptom is in their
>> assigning outlier a priori probabilities to events. These differences
>> do not result from a difference in opinion but precede and form its
>> basis. When these paranoid personalities form a theory on limited
>> evidence, all subsequent evidence becomes channeled as confirmatory.
>> Most people are annoying obtuse about seeing contradictions between
>> their theories and reality, but these paranoid conspirativists are
>> utterly incapable of it. This is clinical paranoia.
>>
>> The left must learn that it need not debate the insane, whether they
>> suffer from paranoid personality disorder or homo***uality.
>>
>> srd
> 
> Clinical eh?
> 
> What would you recommend Doc? Pre-frontal lobotomy, shock therapy or
> just large dodes of the latest chemotherapeutant?

Amen. Don't forget those drugs they feed kids on these days, to fight
"attention deficits", "hyperactivity", "disruptive behaviour" or
whatchacallit that are perfectly normal attitudes when confronted with
idiotic surroundings. Poor souls.


> And for those who, who despite all the evidence for the possibility of
> conspiracy are annoyingly obtuse in admitting the possibility of it?
> 
> I think a second opinion is called for. Calling Dr DF...Dr DF!

SRD's attitude on this matter is a puzzle to me. I mean, that the bulk
of the population believes the hype is one thing, especially when they
have never been confronted with alternative views. Then, that some
people fight alternative views is understandable, if they have an
interest in the integrity of the system, or simply are paid for it. But
that someone who claims to be an opponent of the system would attack
people for their alternative views, and not even for some *content* of
these views, but for *having* an alternative view in the first place;
not merely disagreeing with it, but actively pursuing it... that's one
hell of a poser.
I tried to understand it once, but it went nowhere, as we got stuck in
the discussion and me personally fed up with some aspects of Stephen's
way of arguing... :shrug:.


-- 
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"