Material Fellow wrote:
>
> Looks as if two were fooled.
Yep. Missed your humor. My apologies.
> Well, except for perhaps yourself and our now infamous "React", who
> obviously reacted and over reacted. Kind of flipped out. Really
> astounded me at first, but it revealed the lack of depth.
>
Yes, well, I have had this pulled on me a number of times before.
Typically the reply is
'Bzzztt! You mentioned NAZI. You lose!'
in all seriousness.
> The book "Cheap Psychological Tricks" advocates watching a talk show
> when you feel depressed. The reason it works is because after a few
> minutes, most people will conclude that there really are other people to
> whom they may feel superior -- those on the talk show.
>> Jerry Springer (and National Inquirer) represent media filled with
> degrading information and or behavior that are guaranteed to "give you a
> boost" of superiority.
>> React certainly fills the newsgroup need for this form of excitement.
I'm surprised. I'm actually giving people an opportunity to show their
maturity, and their depth, precisely by provoking them to behave
otherwise, yet at the same time presenting a cogent argument. Most
people do seem to try to find some way to be 'superior', not through
cogent argument, but precisely through cheap psychological tricks. In
other words, use of these tricks promotes their use by others.
Andelman, although I certainly believe he is wrong, has shown the
greatest resistance to this and therefore he does have my respect.
>> I have no control of this newsgroup at all, so asking me if React uses
> one term or another so he can go on has no meaning. Kind of sorry to
> catch a lurker with this ploy, because you only read and enjoyed, till
> now.
>
Well, of course I would go on anyway. It comes with the territory that
if you dish it out, you take whatever is dished to you. It's only fair,
right?
M
