(7) Assuming that he had ever left it behind, that is. One can easily see my difficulties in assigning a psychological age to John, though. Consider his letters. The hyperactive bravado suggested by his challenge to "meet me in person" (and, what, "duke it out", John?) is most typical of middle school boys, say around 12. But, when he started sobbing about how I "degraded" him because I wouldn't just let him win an argument, the way he wanted me too, that was more infantile than middle school. Picture a four year old knocking over a checkerboard and running off crying, because his little friend wouldn't let him win. To confuse matters further, when he started gloating because teacher ... er, Stephanie Cass ... gave him what he wanted, just for screaming loudly enough, that was more like the behavior of a third or fourth grader. So, you see why I'm confused on this point. "John" was, indeed, a complicated "man".
(Click here to return to Groupthink in Action).
(8) How can a discussion be deemed "serious", if it leads to no conclusions? In a legimitate scholarly discussion, as opposed to one motivated by politics, conclusions can only be drawn through the elimination of alternative possible conclusions. Such is the manner in which logic works, even when one person or more has advocated one of those alternative (and incorrect) conclusions.
If all are in total agreement on all points, there is no discussion, only affirmation. There is also no learning, which runs contrary to the point of even attempting a scholarly discussion. Ergo, Cass' position is blatantly absurd.
(Click here to return to Groupthink in Action).
(9) Here's an example. "John" started talking about his favorite topic: his belief that he was literally hearing the voice of the ancient Egyptian goddess Sekhmet, who told him to do, pretty much whatever he felt like doing at the moment. He was speaking to what appeared to be a new audience, who might not be aware of his past, especially since he had conveniently set up a new account. He was, somewhat prudently, giving a minumum of detail.
In the Egyptian Book of the Dead (more properly, "The Book Of Going By Day"), there is a line "when I am silent, I know the things that gods know". This isn't a claim of temporary divinity, but, more likely, an early reference to the act of meditation : the practice of clearing one's mind, so one can feel the presence of "that still small voice that moves the heart". The voice, in that cliche, is merely a metaphor for the subtle influence of the Divine.
John, when he has spoken of the voice of his "parent" in the past, has spoken in the literal rather than the metaphorical sense. Some very sensible, very religious people do hold "conversations" with God, but they know that what they are having a conversation with is their image of God, not God Himself. They imagine a conversation as a way of putting their own thoughts in order. John has claimed to hold literal conversations.
That little detail, about claims to have heard voices in a literal, rather than a metaphorical sense, was one that John didn't make clear in a post in a place where the metaphorical sense would have been assumed. I entered, and made a brief post, factually explaining the situation in dispassionate terms, and concluding
"If he is serious, somehow the word 'schizophrenia' comes to mind. If not, he is trolling. Either way, please don't encourage him."
No sane person could seriously refer to that as being a 'personal attack'. The tone is mild, the advice sensible and needed. No matter. In the time it took for me to get from the cybercafe back to home, Stephanie had erased this post. Compare that commentary to the open personal attack you saw earlier in Kheru's first post, and the smear you saw in his second post. Those posts stayed up for days. My rebuttal to Bob's comments, which you also saw earlier came down equally quickly, even though Bob's attack had been allowed to stay up for eight months.
There is nothing consistent about the way in which Cass enforces her so-called policies, as these cases make clear.
(Click here to return to Groupthink in Action).
(10) Craig kept the tradition alive, one might say, by adding a little bit of misrepresentation of his own:
" What concerns me, and what I would like to address now, is the inappropriateness of1) publically carrying out this feud on my site's messageboards and
2) privately associating the name of my faith with said feud in any context whatsoever. "
However many times they repeat this laughable complaint, a post about Geometry does not become a personal attack. I had carried out no feud on their messageboards. I also had never claimed to speak for the House, or suggested that I could, despite the impression which Schaefer's comments would leave.
Perhaps Craig expected to have his letter reprinted, and so was writing for the audience visiting this page. (Logical enough, since John's messages had already been put up, in public). Otherwise, just how pathologically dishonest would a man have to be to lie about me, to myself?! This would be unbelievable, were it true.
(Click here to return to Groupthink in Action).