Posted by Maureen on October 12, 2002 at 15:52:50:
Actually, paranoia is an accumulation of a set of symptoms that
psychiatrists study very long and hard to get the sole opportunity to
place on behavior observe in, reported by and connected to a
person. "Paranoid" is the label/diagnosis given to someone with
those symptoms. Outside of that, its use is just careless bantering
about of the English language and who knows what the person meant
since it does take a certain set of qualifications to get the
opportunity to diagnose. And bottom line, what interest do I have in
her labelling? That is just a way to avoid the issue.
It really would be more useful to the conversation if you would read
all of the posts prior to commentary, Nick. If you did that, my
suggestions would reveal themselves to you. That you don't know that
they are there probably means you haven't read through the entire
thread. And their is need to read them in the order posted to get
the flow. You have no obligation to do so. But if you don't, you
shouldn't presume to know what is there or not...what one has done or
not done...and in what context any particular post falls.
Your opinion of how I hold this entire exercise and if I find it
above me, beside me, infront of me behind me or beneath me is nothing
other than your opinion. I take it to be your opinion and nothing
more. Not accurate. Because to be accurate, it would have to have
something to do with me. This is about how you are thinking and
The general thoughts here expressed by Zirma, supported by you or
however they manifest themselves have nothing to do with the issue.
What you mean by "general" is who you agree with. Notwithstanding
who that is, you could multiply their numbers by thousands and still
you would be dealing with the issue of lack of control with those
samples and therefore flawed methodology.
I think by now you should know exactly what the issue is. It is not
hard to determine.
If my refusal to provide a better way has ruined this for you or
anyone else, it is because each of you individually failed to pick up
on my suggestions offered when the first list came out or any
suggests in pertaining to this second list...all to do with
controlling the samples. So either this is not truly the issue you
and others are having or you and those same others have not bothered
to read what is and was there to read. If that is the case, then you
ruined it for yourself because it wasn't relevant relevant enough to
you to read what is there to be read.
And I in no way have the power to ruin this for you. That would be a
decision that you make..."It's ruined...It's Maureen's fault." You
want your joy though the process is flawed. Have your joy. I can
not take that away from you. You react to this in whatever way feels
right and is real for you. I will do the same. Your experience of
this and mine are different. That is ok. I'm not angry at you for
having yours. Maybe you need to determine why you are angry or
whatever you are feeling because I am having my experience of this.
Nick...there is not a chance that Catherine is going to abandon
this...no matter the issues in the methodology. Have no fear of that.
|Served by ruboard 2.1.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev.|