Using psychiatric terms to explain the behaviour of someone who is doing something that doesnt appear to make sense is hardly wrong. The OP appears to be unreasonable, the documents he posted sound like the rantings of a deranged madman. His behaviour in the CB from what I've seen is of someone who is quite simply not all there.
You seem to think that its automatically wrong to use such terms to try to explain the behaviour of someone who appears to be irrational. Id say such a position is it itself irrational, and insulting to those making the judgements. They are entitled to hold their own opinion and its not up to you to decide if their criticism is appropriate or not.
| [reply] |
Actually, it is wrong.
Psychiatrics is the branch of medicine that deals with brain chemistry. As anyone who has adult ADHD will tell you.
Don't mistake potential personality flaws for medical brain chemistry failures.
| [reply] |
Using psychiatric terms to explain the behaviour of someone who is doing something that doesnt appear to make sense is hardly wrong.
Yes, it is wrong. Unless you are a psychologist (or other mental health professional), you don't even know what the words mean. It's a common way to invalidate what a person says, without addressing the issues that person raises. Challenge the person's mental competence and you can ignore whether he or she has a valid point. This is a fallacy.
You characterize the OP's statements, posts, or documents as "irrational", "like the rantings of a deranged madman", "irrational". These are all opinions, and as you point out, you're entitled to them. However, they are content-free. You don't like what the OP says, that is clear. You have done nothing to show that his or her statements are false or illogical, aside from labeling them so. You have offered no basis for your opinion that the statements are "irrational", etc.
I will note that "deranged madman" is not a psychiatric term. It's nothing more than name-calling, little more than childish taunting at recess. It has no place in any rational discussion. But of course, this isn't a rational discussion, is it? It's more of a public free-for-all against someone who, for whatever reason, is unpopular.
There is no need to "explain the behavior" of the OP. He or she made some comments - was perhaps upset, or angry, or hurt. Very few people actually bothered to address the issues raised. Most people just attacked the OP for being "difficult", or "obnoxious", or "crazy", or whatever.
The fact that so many people took the trouble to attack this person, without addressing the issues, speaks volumes. It doesn't make the OP correct, or the others incorrect. But it does suggest that there is far more to this issue than is being stated in the thread. Lots of people are "worked up" over this, not only the OP. If the OP needs psychiatric help because of what he or she posted, then so do many of those who responded, and for the same reasons.
Yes, it is up to me to decide if someone's criticisms are appropriate, and to speak up if I believe they are not. If anyone here is entitled to an opinion, then everyone here is; and if one person can say what's appropriate, then so can we all.
| [reply] |
Yes, it is wrong. Unless you are a psychologist (or other mental health professional), you don't even know what the words mean.
I see it differently. I see those words being used by a common person as a rational explanation of apparently irrational behaviour. And i dont think doing so is either uncommon or unwarranted.
Very few people actually bothered to address the issues raised
Thats because the OP has presented a totally distorted picture of the circumstances and the people involved.
We know tye and demerphq well. They both contribute regularly. We also know intrepid well. He has a tendency to be rude and abusive to people in the CB and for carrying out long term vendettas against users he feels haven't respected him or that he feels have insulted him. For years we have seen the /ignore list on his home node grow, and seen him rant on the subject over and over. For years we have seen his collection of people he hates be documented further and further.
So we have long experience of his claims. The fact that we have rejected them should shine a bigger light on him than on the people who have done the rejection. I think communal reputation is generally well deserved. And i think the fact that the community is rejecting Intrepids claims says it all. They dont feel that he has been wronged, and maybe feel that his claims are excessive and product of a somewhat deranged mind.
But of course, this isn't a rational discussion, is it? It's more of a public free-for-all against someone who, for whatever reason, is unpopular.
Well if it is then its been started by that person himself. And it looks to me like what the OP was trying to do was to get everybody to join in on a public free-for-all against two of our more respected members, with the apparent intention of making them unpopular. That it appears to have had the contrary effect is unsurprising. But what is surprising to me is that you think the public is wrong in reacting this way.
| [reply] |
