Rocky

It's exceedingly rare that I would agree with OM on ANYthing... however, his supposition is not "out of the blue" or baseless. Would it be reasonable for them to expect "endless verbal arguments... etc..." if they were to come here and post? If that's what they would expect, WHY would they come here? Is there some sort of OBLIGATION they have to answer to people here? Chockfull, what OM suggested cannot be "projecting." Why? Because OM would have to have done the same thing (chosen not to come here to post) in order for it to even be considered as potential projecting. And OM does NOT stay away and posts plenty.

I looked up those terms on wikipedia. I suppose there are other places to learn what the generally accepted definitions are. However, as stated in wikipedia, Jim is absolutely correct.

Not that anyone has solicited my opinion on this bumpy matter, but I've not really had a problem with his views. Perhaps that's because he seems like an equal opportunity jerk and makes himself a nuisance to many. His social skills irritate me (mildly) rather than endear him to me. Indeed, I do NOT miss him, but neither did I mind him being here. When he tried to bug me (and he did put effort into it for a short time), I just ignored him. He apparently went on his way to see who else he could bug...

I SECOND that motion! Hmmm... boy are YOU confused!

Anyone see or hear about the Dbacks comeback this afternoon? Day game at the BOB...er, Chase Field. Webb pitching. Down 5-ZIP at the end of 8 1/2 innings. Three Brewers' pitchers could NOT get ONE out in the NINTH (good number, NINTH!!!)!!! Mota gives up two infield hits and a walk to load the bases. Shouse (LHP) comes in to face left handed pinch hitter Chad Tracy (who typically has trouble hitting lefties). Splits the gap in right center with a bullet to the wall; clears the bases; 5-3; NO outs. Shouse lifted, now a save situation, for closer Solomon Torres. (Gagne pitched in the 8th and did NOT melt down) Bloop single by 20-year old Upton. Runners on the corners. Did I mention, NO outs?! The O-Dog (Orlando Hudson) slaps a double down the left field line. Upton, given the signal to score (the would be tying run), stops at third. 5-4. Co-Jack (Conor Jackson) facing a drawn in infield with runners on 2nd and 3rd, singles up the middle, Hudson races around to score the winning run with NO OUTS. The ONLY Dbacks game that matches (actually, it exceeds) this one is Game Seven, 2001 WS. But this one is as incredible a regular season game as the Dbacks have played in the team's short history. WOW! (and I do NOT mean what we USED to think WOW meant) :)

Former Astros' pitcher Shaun Chacon cleared waivers on Monday and was cut by the Houston team. Last week, the team said that if no team picked him up on waivers, he would be released and his contract terminated for cause. The players' union has said it will file a grievance and that it believes Chacon is still owed nearly $1million on his contract.

There's that old saying -- Time flies when you're having fun. However, I've found that time just flies... whether you're having fun or not. I'm confident the winter thing (that it seems to go slower) is some sort of perceptual illusion based on not having baseball going on at the time. And then there's our friend Groucho who says that time flies like the wind but fruit flies like bananas.

Any statement claiming to characterize the penalty or sanctions or anything else that adversely impacted TWI -- unless accompanied by or arising from an actual knowledge of said penalty, etc., is an empty assumption. You're free to assume whatever you want about what it cost them. As usual, however, you appear to be speaking from an overwhelming lack of insight. absolutely!

Exactly, indeed.

You're full of baloney, Bumpy. Socks did not (nor did DWBH) set up any strawman argument. Description of Straw Man The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. ------- By citing actual court findings based on evidence presented, there is NO distortion of "Person A"'s (TWIs) position. Further, Socks's premise (in the statement: "The right to believe is absolute. The right to act is subject to reasonable regulation designed to protect a compelling state interest.") is a reasonable representation of the distinction the court made between the right of TWI to believe what they (it) want to believe and the right of the court to issue findings that the conduct of TWI is rightfully subject to sanction/penalty when said conduct violates law.

It's almost eerie how well Vaknin describes the narcissist and the organization this person establishes around himself... I know I recognize it. And frankly, upon reflection, I can easily see two things in particular. First, his description makes it easy to recognize why it would take a person YEARS to recover from the spiritual abuse endured while in TWI. Second, it makes it easy (for me) to see how and why so many marriages (in particular, my own) could not endure...

In general legal (conceptual) terms, you are correct. 1) Defendants who lose (or settle) civil lawsuits are not subject to jail. They are subject to sanctions (monetary damages, for example) and to demands for changes in conduct/procedures. 2) Criminal charges would have had to have been filed, tried and the defendants found guilty. None of those conditions took place.

Imagine my surprise when the Dbacks actually beat the BoSox tonight at Fenway!

When Owings pitched in Minnesota last week, he didn't bat.

Details, details!

Well, the snakes haven't been very interesting lately... but if you'll be in the ball park, I'll be sure to record...

He's not my type! And the heat WOULD be getting to me if I spent much time outside... it's REALLY HOT! Probably about 115 now.

again... that's what YOU were doing, apparently, with this sort of comment... three times as many fingers pointing at yourself as you have pointing at anyone else... regardless of whether you were saying anyone should "be allowed" to say things in particular to which you disagree.

yada yada yada... I guess I will always irritate YOU! hahahahahaha.................. btw, I was JUST speaking MY opinion... which, apparently, some self-appointed complainer (and I do NOT refer to excathedra or oakspear) seems to be saying I should not be allowed to DO! So THERE, Mr. Bill!

Except for the ones you call names and correct and chastise... and in case you have chosen to not be aware of it, I'm NOT your ONLY target for chastisement. You appear to be pointing three times as many fingers at yourself as you are at me. :) And, as Dmiller likes to say... HAVE A NICE DAY! Keep telling yourself and eventually, you'll believe it. To convince others, it might be easier to change the tone of your posts to something that would communicate said happiness, rather than the chronic sour puss your posts usually convey. :)

I see you continue to share your optimized social skills with everyone here... ...along with your chronic "happiness." Thanks for that, btw.

Well, George, I guess if you get there first, hoist your personal flag, and prepare to defend it against all comers, you can do that....

Alice Kramden?

Of course a friend would care how she feels and what she's doing. When I posed the question earlier in this thread, I was thinking that it seemed most awkward to be speculating about someone's opinions (in the manner about which this thread was started) in such a detacted way. I intended/hoped that people would reflect on their own to realize it was not necessarily so appropriate for people to speculate HERE, IN WRITING about what a person (her in particular) thought/believed/felt about the dark side of TWI. Perhaps I just wasn't very clear in communicating that point. Ah, but Claudette Royal does NOT continue to post HER opinions here day after day. :unsure:

No thank you.