Who is the Best Poster at House of Politics?

[palerider]

Same with this. If someone has to have an "array of personas" it wouldn't serve much purpose in reality. Like, three bullies ganging up on one to make a point? Not that it can't be, but it makes about as much sense as cheating at solitaire...

I never made the claim that he was clever, or that having multiple personas made any sense. All of the rokers and abraxis are, however the same person. They all curiously mispell the same words and make the same quirky gramatical errors. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see it.

roker needs and craves support for his positions and being unable to gain support on the basis of his arguments, his alter persona abraxis provides it for him.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I never made the claim that he was clever, or that having multiple personas made any sense. All of the rokers and abraxis are, however the same person. They all curiously mispell the same words and make the same quirky gramatical errors. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see it.

roker needs and craves support for his positions and being unable to gain support on the basis of his arguments, his alter persona abraxis provides it for him.

Oh, yes. I understand full well the motivation for multiple ID's. I was simply pointing out the total absurdity of feeling the need to do so. So many of us crave the support of others, feeling that their support validates us. But it simply is not true. Either our views and beliefs can stand on their own, or they can't.

If I used spell and grammar check on these posts, I'd go nuts. And there are other possibilities. Some of the "Speak & Say" type programs create consistent errors. Not that you're wrong. I'd not say that, as I've no idea! Just pointing out that there could be other explanations.

And at the same time wanting to point out that if you're right, Roker, Abraxis, et al are doing nothing to give him/themselves credence. Other than making us all wonder about it, it serves no purpose. Actually, it supports the negative - making both/all their statements suspect, possibly invalid.

 

[palerider]

And at the same time wanting to point out that if you're right, Roker, Abraxis, et al are doing nothing to give him/themselves credence. Other than making us all wonder about it, it serves no purpose. Actually, it supports the negative - making both/all their statements suspect, possibly invalid.

Some folks accept the negative because it is all they are accustomed to.

That is why I made the reference to narcissim in the first place. At it's root, narcissim is not really so much about love for oneself, but the fear of not being worthy of being loved or respected, or validated by one's peers.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not on there how sad. I'd have reveled in zero votes =). I voted vyo, cos while I may not always agree, the responses are typically well written and rarely inflammatory.

I'd have voted for you!

 

[r0beph]

I'd have voted for you!

lol, well thanks.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Some folks accept the negative because it is all they are accustomed to.

That is why I made the reference to narcissim in the first place. At it's root, narcissim is not really so much about love for oneself, but the fear of not being worthy of being loved or respected, or validated by one's peers.

I can see where narcissism would fit this context. Actually, I think that most of us experience some angst about not being worthy at times, but it is usually a passing feeling or reaction rather than a life defining character. And you're so very right about some accepting the negative because it's what they know. Sigh....

 

[r0beph]

The DSM-IVdefines narcissism or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) as "an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts."

However to argue paleriders definition, it doesn't exactly require support, validation, or even respect. It does state their need for servile flattery as a criteria. Basically NPDs feel they require admiration and asskissing. I really don't think this is the term you're looking for here. While you're correct in the first part, of it not being love of ones self, which it isn't, the latter part is still somewhat mucking the diagnosis. Then of course I imagine you're using hyperbole, so. Carry on.

 

[ArmChair General]

The DSM-IVdefines narcissism or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) as "an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behaviour), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beginning by early adulthood and present in various contexts."

However to argue paleriders definition, it doesn't exactly require support, validation, or even respect. It does state their need for servile flattery as a criteria. Basically NPDs feel they require admiration and asskissing. I really don't think this is the term you're looking for here. While you're correct in the first part, of it not being love of ones self, which it isn't, the latter part is still somewhat mucking the diagnosis. Then of course I imagine you're using hyperbole, so. Carry on.

you crack me up.

 

[r0beph]

you crack me up.

I sit in a car for 12 hours watching for theives who would steal this precious gravel from this construction site. I have time to make inane yet sometimes educational posts. *Shrug* I get bored, what can I say, except, thank goodness for cellular interwebs. If not for this I'd likely find some DSM-IV described disorder to suffer from.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I sit in a car for 12 hours watching for theives who would steal this precious gravel from this construction site. I have time to make inane yet sometimes educational posts. *Shrug* I get bored, what can I say, except, thank goodness for cellular interwebs. If not for this I'd likely find some DSM-IV described disorder to suffer from.

LOL! And truth be told, DSM classifications are fluctuating all the time. I'd not be surprised that they'd have a boatload for most of us here!

About the narcissism. Like so many mental or emotional disorders, there is a set criteria for a patient to fall within the diagnosis of the disorder. But the reality of the manifestation of the disorder can cover some much broader behavior models. For example, one bipolar is not a cookie-cutter of another. And only in the past few years are they starting to recognize bipolar II, which entails a whole new set of behavioral patterns. There are certain characteristics that are consistent, but the manifestation is varied.

So that is why I said that palerider's assessment would fit the context. While NPD might not be the exact categorization, it does fit and is an appropriate term, albeit in a generic, wide-sweeping sense.

 

[r0beph]

LOL! And truth be told, DSM classifications are fluctuating all the time. I'd not be surprised that they'd have a boatload for most of us here!

About the narcissism. Like so many mental or emotional disorders, there is a set criteria for a patient to fall within the diagnosis of the disorder. But the reality of the manifestation of the disorder can cover some much broader behavior models. For example, one bipolar is not a cookie-cutter of another. And only in the past few years are they starting to recognize bipolar II, which entails a whole new set of behavioral patterns. There are certain characteristics that are consistent, but the manifestation is varied.

So that is why I said that palerider's assessment would fit the context. While NPD might not be the exact categorization, it does fit and is an appropriate term, albeit in a generic, wide-sweeping sense.

I was joking for the most part. Out of boredom. It wasn't meant to be taken serious.

 

[OPGhostdog]

Not necessarily who you agree with, but who is civil, backs up their arguments with facts and evidence, and always provides a good debate?

USMC, What's up with you not placing my name on the poll?
Are you trying to discriminate on the slickside?

OP/PoliticalGhostdog

 

[r0beph]

USMC, What's up with you not placing my name on the poll?
Are you trying to discriminate on the slickside?

OP/PoliticalGhostdog

it's ok, he didn't add mine either. Yeah I was gone for a while...but that doesn't mean I'm not the best, I mean look at me, I'm simply amazing!

It's ok I know I was left off at risk of my inclusion being an insult to other posters who they themselves deserve at least some votes. It is understandable.

 

[OPGhostdog]

it's ok, he didn't add mine either. Yeah I was gone for a while...but that doesn't mean I'm not the best, I mean look at me, I'm simply amazing!

It's ok I know I was left off at risk of my inclusion being an insult to other posters who they themselves deserve at least some votes. It is understandable.

Umm r0beph, That's deep. So you're saying If a poster is submitting
some bs, and I was to reply back I will be taken as insulting a poster?
However, I have noticed that some will post a bunch of self-centered
crap, and if put in check or they will do one of the two things. Attack
you back or back off.

There is ONE thing that I am totally against, and that's personal
attacks by internet bullies.

 

[ArmChair General]

Umm r0beph, That's deep. So you're saying If a poster is submitting
some bs, and I was to reply back I will be taken as insulting a poster?
However, I have noticed that some will post a bunch of self-centered
crap, and if put in check or they will do one of the two things. Attack
you back or back off.

There is ONE thing that I am totally against, and that's personal
attacks by internet bullies.

give me your milk money.