* Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet <·····@mac.com>
| POLITENESS AND COURTESY ARE NOT AN OPTION, USENET OR NOT
Really? So start. Apologize for your behavior. Promise never to repeat
what you have done. This should not be hard for you at all, if anything
other than your threats to continue forever is actually _true_. Show us
all that you can respect me and my opinions. It starts with you, because
you want the change. Remember, now, even in the face of abuse, you must
maintain your cool and continue to respect people and their opinions and
be polite and courteous. If you find that others do not do what you
think they should in order to make the forum useful for all, politely and
courteously suggest ways to improve and always ignore any hostility you
meet as a result. See through those who ridicule you to learn what they
would see changed in your behavior or personality, and adapt accordingly.
Do this for 15 years, while contributing daily to the furherance of the
languages and communities you want to grow and prosper, suggesting new
ideas to and trying to teach people who only want you to do their job or
their homework for them. Then let me know how you feel about politeness
and courtesy and options. Also, after you have actually been there, let
me know how I should have dealt with you. Start today. Report in 2017.
///
--
From: Jean-Fran=?ISO-8859-1?B?5w==?=ois Brouillet
Subject: Re: Unwelcome mail from the stalkers
Date:
Message-ID: <B8629F09.3A88%verec@mac.com>
On 9/1/02 9:41, in article ················@naggum.net, "Erik Naggum"
<····@naggum.net> wrote:
> * Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet <·····@mac.com>
> | POLITENESS AND COURTESY ARE NOT AN OPTION, USENET OR NOT
>
> Really? So start. Apologize for your behavior. Promise never to repeat
> what you have done.
How easy it would be for me to comply. If only the same could be said from
some other people. But what? The reason I started all this is because
_your_ non-compliance. So let's agree on this: I won't reply any further,
or if I do, I'll do it in the most pleasant way...provided you do the same.
Fair enough?
So here's the deal: I apologize for "Nagging Naggum" to the extent that
Mr Naggum himself apologizes for his past rudeness.
Square, isn't it?
> This should not be hard for you at all, if anything
> other than your threats to continue forever is actually _true_. Show us
> all that you can respect me and my opinions. It starts with you, because
> you want the change. Remember, now, even in the face of abuse, you must
> maintain your cool and continue to respect people and their opinions and
> be polite and courteous. If you find that others do not do what you
> think they should in order to make the forum useful for all, politely and
> courteously suggest ways to improve and always ignore any hostility you
> meet as a result. See through those who ridicule you to learn what they
> would see changed in your behavior or personality, and adapt accordingly.
Sounds too good to be true; surely a new-year resolution ?=)
> Do this for 15 years, while contributing daily to the furherance of the
> languages and communities you want to grow and prosper, suggesting new
> ideas to and trying to teach people who only want you to do their job or
> their homework for them.
First, it is not because you have tried to be helpful even though people
do not recognize it to its true value that you have to be rude after them.
After all, no one _asked you_ to be helpful to anyone in the first place.
Second, it is true that some people are cheaters, clueless, <whatever>.
But again this is no reason to get mad at them: remember what you say
yourself: by their attitude (cheating/abusing/etc...) in the end, they
only harm themselves.
Finally, not shouting at people will prevent the occasional blunder of
aiming at someone who would deserve a better treatment, weren't it for
a shared misunderstanding to start with.
> Then let me know how you feel about politeness and courtesy and options.
> Also, after you have actually been there, let me know how I should have
> dealt with you. Start today. Report in 2017.
BTW: this means that you started contributing to comp.lang.lisp
in...1987?!?! That is, at a time when it didn't even exist, or under
another name? I'm sure that you have a lot of folklore you might want
to share with us, as Mr Pitman often does for the standard he contributed
to.
Seriously, stories "� la Pitman" are most entertaining and illustrative, and
I long to know your side of the Lisp story for the past 15 years, starting
when Common Lisp wasn't really "Common".
Would you mind elaborating?
>
> ///
Thanks in advance.
--
Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet (_No_ sarcasm implied, honest.)
In article <···················@mac.com>, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet wrote:
> On 9/1/02 9:41, in article ················@naggum.net, "Erik Naggum"
> <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>
>> * Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet <·····@mac.com>
>> | POLITENESS AND COURTESY ARE NOT AN OPTION, USENET OR NOT
>>
>> Really? So start. Apologize for your behavior. Promise never to repeat
>> what you have done.
>
> How easy it would be for me to comply. If only the same could be said from
> some other people. But what? The reason I started all this is because
> _your_ non-compliance. So let's agree on this: I won't reply any further,
> or if I do, I'll do it in the most pleasant way...provided you do the same.
>
> Fair enough?
Well no, you made the claim that the behavior that you are using is
unacceptable in other people and for your self. Now if you encourage
the use of such "bad" by using such "bad" behavior you expose yourself
as a hypocrite and a 2 faced dishonest person.
You have just proved Erik's case for him. And have lost any claim to
being in any position to say what is proper because you do not even
attempt to honer the rules you demand that other people honer. You
are unwilling to abide by your own rules. BTW I never thought you
or anyone else has the right to be a moral compass to anybody who
does not specificaly ask for your help.
What rules I think are good to live by I first apply to my self, because
I think they are the right thing to do and for no other reason. You
should try that some time.
marc
>
> So here's the deal: I apologize for "Nagging Naggum" to the extent that
> Mr Naggum himself apologizes for his past rudeness.
>
> Square, isn't it?
>
>> This should not be hard for you at all, if anything
>> other than your threats to continue forever is actually _true_. Show us
>> all that you can respect me and my opinions. It starts with you, because
>> you want the change. Remember, now, even in the face of abuse, you must
>> maintain your cool and continue to respect people and their opinions and
>> be polite and courteous. If you find that others do not do what you
>> think they should in order to make the forum useful for all, politely and
>> courteously suggest ways to improve and always ignore any hostility you
>> meet as a result. See through those who ridicule you to learn what they
>> would see changed in your behavior or personality, and adapt accordingly.
>
> Sounds too good to be true; surely a new-year resolution ?=)
>
>> Do this for 15 years, while contributing daily to the furherance of the
>> languages and communities you want to grow and prosper, suggesting new
>> ideas to and trying to teach people who only want you to do their job or
>> their homework for them.
>
> First, it is not because you have tried to be helpful even though people
> do not recognize it to its true value that you have to be rude after them.
> After all, no one _asked you_ to be helpful to anyone in the first place.
>
> Second, it is true that some people are cheaters, clueless, <whatever>.
> But again this is no reason to get mad at them: remember what you say
> yourself: by their attitude (cheating/abusing/etc...) in the end, they
> only harm themselves.
>
> Finally, not shouting at people will prevent the occasional blunder of
> aiming at someone who would deserve a better treatment, weren't it for
> a shared misunderstanding to start with.
>
>> Then let me know how you feel about politeness and courtesy and options.
>> Also, after you have actually been there, let me know how I should have
>> dealt with you. Start today. Report in 2017.
>
> BTW: this means that you started contributing to comp.lang.lisp
> in...1987?!?! That is, at a time when it didn't even exist, or under
> another name? I'm sure that you have a lot of folklore you might want
> to share with us, as Mr Pitman often does for the standard he contributed
> to.
>
> Seriously, stories "� la Pitman" are most entertaining and illustrative, and
> I long to know your side of the Lisp story for the past 15 years, starting
> when Common Lisp wasn't really "Common".
>
> Would you mind elaborating?
>
>>
>> ///
>
> Thanks in advance.
> --
> Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet (_No_ sarcasm implied, honest.)
>
From: Jean-Fran=?ISO-8859-1?B?5w==?=ois Brouillet
Subject: Re: Unwelcome mail from the stalkers
Date:
Message-ID: <B862A9AB.3A91%verec@mac.com>
On 10/1/02 1:57, in article ····················@oscar.eng.cv.net, "Marc
Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote:
[I wrote, to Mr Naggum]:
>> [...]. So let's agree on this: I won't reply any further,
>> or if I do, I'll do it in the most pleasant way...provided you do the same.
>>
>> Fair enough?
>
> Well no, you made the claim that the behavior that you are using is
[blah, blah, blah...]
How does it feel to _exist_, Mr Spitzer?
Please, note that this question is both polite, and courteous...
(even though what it implies might not be, who knows ;-)
--
Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet
In article <···················@mac.com>, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet wrote:
> On 10/1/02 1:57, in article ····················@oscar.eng.cv.net,
> "Marc Spitzer" <····@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote:
>
> [I wrote, to Mr Naggum]:
>>> [...]. So let's agree on this: I won't reply any further,
>>> or if I do, I'll do it in the most pleasant way...provided you do the same.
>>>
>>> Fair enough?
>>
>> Well no, you made the claim that the behavior that you are using is
> [blah, blah, blah...]
>
> How does it feel to _exist_, Mr Spitzer?
>
> Please, note that this question is both polite, and courteous...
> (even though what it implies might not be, who knows ;-)
What you are saying is you knowingly and willingly made a rude,
offensive, nasty and insulting comment directed at me in public. Then
you procede to attack my intelligence by explaining it. Well if that
is the standard that you propose then you can keep it. It is much too
offensive, catty and vile for me to use. I try to be civil not
"polite" with people. That means I try to have conversations with
people and honest and clear.
now go fuck off.
marc
>
> --
> Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet
>
* Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet <·····@mac.com>
| How easy it would be for me to comply.
SO DO IT! START NOW! DO AS YOU SAY!
| If only the same could be said from some other people.
_You_ are championing politeness and courtesy as not an option. At this
particular time, nobody else does that, simply because most other people
figure out that behaving like a certified lunatic who stages massively
insane attacks on other people is not how you get a polite and courteous
discussion. So this is about _you_, now.
If the big champion of politeness and courtesy cannot follow his own
"rules of engagement", he has demonstrated that politeness and courtesy
are _ineffectual_ in dealing with other people.
All moralists who have ever walked the earth have failed to understand
that everybody else figure out very quickly that the only role a moralist
wants is that of _judge_ of ethics, morals, and good behavior. The
moralist would not _be_ a moralist if he were willing to abide by and
obey the rules he thinks that other people should follow. Those who are
smart enough to figure out the need for and the nature of very complex
human creations like legal procedures to protect both guilty and innocent
from the amazingly strong need for revenge and the irrationality of the
morally outraged, have understood that we cannot leave behavior control
to those who are most obsessed about it, because they are invariably more
destructive than whatever they want to see.
| The reason I started all this is because _your_ non-compliance.
The reason you broke your own rule that "politeness and courtesy is not
an option" is that somebody else does not follow your rules? This must
mean that I am allowed to do the same. This also means that the only
time that politeness and courtesy are actually valuable is when everybody
already follow all the rules. If someone, somewhere, thinks somebody
broke a rule, dispense with politeness and courtesy and attack viciously!
The problem here is that politeness and courtesy is most certainly an
option, but _only_ for Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet. _He_ can use any means
necessary to bully people into submission. _He_ can break all rules of
engagement and social etiquette and attack people viciously who do not
obey his rules. _He_ can shoot people in the back if they walk funny.
Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet thinks he has a _reason_ to break his rules, and
therefore it is perfectly OK that he is a stark raving mad aggressor.
| So let's agree on this: I won't reply any further, or if I do, I'll do it
| in the most pleasant way...provided you do the same.
You have never had the right to make demands on anybody else. You have
the right to make demands on your own behavior, and you have said that
politeness and courtesy is not an option. So follow up. Do as you say.
That you refuse to _start_ to be polite and courteous, even when it is
not an option, is very revealing, as if anything more needs revealing.
| Fair enough?
No. It is this simple: _You_ want polite and courteous, so _you_ start
behaving as you say. _You_ say politeness and courtesy is not an option,
so _you_ behave accordingly.
| So here's the deal: I apologize for "Nagging Naggum" to the extent that
| Mr Naggum himself apologizes for his past rudeness.
Conditional apologies are the instrument only of the psychopath. Mature
men apologize because they feel bad about something they understand has
been hurtful, _not_ because they want to "bargain" with the victim of
their evil deeds. The more you keep this behavior up, the more the whole
world gets to see what a sick person you are, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet.
Why do you need this public humiliation?
| Square, isn't it?
No, it is not. You attack me out of the blue, and you blame me for it,
and this is, quite frankly, insane. You have been exposed as a very,
very bad person, and your apology hinges on _forcing_ people to behave as
you demand. None of this is even _remotely_ acceptable. If you were
honest about your insane ranting and raving about "politeness and
courtesy", you would simply _be_ polite and courteous, even when under
attack, _especially_ when you are under attack.. But just like Erann
Gat, who has been astonishingly evil and destructive in _his_ stupid
"quest" for polite and friendly discourse, you, too, need to control
other people when you demonstrate that cannot even control yourself.
| First, it is not because you have tried to be helpful even though people
| do not recognize it to its true value that you have to be rude after
| them. After all, no one _asked you_ to be helpful to anyone in the first
| place.
Oh, this is rich. If having anyone ask you to do something is the key,
who asked you to become the champion of politeness and courtesy? You are
so stupid, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet. You dig a grave for yourself with
every sentence you utter. Why do you need this constant humiliation?
But you failed to get the point, of course. On USENET we do things
because we want to. You are on the demanding end of USENET, so of course
you do not understand this. You get to _offer_ something on USENET, not
_demand_ anything. When you demand, you are abusing the hospitality of
those who offer something. Demanders should be shot and their useless
carcasses dragged off the Net.
| Second, it is true that some people are cheaters, clueless, <whatever>.
| But again this is no reason to get mad at them: remember what you say
| yourself: by their attitude (cheating/abusing/etc...) in the end, they
| only harm themselves.
I am trying to make this clear to you, but it seems you are exceptionally
hard of learning. Why do you need to have this pointed out in public
after you demonstrate again and again that you do not understand what you
are saying, cannot do what you say "is not option", and continue to blame
others for your behavior?
But you failed to get the point, of course. You are on the demanding end
of USENET, not the delivering. Until you have delivered, you have no
business commenting on how other people should behave. Yet more demands
just make you a disgusting whining loser. You could have offered us good
and nice and constructive behavior, but instead you chose to demand it
from other people when you cannot deliver it yourself. You are the kind
of shit that every person who chooses to offer something on the Net will
run into, sooner or later. Dealing nicely with shit like you is only
more demands from you, and you do _not_ deserve to be treated nicely. If
anyone does that, it is out of the excessive goodness of his heart.
| Finally, not shouting at people will prevent the occasional blunder of
| aiming at someone who would deserve a better treatment, weren't it for a
| shared misunderstanding to start with.
Is _this_ your real "reason" to come flying in my face like a rabid dog?
| BTW: this means that you started contributing to comp.lang.lisp
| in...1987?!?!
No, it does not mean that, since I did not restrict _your_ 15 years of
"public service" to comp.lang.lisp, either. Why do you have such severe
difficulties reading what people write to you? Why do you open up for
and virtually _beg_ for so much humiliation of yourself?
Tell you what, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet. The reason you refuse to behave
as you say is that it would be _extremely_ humiliating for you at this
point if you did -- it would be the ultimate defeat for you, who came out
of your little cave to attack people who "misbehaved" in your view, and
now you get punished for it and are required to behave yourself. You are
no longer the judge of good behavior, you are simply required to exhibit
good behavior, according to your own standards, which are taken out of
your control, too. This is absolutely intolerable to a psychopath, of
course, because the whole point of your "politeness and courtesy" is to
_control_ others, not just to speak your own mind, just as with every
other "politeness and courtesy" freak on USENET. The conditional apology
is what _really_ gave you away.
If you were not a dickless little wimp, this would never have been a
problem to you, because you could just have shook it off and moved on.
But it is in fact even more humiliating to do as you say than it is to
have me point out what an incredibly bad person you are after every
pathetic attempt to attack me. The reason you will not let this go is
that you want to walk out of this free after saving face and thinking you
did the right thing, after all. Well, you are not going to get a pat on
the back from me. You did _not_ do the right thing -- not according to
your own rules, not according to my rules, not according to anybody
else's rules. You did in fact do a very, _very_ bad thing. Attacking
people like you did is _not_ right, no matter what stupid excuse for a
"reason" you think you have. The more you defend yourself, the worse
person you must be. Here is how this works: You are a bad person, who
have done an unforgivably bad thing towards me, and I will _not_ let you
save face and walk out of this free. When I said you would not be
allowed to recover from this, I _really_ meant it. If you continue to
behave the way you do, you will most likely face more humiliation until
you have experienced total defeat. You see, I am not going to change my
ways just because some terrorist attacks me. You and Osama bin Laden may
well think something is wrong with whatever you attack so viciously and
extremely, but that does _not_ make it right, it does _not_ mean anyone
will _ever_ change their behavior when you attack something other than
that behavior. If you had had the mental capacity to pay attention to
what happens here over a sustained period of time, you would have seen
that I criticize individual items of behavior very specifically and only
when they occur, and if they get fixed, I do not hold grudges. This is
beyond the ability of some people to understand, and the more they are
"into" politeness and courtesy, the less they grasp that harsh words can
actually have a constructive purpose and work constructively -- this is
why _they_ use harsh words only destructively themselves and why _they_
have to count "bad words" as a measure of politeness and courtesy.
Insulting people nicely, politely, and courteously is an art. It can be
quite entertaining, but it requires people who are worth it. People like
you are not even worth that much. People who think apologies are no more
than bargaining chips are worthless scum and you in particular should be
remembered for your demanding attitude and your unwillingness to deliver
what you demand from others. In particular, you cannot even deliver when
you are asked to do what you think is not an option, but admit things
like "How easy it would be for me to comply" to indicate that you are a
very bad person because you think a demand for politeness and courtesy is
a _weapon_ and the person required to obey is humiliated by it. That is
why it is so _important_ to make you obey your own demands. You need to
learn an important lesson and it will not be complete until you are
completely humiliated -- or you figure out that what you have done is so
bad and stupid that you simply leave us alone until the shame wears off.
Note, however, that I do not forget and forgive scum like you at _all_.
///
--
From: Jean-Fran=?ISO-8859-1?B?5w==?=ois Brouillet
Subject: Re: Unwelcome mail from the stalkers
Date:
Message-ID: <B8650434.3BE0%verec@mac.com>
"Can't call it quit" <····@naggum.net> wrote:
An insufferable diatribe where he proves times again that he
can't understand anything under the Sun.
So risking to get even more bored (that's already done, Oh
Hole In The Skull) than humiliated (what you write would need
to be of value, it is only a nuisance) I'll assign myself
the duty to answer the unique monkey, among the 2^128, that
hit on the possibility of producing utterable sentences, but
failed to pick the few that would mean anything.
To close first this point before you start it over again,
I have to use whatever weapon that you are using, even if
this hurts my "morale" as you, poor shit feeding for flies,
have implied.
But my "morale" is not hurt as much a my fingers.
Whether I have any "right" is anyone guess including yours, but
you just have demonstrated, again, that:
- you turned down an offer for peace
- you did so in a most offensive way
So, pardon me, Oh Great Achiever Among The Eternals, but:
- you're not worth the time I spend on you
- you're not worth the time you make others waste
B U T
as long as you continue spending uncountable hours at
redacting a most stinking paper, I'll reply to it, in the most
bored and unproductive way that can be, by just pointing out
to the deaf evil you are just a few among his many blind spots.
Random picks (Sorry, time constraints can't allow me to answer them all,
I have to sample)
> You have never had the right to make demands on anybody else. You have
Nobody has never any right. That's the most stupid among the stupidest
thing I've ever heard. The world is made for the fittest, "right" or
"wrong".
> Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet thinks he has a _reason_ to break his rules, and
> therefore it is perfectly OK that he is a stark raving mad aggressor.
Bingo! Well done. And I thought you were stupid! Silly me ;-)
> You are
> so stupid, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet. You dig a grave for yourself with
> every sentence you utter. Why do you need this constant humiliation?
And it took you so long to discover that I had only two brain cells left?
Who is the most stupid then?
Me of course.
BTW: for _me_ to humiliate myself would be writing about things that
I strongly do care about, not about the Vulgum Naggum! For you to
humiliate myself, you would need my respect first, and I'm sure that
it's not a scoop to anyone that you are far from ever getting it.
That _you_ couldn't care less about _my_ respect is a tribute to your
asocial, psychotic and nevrotic mind that no known cure can solve.
> If the big champion of politeness and courtesy cannot follow his own
> "rules of engagement", he has demonstrated that politeness and courtesy
> are _ineffectual_ in dealing with other people.
Naggum has demonstrated that he himself is the _whole_ ineffectual,
since he fails to silence me, which is what he wants most.
You see, Lurker, what Naggum would appreciate would be for me to
f*ck myself outside c.l.l so that he could go annoy other victims.
But since I'm not letting him down ;-) he has no recourse but trying
to infuriate me to the point where I won't bother replying.
Lost, Naggum, I'm after you, Oh Marvel Of the Galaxy, Sun among the Stars,
and sweet at the dawn hours of the night.
> Insulting people nicely, politely, and courteously is an art.
That you don't seem very inclined to even learn the basics of...
> Note, however, that I do not forget and forgive scum like you at _all_.
If only _I_ could forget about you, Naggum! If only you stopped defecating
on c.l.l day in and day out, if only...well that would be another world!
In this world we have to bear with the Naggum and his likes, unless...
unless... enlightenment were to hit him, in which case:
Stop the ridicule, Naggum: go die.
--
"The very bad person" (AKA: Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet)
> * Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet <·····@mac.com>
> | How easy it would be for me to comply.
>
> SO DO IT! START NOW! DO AS YOU SAY!
>
> | If only the same could be said from some other people.
>
> _You_ are championing politeness and courtesy as not an option. At this
> particular time, nobody else does that, simply because most other people
> figure out that behaving like a certified lunatic who stages massively
> insane attacks on other people is not how you get a polite and courteous
> discussion. So this is about _you_, now.
>
> If the big champion of politeness and courtesy cannot follow his own
> "rules of engagement", he has demonstrated that politeness and courtesy
> are _ineffectual_ in dealing with other people.
>
> All moralists who have ever walked the earth have failed to understand
> that everybody else figure out very quickly that the only role a moralist
> wants is that of _judge_ of ethics, morals, and good behavior. The
> moralist would not _be_ a moralist if he were willing to abide by and
> obey the rules he thinks that other people should follow. Those who are
> smart enough to figure out the need for and the nature of very complex
> human creations like legal procedures to protect both guilty and innocent
> from the amazingly strong need for revenge and the irrationality of the
> morally outraged, have understood that we cannot leave behavior control
> to those who are most obsessed about it, because they are invariably more
> destructive than whatever they want to see.
>
> | The reason I started all this is because _your_ non-compliance.
>
> The reason you broke your own rule that "politeness and courtesy is not
> an option" is that somebody else does not follow your rules? This must
> mean that I am allowed to do the same. This also means that the only
> time that politeness and courtesy are actually valuable is when everybody
> already follow all the rules. If someone, somewhere, thinks somebody
> broke a rule, dispense with politeness and courtesy and attack viciously!
>
> The problem here is that politeness and courtesy is most certainly an
> option, but _only_ for Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet. _He_ can use any means
> necessary to bully people into submission. _He_ can break all rules of
> engagement and social etiquette and attack people viciously who do not
> obey his rules. _He_ can shoot people in the back if they walk funny.
> Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet thinks he has a _reason_ to break his rules, and
> therefore it is perfectly OK that he is a stark raving mad aggressor.
>
> | So let's agree on this: I won't reply any further, or if I do, I'll do it
> | in the most pleasant way...provided you do the same.
>
> You have never had the right to make demands on anybody else. You have
> the right to make demands on your own behavior, and you have said that
> politeness and courtesy is not an option. So follow up. Do as you say.
>
> That you refuse to _start_ to be polite and courteous, even when it is
> not an option, is very revealing, as if anything more needs revealing.
>
> | Fair enough?
>
> No. It is this simple: _You_ want polite and courteous, so _you_ start
> behaving as you say. _You_ say politeness and courtesy is not an option,
> so _you_ behave accordingly.
>
> | So here's the deal: I apologize for "Nagging Naggum" to the extent that
> | Mr Naggum himself apologizes for his past rudeness.
>
> Conditional apologies are the instrument only of the psychopath. Mature
> men apologize because they feel bad about something they understand has
> been hurtful, _not_ because they want to "bargain" with the victim of
> their evil deeds. The more you keep this behavior up, the more the whole
> world gets to see what a sick person you are, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet.
> Why do you need this public humiliation?
>
> | Square, isn't it?
>
> No, it is not. You attack me out of the blue, and you blame me for it,
> and this is, quite frankly, insane. You have been exposed as a very,
> very bad person, and your apology hinges on _forcing_ people to behave as
> you demand. None of this is even _remotely_ acceptable. If you were
> honest about your insane ranting and raving about "politeness and
> courtesy", you would simply _be_ polite and courteous, even when under
> attack, _especially_ when you are under attack.. But just like Erann
> Gat, who has been astonishingly evil and destructive in _his_ stupid
> "quest" for polite and friendly discourse, you, too, need to control
> other people when you demonstrate that cannot even control yourself.
>
> | First, it is not because you have tried to be helpful even though people
> | do not recognize it to its true value that you have to be rude after
> | them. After all, no one _asked you_ to be helpful to anyone in the first
> | place.
>
> Oh, this is rich. If having anyone ask you to do something is the key,
> who asked you to become the champion of politeness and courtesy? You are
> so stupid, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet. You dig a grave for yourself with
> every sentence you utter. Why do you need this constant humiliation?
>
> But you failed to get the point, of course. On USENET we do things
> because we want to. You are on the demanding end of USENET, so of course
> you do not understand this. You get to _offer_ something on USENET, not
> _demand_ anything. When you demand, you are abusing the hospitality of
> those who offer something. Demanders should be shot and their useless
> carcasses dragged off the Net.
>
> | Second, it is true that some people are cheaters, clueless, <whatever>.
> | But again this is no reason to get mad at them: remember what you say
> | yourself: by their attitude (cheating/abusing/etc...) in the end, they
> | only harm themselves.
>
> I am trying to make this clear to you, but it seems you are exceptionally
> hard of learning. Why do you need to have this pointed out in public
> after you demonstrate again and again that you do not understand what you
> are saying, cannot do what you say "is not option", and continue to blame
> others for your behavior?
>
> But you failed to get the point, of course. You are on the demanding end
> of USENET, not the delivering. Until you have delivered, you have no
> business commenting on how other people should behave. Yet more demands
> just make you a disgusting whining loser. You could have offered us good
> and nice and constructive behavior, but instead you chose to demand it
> from other people when you cannot deliver it yourself. You are the kind
> of shit that every person who chooses to offer something on the Net will
> run into, sooner or later. Dealing nicely with shit like you is only
> more demands from you, and you do _not_ deserve to be treated nicely. If
> anyone does that, it is out of the excessive goodness of his heart.
>
> | Finally, not shouting at people will prevent the occasional blunder of
> | aiming at someone who would deserve a better treatment, weren't it for a
> | shared misunderstanding to start with.
>
> Is _this_ your real "reason" to come flying in my face like a rabid dog?
>
> | BTW: this means that you started contributing to comp.lang.lisp
> | in...1987?!?!
>
> No, it does not mean that, since I did not restrict _your_ 15 years of
> "public service" to comp.lang.lisp, either. Why do you have such severe
> difficulties reading what people write to you? Why do you open up for
> and virtually _beg_ for so much humiliation of yourself?
>
>
> Tell you what, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet. The reason you refuse to behave
> as you say is that it would be _extremely_ humiliating for you at this
> point if you did -- it would be the ultimate defeat for you, who came out
> of your little cave to attack people who "misbehaved" in your view, and
> now you get punished for it and are required to behave yourself. You are
> no longer the judge of good behavior, you are simply required to exhibit
> good behavior, according to your own standards, which are taken out of
> your control, too. This is absolutely intolerable to a psychopath, of
> course, because the whole point of your "politeness and courtesy" is to
> _control_ others, not just to speak your own mind, just as with every
> other "politeness and courtesy" freak on USENET. The conditional apology
> is what _really_ gave you away.
>
> If you were not a dickless little wimp, this would never have been a
> problem to you, because you could just have shook it off and moved on.
> But it is in fact even more humiliating to do as you say than it is to
> have me point out what an incredibly bad person you are after every
> pathetic attempt to attack me. The reason you will not let this go is
> that you want to walk out of this free after saving face and thinking you
> did the right thing, after all. Well, you are not going to get a pat on
> the back from me. You did _not_ do the right thing -- not according to
> your own rules, not according to my rules, not according to anybody
> else's rules. You did in fact do a very, _very_ bad thing. Attacking
> people like you did is _not_ right, no matter what stupid excuse for a
> "reason" you think you have. The more you defend yourself, the worse
> person you must be. Here is how this works: You are a bad person, who
> have done an unforgivably bad thing towards me, and I will _not_ let you
> save face and walk out of this free. When I said you would not be
> allowed to recover from this, I _really_ meant it. If you continue to
> behave the way you do, you will most likely face more humiliation until
> you have experienced total defeat. You see, I am not going to change my
> ways just because some terrorist attacks me. You and Osama bin Laden may
> well think something is wrong with whatever you attack so viciously and
> extremely, but that does _not_ make it right, it does _not_ mean anyone
> will _ever_ change their behavior when you attack something other than
> that behavior. If you had had the mental capacity to pay attention to
> what happens here over a sustained period of time, you would have seen
> that I criticize individual items of behavior very specifically and only
> when they occur, and if they get fixed, I do not hold grudges. This is
> beyond the ability of some people to understand, and the more they are
> "into" politeness and courtesy, the less they grasp that harsh words can
> actually have a constructive purpose and work constructively -- this is
> why _they_ use harsh words only destructively themselves and why _they_
> have to count "bad words" as a measure of politeness and courtesy.
>
> Insulting people nicely, politely, and courteously is an art. It can be
> quite entertaining, but it requires people who are worth it. People like
> you are not even worth that much. People who think apologies are no more
> than bargaining chips are worthless scum and you in particular should be
> remembered for your demanding attitude and your unwillingness to deliver
> what you demand from others. In particular, you cannot even deliver when
> you are asked to do what you think is not an option, but admit things
> like "How easy it would be for me to comply" to indicate that you are a
> very bad person because you think a demand for politeness and courtesy is
> a _weapon_ and the person required to obey is humiliated by it. That is
> why it is so _important_ to make you obey your own demands. You need to
> learn an important lesson and it will not be complete until you are
> completely humiliated -- or you figure out that what you have done is so
> bad and stupid that you simply leave us alone until the shame wears off.
> Note, however, that I do not forget and forgive scum like you at _all_.
>
> ///
Re: message news:<···················@mac.com>
I don't understand everything that Broullet writes, nor why he is defending
himself, but if whoever is the most clever of the two would stop, then it
would be a relief to most of us.
I don't need to follow threads that I know only contain garbage, and I could
possibly agree that Mr Naggum started it all, but why would this matter? Simply
ignoring him should do the trick most of the time, isn't it?
Also, even if it is a rare event these days, Mr Naggum posts interesting
pieces from time yo time. Where are yours, Mr Broullet? I know that you
presented your-self as an ex-lurker, but why have you crossed the line?
Why didn't you simply tolerate those posts of Mr Naggum that you found
offending and move on?
Surely, if you both were more civilized, this thread would die, don't you think?
RnG +++ the Pavilion end, Friday bear starts +++
* Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet <·····@mac.com>
| "Can't call it quit" <····@naggum.net> wrote:
*snicker* Are you _sure_ your computer display is not a mirror?
| So risking to get even more bored (that's already done, Oh Hole In The
| Skull) than humiliated (what you write would need to be of value, it is
| only a nuisance) I'll assign myself the duty to answer the unique monkey,
| among the 2^128, that hit on the possibility of producing utterable
| sentences, but failed to pick the few that would mean anything.
Amusing. Psychotic ranting. What more direct evidence of your very
serious personality disorders can we expect, now? Get help, OK? That
was the first thing I said to your amazing behavior, and you have gone on
to prove that you have very serious personality disorders and _need_ help.
| - you turned down an offer for peace
| - you did so in a most offensive way
An offer for _peace_? An offer for a face-saving measure that would
allow the psychopath to feel better about himself while insulting his
victim once more is maybe an "offer" to ask people to give _you_ peace of
mind, but you do not quite understand that you have done something bad
and wrong here, have you? Conditional apologies are _not_ offers for
peace, it is instead very clear evidence that you are going to attack
people forever, no matter what they do in return, so being nice to you is
not an option. In fact, being nice to something so vile as Jean-Fran�ois
Brouillet means that he is treated _unjustly_. Destructive assholes like
Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet should be crushed, destroyed, humiliated until
they cry themselves to sleep. There is a way out for the psychopath,
however: Just be polite and courteous, and apologize for your behavior.
If you really _want_ politeness and courtesy, just start. If you think
this is humiliating, which of course it would be only if you do not
_really_ want politeness and courtesy, just grin and bear it.
You see, I am doing more than you apparently can understand here. I have
trashed and humiliated you in response to what you consider good behavior
_specifically_ to see if you respond rationally and turn into a polite
and courteous contributor, because that is how you have approached me,
remember? Did this cause you to get a clue and start to behave well?
No, quite the contrary. So, if not even your _tactics_ work on yourself,
there is no reason at all to believe you have a constructive purpose at
all. Psychopaths want personal _power_, they do not want what they say
they want -- it is just a means to control other people. They do not
respond to what they think is good and useful tactics when they employ
them against others. This sheer lack of constructiveness and empathy is
what defines the psychopath's behavioral pattern.
Remember, nobody invited you here, nobody asked you to attack me, nobody
forces you to keep posting, and nobody else shrieks their requests for
politeness and courtesy right now, but _you_ do not _deliver_. You keep
attacking, so your "peace offers" are nothing if not completely vacuous.
| In this world we have to bear with the Naggum and his likes, unless...
| unless... enlightenment were to hit him, in which case:
|
| Stop the ridicule, Naggum: go die.
*snicker* Are you _sure_ your computer display is not a mirror?
What kind of fights would we have had here if it were not for your kind
and your attacks? I am defending myself from _your_ attacks, remember?
You opened fire, you attacked, and you did so without provocation, and
you _refuse_ to quit. _You_ get to quit, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet, not
me. You blame me for your insanity and psychopathy, and you seem to
_believe_ that you are not the problem, but you _are_ the problem, and
you represent a kind of people who _completely_ lack politeness and
courtesy. Nothing you do will ever change that. Nothing I do will ever
change that. I am sick and tired of scumbags like you, and I told you
that you were not going to recover from this. Why are you so eager to
demonstrate that you will continue to attack forever? You can just quit
and be polite and courteous like you demand from others, apologize in a
credible manner, and that will be the end of it. This would be easy for
you to do, according to yourself. WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO DO IT???
So, when will enlightenment hit you, Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet? When will
you _understand_ that you came out of nowhere to attack me and that you
will be driven away if you do not quit, the more humiliated the more you
resist and persist? Psychos like you have come to comp.lang.lisp time
and again. You are the problem here. People who cannot accept that they
have done something wrong, will continue to make a hell of a ruckus when
they are criticized. Those who are so amazingly lacking in both
intelligence and coping strategies as you are, will come out of nowhere
to attack me once again. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. As
long as people do something wrong, and you are one of them, some people
will speak their mind on it, politely at first (which you did _not_ do),
and then hostilely when the schmuck who cannot tolerate being corrected
goes postal and attacks the messenger.
This world will always suffer bad guys like Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet, we
cannot rid ourselves of psychopaths and other people who use violence
when they feel helpless and powerless, and there is absolutely nothing we
can do about these amoral scumbags, but it is vitally important that not
a single soul do as they say. Politeness and courtesy is a weapon among
these people because if other people are required to be nice, _they_ can
be much worse and can attack people if they are not polite and courteous
to their attackers. But like terrorists who see that their tactics work
by letting normal people be beat into submission, one must _not_ bow to
psychopaths like Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet.
And before anyone thinks that Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet is unique or that I
am the only one that psychopaths attack, there are psychopaths everywhere
on USENET who fight against all _kinds_ of normal rules. Take a look at
news.groups to watch some _real_ nutjobs rebel against the rules for
creating new newsgroups, crying conspiracy and whatnot if their choice of
newsgroups do not get created. If you have charter for a newsgroup,
watch some real psychos fight everybody who try to keep discussion within
the boundaries of the charter. If you have a moderator, watch people
attack the moderator just for _being_ the moderator. There are immature,
insane people who want to be the judges of absolutely everything. For
instance, there is no doubt at all how followup messages on USENET shall
be identified with "Re: " as a prefix in the Subject header field, but
Microsoft, of course, has believed that "re" is an abbreviation for
"reply", since their ignorance and illiteracy when it comes to reading
specifications is insurmountable, so they helpfully "translate" this when
they produce Outlook Express in various languages (which should be an
important lesson to people who want things "localized"), but when someone
politely requests that an Outlook Express user fix this, some nutjobs
will fight tooth and nail to admit no fault, and the psychopaths come in
to attack those who simply want _software_ be behave for no better reason
that _they_ are not the judge of correct behavior. USENET is the only
place you can find people who fight against common sense with a vengeance.
Finally, it is _never_ politeness and courtesy these lunatics want. (If
it were, they would simply prove the superiority of being polite and
courteous.) They want _other_ people to be polite and courteous because
_they_ do not want to feel humiliated or threatened, but who can tell
what makes a deranged lunatic feel humiliated or threatened by just and
proper criticism, especially by proxy as the worst of these outcasts do?
These people react extremely hostilely to any feeling that somebody else
tells them what to do and are unable to cope with the helplessness and
powerlessness they feel after being told what to do, but this is not
anybody else can fix for them.
Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet, please start to behave politely and courteously.
An excellent start is to offer your apology to me and to this newsgroups
in good spirit, and promise _never_ to repeat your vile actions here. No
matter how much abuse of _your_ rules you see here, _you_ will at least
always be polite and courteous. It should be very easy for you to comply.
///
--
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
> An offer for _peace_? An offer for a face-saving measure that would
> allow the psychopath to feel better about himself while insulting his
> victim once more is maybe an "offer" to ask people to give _you_ peace
of
> mind, but you do not quite understand that you have done something bad
> and wrong here, have you? Conditional apologies are _not_ offers for
> peace, it is instead very clear evidence that you are going to attack
> people forever, no matter what they do in return, so being nice to you
is
> not an option. In fact, being nice to something so vile as
Jean-Fran�ois
> Brouillet means that he is treated _unjustly_. Destructive assholes
like
> Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet should be crushed, destroyed, humiliated until
> they cry themselves to sleep. There is a way out for the psychopath,
> however: Just be polite and courteous, and apologize for your behavior.
> If you really _want_ politeness and courtesy, just start. If you think
> this is humiliating, which of course it would be only if you do not
> _really_ want politeness and courtesy, just grin and bear it.
Erik, are you really calling Jean-Fran�ois a psychopath, as in the actual
psychiatric diagnosis? It is serious matter.
http://members.iquest.net/~macihms/WebInfo/Impeach/prespsyco.html
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n07/doencas/
I listened to a radio program with Dr. Robert Hare about
psychopaths/sociopath and how they may be more prevalent in society than we
know. He contended that not all psychopaths exhibited violent behavior, but
many lived actively in society. Examples were given like the Manager who
rises quickly in the company and then when achieving power essentially
destroys/lays-off/bankrupts the company. It also said that psychopaths have
little real feelings and do not cry or laugh as a real response, but as a
calculated learned behavior. For example they see a car accident and the
crying and emotions that are displayed. They go home and practice the
facial gestures, sounds and crying in the mirror. When they think it is
appropriate, they display the emotion without any of the actual feelings,
often getting it wrong. From the little I know, trying to get a psychopath
to feel something is useless.
I have certainly met psychopaths (and am beginning to think they are common)
and quickly get out their way. Personally I am also have the opinion one
can have psychopathic tendencies to one extent or the other. (Who hasn't
acted in a less then virtuous manner?) I also think its coming out into the
open now and will become a big societal issue.
As for Jean-Fran�ois being a psychopath I am going to have to reserve
judgement though it seems unlikely to me. Why would a psychopath engage in
a conversation in a technical newsgroup? There does not seem to be anything
to gain here (perhaps psychopaths need no real reason).
Wade
* "Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com>
| Erik, are you really calling Jean-Fran�ois a psychopath, as in the actual
| psychiatric diagnosis? It is serious matter.
Yes, it is a serious matter. You can tell a psychopath by how they react
to humiliation -- while normal people get angry and may _want_ to hit
back, a psychopath has his whole raison d'�tre threatened and turns into
an extremely vicious and violent attacker and he cannot control himself.
Everything is somebody else's fault, and they are unable to look at their
own reactions as contributing to the situation. What really told me that
Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet is a certifiable psychopath was his attempt at
conditional apologies. Before children develop a sense of personal
responsibility, they believe that the _only_ measure properly dealing
with the world is that which makes them "feel good" (which is more
internal then hedonism). Young children lack long-term goals and have no
realistic sense of planning, This is the developmental stage that
psychopaths never get past. Members of the so-called "me generation"
exhibit a lot of personality traits that (more) social generations have
found to be fundamental to sociopathic personality disorders. The
ultimate sociopath is one who forces others to obey his will in order to
make him feel good about himself, which is generally not possible without
the approval of others, whether they are forced into that position or
not. Grasping the concept of "society" usually takes more than 20 years
in a well-developed society, which is why the voting age was set to 21
until it was lowered, amazingly, to 18 in 1971 in the U.S., despite much
evidence of pandemic failure to grasp what a society means for people
that young. The concept of "self-esteem" usually takes even longer to
develop as distinct from "I feel good about me". Then there is the very
difficult concept of one's private and public person which has been
eroded dramatically in the past 10 years by the media, and people who
have not had a chance to develop properly will feel invaded all the time.
| I listened to a radio program with Dr. Robert Hare about psychopaths/
| sociopath and how they may be more prevalent in society than we know.
Any person who manages to control other people's behavior exhibits many
"psychopathic" personality traits. However, the best criterion is
whether they can cope with and obey rules set by others. A psychopath
exhibits an almost complete lack of respect for the rule of law and legal
procedures that are put in place to prevent individual feelings of hate
and revenge from taking over, and has serious personal problems with the
police or indeed any other authority. If they cannot _be_ the authority,
they turn very hostile, and they are known to fight any authority at all
simply because it is there and is not them.
| He contended that not all psychopaths exhibited violent behavior, but
| many lived actively in society.
If a psychopath is not challenged, he would only seem eager and maybe
aggressive in reaching power. However, actually setting and working
towards long-terms goals and overcoming setbacks and problems is highly
incompatible with the psychopath's personality. Anyone who has been able
to work towards something for a long time through serious setbacks, is
most probably in the clear. But if setbacks are somebody else's fault
and the universe in general is basically "against" someone, watch out.
The ability to accept responsbility for one's own actions and deal with
setbacks rationally is vital to the mature human being. Psychopaths lack
both abilities.
| It also said that psychopaths have little real feelings and do not cry or
| laugh as a real response, but as a calculated learned behavior. For
| example they see a car accident and the crying and emotions that are
| displayed. They go home and practice the facial gestures, sounds and
| crying in the mirror. When they think it is appropriate, they display
| the emotion without any of the actual feelings, often getting it wrong.
| From the little I know, trying to get a psychopath to feel something is
| useless.
Well, I disagree, and so does the literature. A psychopath lacks
empathy, not feelings. Where normal people feel great, even happy, when
they feel efficacious and feel that they are in control on their long-
term journey towards their larger goals in life, a psychopath would feel
great about being able to manipulate and control others. Simply put, a
normal person needs to understand and deal with reality directly and
feels good about his efficacy in this regard, a psychopath needs to
understand and deal with people and feels good only to the extent that he
can make other people do his bidding.
| I have certainly met psychopaths (and am beginning to think they are
| common) and quickly get out their way. Personally I am also have the
| opinion one can have psychopathic tendencies to one extent or the other.
The normal check-list has 40 points. If you score below 15, you are
basically a spineless wimp who would be the ideal control object for
someone with a score above 30. Being emotionally shallow is certainly
worth a few points, but such people can just be really unintelligent.
| (Who hasn't acted in a less then virtuous manner?)
That is not really the point. The point is whether you (1) understand
that you broke some general laws, regulations, or rules that apply to
_all_ people, not just "the others", and (2) cared only about your own
immediate gratification. Some classify anyone who is willing to
sacrifice others for their own emotional well-being as psychopaths.
| I also think its coming out into the open now and will become a big
| societal issue.
The "me generation" is exhibiting a lot more problems than any previous
generation in this regard, for two particular reasons: (1) they were not
required to mature and think about society and what it means to work and
live in cooperation and collaboration with other people, and (2) they
have discarded religion, which traditionally has been a very strong
enforcer of the idea that "there is a higher power than me". (For this
reason, many religious leaders have been fantastically evil through the
ages, and religion is still the most significant motivator for evil, for
the simple reason that those non-believers are "different from us", which
has been grounds for hatred since the dawn of mankind.)
| As for Jean-Fran�ois being a psychopath I am going to have to reserve
| judgement though it seems unlikely to me. Why would a psychopath engage
| in a conversation in a technical newsgroup? There does not seem to be
| anything to gain here (perhaps psychopaths need no real reason).
Oh, just watch him when he requires others to be polite and courteous
while he is exempt from this law himself. Watch him when he is so
immature that he thinks apologies are bargaining chips to make people
feel good. What kinds of empathy can Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet possibly
possess when he keeps going like he does? He certainly lacks respect for
other people. This is all about how he does not feel good about himself
because some perceived authority figure does not approve of him. Watch
how he calmed down only when Kent Pitman, another authority figure here,
approved of his view. Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet is a text-book example of
a psychopath. Watch him come back and attack me viciously as soon as he
loses the feeling of sufficient approval, despite promises to the
contrary -- they were absolutely nothing but manipulative in order to
elevate himself and "duck" me. A psychopath is really _nothing_ -- he
has failed to mature beyond the whining child who wants only one thing:
immediate gratification, he has no long-term plans, and he lacks the
ability to recover from pain by himself -- he is only what other people
think about him. I would give Jean-Fran�ois Brouillet 40 out of 40.
//
--
"Erik Naggum" <····@naggum.net> wrote in message
·····················@naggum.net...
> * "Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com>
> | Erik, are you really calling Jean-Fran�ois a psychopath, as in the
actual
> | psychiatric diagnosis? It is serious matter.
>
> Yes, it is a serious matter. You can tell a psychopath by how they
react
> to humiliation -- while normal people get angry and may _want_ to hit
> back, a psychopath has his whole raison d'�tre threatened and turns into
> an extremely vicious and violent attacker and he cannot control himself.
The psychopath I knew in university would certainly get vicious and violent
when he was humilitated. At the same time he was elated when he got his
way, which he incessantly tried to do. The guy was scary, and the scarier
part is that his father (who is also sociopathic) was a millionaire (and now
a multi-multi-millionaire) and he will get some of that monetary power when
the time comes.
I think I am getting the idea. A sociopath is maladjusted in his/her
relationship to society. They view themselves not as part or a participant
of the society but the society is to be controlled to satisfy their needs.
There is no self analysis (that they may be at fault) because they have
developed no awareness of self or society (why you called them nothing).
Psychopathic behavior today is getting more dangerous. Flying planes into
buildings comes right to mind. Letting sociopaths have control over any
aspect of society is inviting trouble. Erik, you have certainly seemed to
have decided on tactics for dealing with psychopathic behavior. Why did you
pick the ones you have?
My only concern is the possibility of demonizing psychopaths as the being
the source of all problems with society. It is up to everyone to develop
enough knowledge and awareness to deal with the situation (me included).
Nothing is intractable.
It all seems like a tragedy.
Wade
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:41:04 GMT, Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> wrote:
>* "Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com>
>| Erik, are you really calling Jean-François a psychopath, as in the actual
>| psychiatric diagnosis? It is serious matter.
>
> Yes, it is a serious matter. You can tell a psychopath by how they react
> to humiliation
I really do not want to get involved in arguments, but the
psychological instrument that is currently used to diagnose
psychopathy is the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R).
" In clinical settings, the PCL-R is used for psycho- diagnostic
purposes. Because an individual's scores may have important
consequences for his or her future, the absolute value is of critical
importance. The potential for harm is considerable if the PCL-R is
used incorrectly, or if the user is not familiar with the clinical and
empirical literature pertaining to psychopathy.
Clinicians should
Possess an advanced degree in the social, medical, or behavioral
sciences, such as a Ph.D., D.Ed. or M.D.
Be registered with the local state or provincial registration body
that regulates the assessment and diagnosis of mental disorder (e.g.,
psychological or psychiatric association);
Have experience with forensic populations (as demonstrated by
registration as a diploma in forensic psychology or psychiatry,
completion of a practicum or internship in a clinical-forensic
setting,or at least two years of relevant work-related experience)
Limit their use of the PCL-R to those populations in which it has been
fully validated. The manual, published in 1991, stated that this meant
only adult male forensic populations (e.g.,institutional or community
correctional facilities, forensic psychiatric hospitals, and pre trial
evaluation or detention facilities.)
Insure that they have adequate training and experience in the use of
the PCL-R(see below). We further recommend that, wherever possible,
the PCL-R scores of two independent raters should be averaged so as to
increase the reliability of the assessment."
http://www.hare.org/pclr/
-------------------
Direct all spam to:
·········@whitehouse.gov, ··············@whitehouse.gov,
·····@aol.com,·······@aol.com,
·····@yahoo.com, ·····@hotmail.com, ·····@msn.com,
·····@cia.gov , ·····@sprint.com, ·····@earthlink.com, ···@ftc.gov, ·······@spamcop.net