MI5Victim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are posting on a news discussion group that is devoted to technical
computer issues: MicroStation CAD software. This news group is not a
venue for airing personal problems. We usually talk computers only on
this site.
You bring up a number of issues here on CCM, and I've seen your posts on
other news groups. You've outlined a problem, and you are apparently
seeking answers. In this post I have provided a possible answer to your
implicit questions.
I quote from a previous post that you made on this thread:
"It was quite obvious from the torrent of abuse during these flight that
these women had been instructed to harass me and attempt to obtain a
reaction."
That is not a logical conclusion to draw from the observed facts. The
facts that you present do not lead to or sup****t the conclusions that
you draw. You observe selected facts, however, you make errors of
method, and you draw incorrect conclusions. There are many examples of
that method of yours in your writings, and they are all examples of the
same type faulty reasoning. You writings mostly include errors of logic
of one or two basic types, for example, the non-sequitur and the post
hoc ergo propter hoc types of errors. The type of faulty thinking that
you employ is found in what in the science of psychology is called
paranoia. Your basic technique of thinking is the problem, and that
leads you to interpret the facts that you observe incorrectly. I suggest
that you bring all copies of your writings to a professional
psychologist, psychiatrist, or what ever medical professional is
appropriate in your country. The writings will provide him or her with
excellent quality working information, and you will get good advice.
I'm sure that you will be helped greatly.
Ralph Hertle
|
