Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 9/30/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 9:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


There's really no reason to debate or even discuss this with you.
Your first sentence (after "Funny") says it all. Your mind is
made up, closed and you've condemned before a trial.

Congratulations. You've morphed into a true, card carrying, modern
Democrat.

He's had all the trial he's going to get.
And there's currently no alternative to Democrats.
Sorry.


And if the FBI comes back with, "we got nothing"
Kavanaugh will be confirmed on Friday.


Well, we do have SNL's version of the Senate hearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8

I think my favorite bit was near the end, with "Lindsay," who was
"auditioning" for Trump's cabinet.

BTW, I keep reading that the sex offender in the White House, Ding Dong
Donald, has somehow "limited the scope" of the FBI inquiry, but I
haven't been able to find details of that and, of course, Ding Dong is
denying it.

I think Kavanaugh's demeanor during the hearing and his political
statements completely disqualify him from holding a federal judgeship.


What does your demeanor qualify you for, Fat Harry? Hint: voyer,
liar, draft avoider, tax evader(multiple times in federal state
county), bankruptee(twice), statuatory rapee, baldish fat head,
obese, neer do well schmuck. Have I missed anything?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:46:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 9/30/2018 9:17 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/30/2018 8:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 5:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 20:54:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:34:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 7:23 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/29/18 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze

wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought
was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying
and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a
result
of her experience 36 years ago.* She then went on to
acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to
conduct
the testimony in California.* He said the committee would
fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was
made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley
had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen.
Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys
regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.** He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from Ford* they were in violation of some
codes of
conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they
could be
subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the
woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump
"resist"
movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by
Dianne
Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter
regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front
of the
Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony,
but the
political screed he offered during it should be something
that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any
judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on
women, on
the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal
judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that
way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire
facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't
mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph
Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan
attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing
him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was
not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a
public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or
slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him
in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any
court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything
even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering
questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in
the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a
political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she
handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be
malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in
the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3
on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates
in a
row.



That's not the objective.* They've got the delaying process
down pat.
They want to block Kavanaugh and then delay any replacement
long enough
for the mid terms plus 2 months.* Technically there may be
time to
rush another nominee through the process but unlikely because
all the
jerks in WashDC want to get home and get into heavy campaign
mode.



There's no doubt there are strong efforts to block Kavanaugh,
and for
good reason. I suppose if Kavanaugh is withdrawn, the Repubs
could try
to fast-track a replacement before the election and if not,
certainly
after the election.


I have no problem with the Dems trying to block Kavanaugh ...
for the
right reasons like simple political differences ... but not for the
ridiculous and disgusting reasons they have demonstrated over
the past week.


It is interesting that nobody has admitted that this is really just
about Roe to them, at least not since they had the Ford thing to
wave
around.
I do think this is the first time ever that I have seen a politician
or a potential justice being crucified for what they might have done
as a teenager. We were not even allowed to criticize what democrat
sitting senators and governors did while they were in office.



It really is bizarre.* And I also don't think this is as much
about Roe
vs. Wade as some Dems would like you to think.** The chances of a 40
something year old decision being overturned even with some strong
conservatives on the bench are slim. It probably wouldn't even be
accepted to be considered if a challenge ever made it up through the
lower courts.** Those Dems talking about it are just trying to scare
their pro-choice base to turn out the vote in November.

I don't know what to think regarding Ford's allegations.* If the
"meetoo" crowd wasn't as vocal and stories of Crosby and others
weren't
in the news everyday I wonder if her story would be more
reflective of a
goofy, HS party with some drinking going on and teenagers acting like
teenagers. There was no rape. She claims "attempted rape".* I find it
hard to believe (as does my wife) that a normal, well adjusted and
mentally stable person would remain "traumatized" over this, 36 years
later.* But that's just an opinion.

Plus, the more one thinks about it, the more her whole story doesn't
make sense, not from a standpoint of what she believes happened and
who was involved but more related to how it has affected her.
Lots of
holes in it.* She claims she doesn't like to fly due to
claustrophobia
caused by the "attack".* Yet she flies regularly all over the
place both
for business and for pleasure.

She says her academic studies suffered due to it.
The "assult" occurred in 1982 (she thinks) when she was a HS
sophomore.
Yet, in 1988, four years after HS she earned an undergraduate
degree in
experimental psychology from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel
Hill.* Then a Master's degree in clinical psychology from Pepperdine
University in 1991, followed by a PhD in educational psychology
from the
University of Southern California.* She also earned another
Master's in
epidemiology from Stanford University School of Medicine in 2009.

Hard to imagine what she would have accomplished had her academic
studies not "suffered" due to this on going trauma.* Heck, her
multiple degrees makes Harry look like a dunce.

I saw a time line the other day and she seemed to have totally
forgotten it until there was a hazy reference in 2012. I would ask,
what else happened in 2012?
I do agree the story is shaky at best. She got a ride to the party but
we never heard what happened to the driver. Did someone really just
turn her loose at a drinking party and drive away? Maybe I missed it
but how did she get home? If it was a "20 minute drive" it had to be
hours walking and there were no cell phones so she didn't call a cab.
My bet is this whole thing blows over and we never hear from her
again.


I believe her testimony was that she can't remember how she got to
the party nor how she got home.** She can't even remember where the
party was or when.

Just heard a non-political prosecutor say that if she had filed a
criminal complaint with the sketchy information she provided at the
hearing it would never be considered for prosecution.* According to
the prosecutor the law requires far more specificity as to what, where
and when in order to charge anyone with anything.



I don't remember the details of a lot of parties I attended when I
was a teen and of course I didn't have the trauma of being attacked
at one of those gatherings. See if you can figure out what that
means, eh?

I've also often tried to recall the details of events that happened
early in my life and when discussing them with others who would be
familiar with them I have sometimes been corrected my recollection,
especially of the details.* It's normal* to not recall all the *exact*
details of events from years ago.

I seriously question the extent of* long term "trauma" in a otherwise
well-adjusted, mentally healthy 50 something year old woman with a
good job, 2 kids and advanced degrees.* It just doesn't add up and some
of her testimony seems to have some holes in it.

Obviously, I am not qualified to judge but in recent conversations with
a few women all over the age of 50 about this, I am not alone in my
questioning.

Here's what I speculate may have happened:

Ford is an accomplished member of academia living in California.
It's reasonable to assume her political leanings are of the
progressive-liberal persuasion, very common in her area and in
her profession.

It is very possible that when Kavanaugh's name came up as a potential
nominee she recalled having known him or "of" him back in high school.

She may have commented to friends and/or associates of her remembrance
of him and of a high school party that she "thinks" he was in
attendance.* She may have also have mentioned an encounter with
someone at that party of the nature she described in her testimony.

Those friends/associates, likely to also be of the progressive-
liberal mindset and perhaps more political in their anti-Trump
activism encouraged her to speak up, resulting in the letter
sent to Dianne Feinstein* but imploring Feinstein to keep her
identity confidential.

Here's where the true nature of your party becomes exposed.
Fienstein was more interested in using this letter as a means
of promoting her anti-Trump politics than protecting the
identity of Ford.* So, at the right time and place, when it
looked like Kavanaugh's nomination was on a course for confirmation,
she dropped the bomb.* Somehow, mysteriously, the letter was leaked to
the press.* The chain of custody of that letter and it's contents
consisted of two people.* Ford and Fienstein.

Some have reported that it was Fienstein who recommended the
left wing activist attorney to Ford.

The Dems also didn't want Ford to provide testimony privately
as Grassley offered.* They *wanted* a public display, particularly
because of the current "meetoo" movement.* Ford testified that she
either didn't understand Grassley's offer or was unaware of it.

So, Ford became a sacrifice for political purposes by your party, much
like what they are doing to Kavanaugh.* People don't matter.
Political power and leverage is all that matters.

If the "meetoo" movement was not so prevalent in the media, I suspect
the public spectacle, arranged and orchestrated by the Dems on
national TV and cable would never have happened.



I'll certainly bow to your expertise in electrical-optical plating or
whatever it was that built your business and made your fortune. That
sort of applied science is way over my knowledge base and pay grade.

But from your posts here over the years, I don't think you know much
about what may plague the human mind or psyche, other than from a couple
of samples.

I don't believe Dr. Ford's coming forward had anything to do with her
politics, nor do I question Senator Feinstein's motivation. The senator
said she was asked to keep the letter confidential. Did you think an
anti-woman right-wing lawyer would be recommended...

Kavanaugh is a bozo.


I can form some conclusions (as can anyone) simply based on life
experiences. I remind you that my comments were speculative on my part.

I fully admit that I don't know much about what may plague the human
mind or psyche. Unfortunately nor do psychiatrist and others in
the treatment of mental health issues or even in the analysis of
what causes us to think and act as we do.

A few years ago I decided to take some courses on the subject
because it was of interest and because I was dealing with someone with
some mental health issues. I wanted to understand how this person
dealt with challenges.

I lost interest when I realized that I was chasing knowledge on a
subject that my first professor admitted that even going back to Sigmund
Freud the proven knowledge in this field is limited, much being purely
theoretical and prone to debate. This short experience in education on
the subject is certainly extremely limited and doesn't come remotely
close to that of those holding degrees in the area of mental health but
it was enough for me to decide I didn't want to spend more money or time
learning about such an undefined, immature science.

I am not much of a "la-la land" type. Sorry if that offends.




Look at it this way: Harry thinks he's perfectly normal and rational.

QED!

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 13:57:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:46:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 9/30/2018 9:17 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/30/2018 8:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 5:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 20:54:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:34:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 7:23 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/29/18 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze

wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought
was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying
and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a
result
of her experience 36 years ago.* She then went on to
acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to
conduct
the testimony in California.* He said the committee would
fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was
made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley
had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen.
Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys
regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.** He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from Ford* they were in violation of some
codes of
conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they
could be
subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the
woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump
"resist"
movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by
Dianne
Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter
regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front
of the
Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony,
but the
political screed he offered during it should be something
that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any
judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on
women, on
the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal
judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that
way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire
facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't
mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph
Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan
attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing
him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was
not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a
public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or
slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him
in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any
court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything
even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering
questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in
the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a
political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she
handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be
malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in
the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3
on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates
in a
row.



That's not the objective.* They've got the delaying process
down pat.
They want to block Kavanaugh and then delay any replacement
long enough
for the mid terms plus 2 months.* Technically there may be
time to
rush another nominee through the process but unlikely because
all the
jerks in WashDC want to get home and get into heavy campaign
mode.



There's no doubt there are strong efforts to block Kavanaugh,
and for
good reason. I suppose if Kavanaugh is withdrawn, the Repubs
could try
to fast-track a replacement before the election and if not,
certainly
after the election.


I have no problem with the Dems trying to block Kavanaugh ...
for the
right reasons like simple political differences ... but not for the
ridiculous and disgusting reasons they have demonstrated over
the past week.


It is interesting that nobody has admitted that this is really just
about Roe to them, at least not since they had the Ford thing to
wave
around.
I do think this is the first time ever that I have seen a politician
or a potential justice being crucified for what they might have done
as a teenager. We were not even allowed to criticize what democrat
sitting senators and governors did while they were in office.



It really is bizarre.* And I also don't think this is as much
about Roe
vs. Wade as some Dems would like you to think.** The chances of a 40
something year old decision being overturned even with some strong
conservatives on the bench are slim. It probably wouldn't even be
accepted to be considered if a challenge ever made it up through the
lower courts.** Those Dems talking about it are just trying to scare
their pro-choice base to turn out the vote in November.

I don't know what to think regarding Ford's allegations.* If the
"meetoo" crowd wasn't as vocal and stories of Crosby and others
weren't
in the news everyday I wonder if her story would be more
reflective of a
goofy, HS party with some drinking going on and teenagers acting like
teenagers. There was no rape. She claims "attempted rape".* I find it
hard to believe (as does my wife) that a normal, well adjusted and
mentally stable person would remain "traumatized" over this, 36 years
later.* But that's just an opinion.

Plus, the more one thinks about it, the more her whole story doesn't
make sense, not from a standpoint of what she believes happened and
who was involved but more related to how it has affected her.
Lots of
holes in it.* She claims she doesn't like to fly due to
claustrophobia
caused by the "attack".* Yet she flies regularly all over the
place both
for business and for pleasure.

She says her academic studies suffered due to it.
The "assult" occurred in 1982 (she thinks) when she was a HS
sophomore.
Yet, in 1988, four years after HS she earned an undergraduate
degree in
experimental psychology from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel
Hill.* Then a Master's degree in clinical psychology from Pepperdine
University in 1991, followed by a PhD in educational psychology
from the
University of Southern California.* She also earned another
Master's in
epidemiology from Stanford University School of Medicine in 2009.

Hard to imagine what she would have accomplished had her academic
studies not "suffered" due to this on going trauma.* Heck, her
multiple degrees makes Harry look like a dunce.

I saw a time line the other day and she seemed to have totally
forgotten it until there was a hazy reference in 2012. I would ask,
what else happened in 2012?
I do agree the story is shaky at best. She got a ride to the party but
we never heard what happened to the driver. Did someone really just
turn her loose at a drinking party and drive away? Maybe I missed it
but how did she get home? If it was a "20 minute drive" it had to be
hours walking and there were no cell phones so she didn't call a cab.
My bet is this whole thing blows over and we never hear from her
again.


I believe her testimony was that she can't remember how she got to
the party nor how she got home.** She can't even remember where the
party was or when.

Just heard a non-political prosecutor say that if she had filed a
criminal complaint with the sketchy information she provided at the
hearing it would never be considered for prosecution.* According to
the prosecutor the law requires far more specificity as to what, where
and when in order to charge anyone with anything.



I don't remember the details of a lot of parties I attended when I
was a teen and of course I didn't have the trauma of being attacked
at one of those gatherings. See if you can figure out what that
means, eh?

I've also often tried to recall the details of events that happened
early in my life and when discussing them with others who would be
familiar with them I have sometimes been corrected my recollection,
especially of the details.* It's normal* to not recall all the *exact*
details of events from years ago.

I seriously question the extent of* long term "trauma" in a otherwise
well-adjusted, mentally healthy 50 something year old woman with a
good job, 2 kids and advanced degrees.* It just doesn't add up and some
of her testimony seems to have some holes in it.

Obviously, I am not qualified to judge but in recent conversations with
a few women all over the age of 50 about this, I am not alone in my
questioning.

Here's what I speculate may have happened:

Ford is an accomplished member of academia living in California.
It's reasonable to assume her political leanings are of the
progressive-liberal persuasion, very common in her area and in
her profession.

It is very possible that when Kavanaugh's name came up as a potential
nominee she recalled having known him or "of" him back in high school.

She may have commented to friends and/or associates of her remembrance
of him and of a high school party that she "thinks" he was in
attendance.* She may have also have mentioned an encounter with
someone at that party of the nature she described in her testimony.

Those friends/associates, likely to also be of the progressive-
liberal mindset and perhaps more political in their anti-Trump
activism encouraged her to speak up, resulting in the letter
sent to Dianne Feinstein* but imploring Feinstein to keep her
identity confidential.

Here's where the true nature of your party becomes exposed.
Fienstein was more interested in using this letter as a means
of promoting her anti-Trump politics than protecting the
identity of Ford.* So, at the right time and place, when it
looked like Kavanaugh's nomination was on a course for confirmation,
she dropped the bomb.* Somehow, mysteriously, the letter was leaked to
the press.* The chain of custody of that letter and it's contents
consisted of two people.* Ford and Fienstein.

Some have reported that it was Fienstein who recommended the
left wing activist attorney to Ford.

The Dems also didn't want Ford to provide testimony privately
as Grassley offered.* They *wanted* a public display, particularly
because of the current "meetoo" movement.* Ford testified that she
either didn't understand Grassley's offer or was unaware of it.

So, Ford became a sacrifice for political purposes by your party, much
like what they are doing to Kavanaugh.* People don't matter.
Political power and leverage is all that matters.

If the "meetoo" movement was not so prevalent in the media, I suspect
the public spectacle, arranged and orchestrated by the Dems on
national TV and cable would never have happened.



I'll certainly bow to your expertise in electrical-optical plating or
whatever it was that built your business and made your fortune. That
sort of applied science is way over my knowledge base and pay grade.

But from your posts here over the years, I don't think you know much
about what may plague the human mind or psyche, other than from a couple
of samples.

I don't believe Dr. Ford's coming forward had anything to do with her
politics, nor do I question Senator Feinstein's motivation. The senator
said she was asked to keep the letter confidential. Did you think an
anti-woman right-wing lawyer would be recommended...

Kavanaugh is a bozo.


I can form some conclusions (as can anyone) simply based on life
experiences. I remind you that my comments were speculative on my part.

I fully admit that I don't know much about what may plague the human
mind or psyche. Unfortunately nor do psychiatrist and others in
the treatment of mental health issues or even in the analysis of
what causes us to think and act as we do.

A few years ago I decided to take some courses on the subject
because it was of interest and because I was dealing with someone with
some mental health issues. I wanted to understand how this person
dealt with challenges.

I lost interest when I realized that I was chasing knowledge on a
subject that my first professor admitted that even going back to Sigmund
Freud the proven knowledge in this field is limited, much being purely
theoretical and prone to debate. This short experience in education on
the subject is certainly extremely limited and doesn't come remotely
close to that of those holding degrees in the area of mental health but
it was enough for me to decide I didn't want to spend more money or time
learning about such an undefined, immature science.

I am not much of a "la-la land" type. Sorry if that offends.




Look at it this way: Harry thinks he's perfectly normal and rational.

QED!

===

I think 'Airree is a perfectly normal narcisssist. Rational? Not so
much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-4, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 9/30/18 5:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 9:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


There's really no reason to debate or even discuss this with you.
Your first sentence (after "Funny") says it all. Your mind is
made up, closed and you've condemned before a trial.

Congratulations. You've morphed into a true, card carrying, modern
Democrat.

He's had all the trial he's going to get.
And there's currently no alternative to Democrats.
Sorry.


And if the FBI comes back with, "we got nothing"
Kavanaugh will be confirmed on Friday.


Well, we do have SNL's version of the Senate hearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8

I think my favorite bit was near the end, with "Lindsay," who was
"auditioning" for Trump's cabinet.

BTW, I keep reading that the sex offender in the White House, Ding Dong
Donald, has somehow "limited the scope" of the FBI inquiry, but I
haven't been able to find details of that and, of course, Ding Dong is
denying it.

I think Kavanaugh's demeanor during the hearing and his political
statements completely disqualify him from holding a federal judgeship.


What does your demeanor qualify you for, Fat Harry? Hint: voyer,
liar, draft avoider, tax evader(multiple times in federal state
county), bankruptee(twice), statuatory rapee, baldish fat head,
obese, neer do well schmuck. Have I missed anything?

Yeouch!

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 13:57:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:46:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 9/30/2018 9:17 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/30/2018 8:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 5:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 20:54:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:34:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 7:23 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/29/18 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze

wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought
was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying
and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a
result
of her experience 36 years ago.Â* She then went on to
acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to
conduct
the testimony in California.Â* He said the committee would
fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was
made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley
had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen.
Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.Â* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys
regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.Â*Â* He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from FordÂ* they were in violation of some
codes of
conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they
could be
subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the
woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump
"resist"
movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by
Dianne
Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter
regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.Â* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front
of the
Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony,
but the
political screed he offered during it should be something
that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any
judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on
women, on
the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal
judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that
way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire
facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't
mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph
Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan
attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing
him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was
not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a
public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or
slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him
in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any
court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything
even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering
questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in
the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a
political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she
handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be
malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in
the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3
on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates
in a
row.



That's not the objective.Â* They've got the delaying process
down pat.
They want to block Kavanaugh and then delay any replacement
long enough
for the mid terms plus 2 months.Â* Technically there may be
time to
rush another nominee through the process but unlikely because
all the
jerks in WashDC want to get home and get into heavy campaign
mode.



There's no doubt there are strong efforts to block Kavanaugh,
and for
good reason. I suppose if Kavanaugh is withdrawn, the Repubs
could try
to fast-track a replacement before the election and if not,
certainly
after the election.


I have no problem with the Dems trying to block Kavanaugh ...
for the
right reasons like simple political differences ... but not for the
ridiculous and disgusting reasons they have demonstrated over
the past week.


It is interesting that nobody has admitted that this is really just
about Roe to them, at least not since they had the Ford thing to
wave
around.
I do think this is the first time ever that I have seen a politician
or a potential justice being crucified for what they might have done
as a teenager. We were not even allowed to criticize what democrat
sitting senators and governors did while they were in office.



It really is bizarre.Â* And I also don't think this is as much
about Roe
vs. Wade as some Dems would like you to think.Â*Â* The chances of a 40
something year old decision being overturned even with some strong
conservatives on the bench are slim. It probably wouldn't even be
accepted to be considered if a challenge ever made it up through the
lower courts.Â*Â* Those Dems talking about it are just trying to scare
their pro-choice base to turn out the vote in November.

I don't know what to think regarding Ford's allegations.Â* If the
"meetoo" crowd wasn't as vocal and stories of Crosby and others
weren't
in the news everyday I wonder if her story would be more
reflective of a
goofy, HS party with some drinking going on and teenagers acting like
teenagers. There was no rape. She claims "attempted rape".Â* I find it
hard to believe (as does my wife) that a normal, well adjusted and
mentally stable person would remain "traumatized" over this, 36 years
later.Â* But that's just an opinion.

Plus, the more one thinks about it, the more her whole story doesn't
make sense, not from a standpoint of what she believes happened and
who was involved but more related to how it has affected her.
Lots of
holes in it.Â* She claims she doesn't like to fly due to
claustrophobia
caused by the "attack".Â* Yet she flies regularly all over the
place both
for business and for pleasure.

She says her academic studies suffered due to it.
The "assult" occurred in 1982 (she thinks) when she was a HS
sophomore.
Yet, in 1988, four years after HS she earned an undergraduate
degree in
experimental psychology from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel
Hill.Â* Then a Master's degree in clinical psychology from Pepperdine
University in 1991, followed by a PhD in educational psychology
from the
University of Southern California.Â* She also earned another
Master's in
epidemiology from Stanford University School of Medicine in 2009.

Hard to imagine what she would have accomplished had her academic
studies not "suffered" due to this on going trauma.Â* Heck, her
multiple degrees makes Harry look like a dunce.

I saw a time line the other day and she seemed to have totally
forgotten it until there was a hazy reference in 2012. I would ask,
what else happened in 2012?
I do agree the story is shaky at best. She got a ride to the party but
we never heard what happened to the driver. Did someone really just
turn her loose at a drinking party and drive away? Maybe I missed it
but how did she get home? If it was a "20 minute drive" it had to be
hours walking and there were no cell phones so she didn't call a cab.
My bet is this whole thing blows over and we never hear from her
again.


I believe her testimony was that she can't remember how she got to
the party nor how she got home.Â*Â* She can't even remember where the
party was or when.

Just heard a non-political prosecutor say that if she had filed a
criminal complaint with the sketchy information she provided at the
hearing it would never be considered for prosecution.Â* According to
the prosecutor the law requires far more specificity as to what, where
and when in order to charge anyone with anything.



I don't remember the details of a lot of parties I attended when I
was a teen and of course I didn't have the trauma of being attacked
at one of those gatherings. See if you can figure out what that
means, eh?

I've also often tried to recall the details of events that happened
early in my life and when discussing them with others who would be
familiar with them I have sometimes been corrected my recollection,
especially of the details.Â* It's normalÂ* to not recall all the *exact*
details of events from years ago.

I seriously question the extent ofÂ* long term "trauma" in a otherwise
well-adjusted, mentally healthy 50 something year old woman with a
good job, 2 kids and advanced degrees.Â* It just doesn't add up and some
of her testimony seems to have some holes in it.

Obviously, I am not qualified to judge but in recent conversations with
a few women all over the age of 50 about this, I am not alone in my
questioning.

Here's what I speculate may have happened:

Ford is an accomplished member of academia living in California.
It's reasonable to assume her political leanings are of the
progressive-liberal persuasion, very common in her area and in
her profession.

It is very possible that when Kavanaugh's name came up as a potential
nominee she recalled having known him or "of" him back in high school.

She may have commented to friends and/or associates of her remembrance
of him and of a high school party that she "thinks" he was in
attendance.Â* She may have also have mentioned an encounter with
someone at that party of the nature she described in her testimony.

Those friends/associates, likely to also be of the progressive-
liberal mindset and perhaps more political in their anti-Trump
activism encouraged her to speak up, resulting in the letter
sent to Dianne FeinsteinÂ* but imploring Feinstein to keep her
identity confidential.

Here's where the true nature of your party becomes exposed.
Fienstein was more interested in using this letter as a means
of promoting her anti-Trump politics than protecting the
identity of Ford.Â* So, at the right time and place, when it
looked like Kavanaugh's nomination was on a course for confirmation,
she dropped the bomb.Â* Somehow, mysteriously, the letter was leaked to
the press.Â* The chain of custody of that letter and it's contents
consisted of two people.Â* Ford and Fienstein.

Some have reported that it was Fienstein who recommended the
left wing activist attorney to Ford.

The Dems also didn't want Ford to provide testimony privately
as Grassley offered.Â* They *wanted* a public display, particularly
because of the current "meetoo" movement.Â* Ford testified that she
either didn't understand Grassley's offer or was unaware of it.

So, Ford became a sacrifice for political purposes by your party, much
like what they are doing to Kavanaugh.Â* People don't matter.
Political power and leverage is all that matters.

If the "meetoo" movement was not so prevalent in the media, I suspect
the public spectacle, arranged and orchestrated by the Dems on
national TV and cable would never have happened.



I'll certainly bow to your expertise in electrical-optical plating or
whatever it was that built your business and made your fortune. That
sort of applied science is way over my knowledge base and pay grade.

But from your posts here over the years, I don't think you know much
about what may plague the human mind or psyche, other than from a couple
of samples.

I don't believe Dr. Ford's coming forward had anything to do with her
politics, nor do I question Senator Feinstein's motivation. The senator
said she was asked to keep the letter confidential. Did you think an
anti-woman right-wing lawyer would be recommended...

Kavanaugh is a bozo.


I can form some conclusions (as can anyone) simply based on life
experiences. I remind you that my comments were speculative on my part.

I fully admit that I don't know much about what may plague the human
mind or psyche. Unfortunately nor do psychiatrist and others in
the treatment of mental health issues or even in the analysis of
what causes us to think and act as we do.

A few years ago I decided to take some courses on the subject
because it was of interest and because I was dealing with someone with
some mental health issues. I wanted to understand how this person
dealt with challenges.

I lost interest when I realized that I was chasing knowledge on a
subject that my first professor admitted that even going back to Sigmund
Freud the proven knowledge in this field is limited, much being purely
theoretical and prone to debate. This short experience in education on
the subject is certainly extremely limited and doesn't come remotely
close to that of those holding degrees in the area of mental health but
it was enough for me to decide I didn't want to spend more money or time
learning about such an undefined, immature science.

I am not much of a "la-la land" type. Sorry if that offends.




Look at it this way: Harry thinks he's perfectly normal and rational.

QED!

===

I think 'Airree is a perfectly normal narcisssist. Rational? Not so
much.






Rational? You are a Republican, a party of a festering ****tangle of
racists, Nazis, child molesters, and drunk, gang-raping preppie judges who
want a promotion.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:11:52 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 13:57:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 09:46:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 9/30/2018 9:17 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 9:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/30/2018 8:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/30/18 5:21 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 20:54:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:34:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 7:23 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/29/18 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze

wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought
was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying
and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a
result
of her experience 36 years ago.* She then went on to
acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to
conduct
the testimony in California.* He said the committee would
fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was
made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley
had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen.
Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys
regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.** He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from Ford* they were in violation of some
codes of
conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they
could be
subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the
woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump
"resist"
movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by
Dianne
Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter
regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front
of the
Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony,
but the
political screed he offered during it should be something
that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any
judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on
women, on
the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal
judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that
way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire
facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't
mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph
Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan
attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing
him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was
not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a
public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or
slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him
in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any
court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything
even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering
questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in
the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a
political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she
handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be
malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in
the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3
on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates
in a
row.



That's not the objective.* They've got the delaying process
down pat.
They want to block Kavanaugh and then delay any replacement
long enough
for the mid terms plus 2 months.* Technically there may be
time to
rush another nominee through the process but unlikely because
all the
jerks in WashDC want to get home and get into heavy campaign
mode.



There's no doubt there are strong efforts to block Kavanaugh,
and for
good reason. I suppose if Kavanaugh is withdrawn, the Repubs
could try
to fast-track a replacement before the election and if not,
certainly
after the election.


I have no problem with the Dems trying to block Kavanaugh ...
for the
right reasons like simple political differences ... but not for the
ridiculous and disgusting reasons they have demonstrated over
the past week.


It is interesting that nobody has admitted that this is really just
about Roe to them, at least not since they had the Ford thing to
wave
around.
I do think this is the first time ever that I have seen a politician
or a potential justice being crucified for what they might have done
as a teenager. We were not even allowed to criticize what democrat
sitting senators and governors did while they were in office.



It really is bizarre.* And I also don't think this is as much
about Roe
vs. Wade as some Dems would like you to think.** The chances of a 40
something year old decision being overturned even with some strong
conservatives on the bench are slim. It probably wouldn't even be
accepted to be considered if a challenge ever made it up through the
lower courts.** Those Dems talking about it are just trying to scare
their pro-choice base to turn out the vote in November.

I don't know what to think regarding Ford's allegations.* If the
"meetoo" crowd wasn't as vocal and stories of Crosby and others
weren't
in the news everyday I wonder if her story would be more
reflective of a
goofy, HS party with some drinking going on and teenagers acting like
teenagers. There was no rape. She claims "attempted rape".* I find it
hard to believe (as does my wife) that a normal, well adjusted and
mentally stable person would remain "traumatized" over this, 36 years
later.* But that's just an opinion.

Plus, the more one thinks about it, the more her whole story doesn't
make sense, not from a standpoint of what she believes happened and
who was involved but more related to how it has affected her.
Lots of
holes in it.* She claims she doesn't like to fly due to
claustrophobia
caused by the "attack".* Yet she flies regularly all over the
place both
for business and for pleasure.

She says her academic studies suffered due to it.
The "assult" occurred in 1982 (she thinks) when she was a HS
sophomore.
Yet, in 1988, four years after HS she earned an undergraduate
degree in
experimental psychology from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel
Hill.* Then a Master's degree in clinical psychology from Pepperdine
University in 1991, followed by a PhD in educational psychology
from the
University of Southern California.* She also earned another
Master's in
epidemiology from Stanford University School of Medicine in 2009.

Hard to imagine what she would have accomplished had her academic
studies not "suffered" due to this on going trauma.* Heck, her
multiple degrees makes Harry look like a dunce.

I saw a time line the other day and she seemed to have totally
forgotten it until there was a hazy reference in 2012. I would ask,
what else happened in 2012?
I do agree the story is shaky at best. She got a ride to the party but
we never heard what happened to the driver. Did someone really just
turn her loose at a drinking party and drive away? Maybe I missed it
but how did she get home? If it was a "20 minute drive" it had to be
hours walking and there were no cell phones so she didn't call a cab.
My bet is this whole thing blows over and we never hear from her
again.


I believe her testimony was that she can't remember how she got to
the party nor how she got home.** She can't even remember where the
party was or when.

Just heard a non-political prosecutor say that if she had filed a
criminal complaint with the sketchy information she provided at the
hearing it would never be considered for prosecution.* According to
the prosecutor the law requires far more specificity as to what, where
and when in order to charge anyone with anything.



I don't remember the details of a lot of parties I attended when I
was a teen and of course I didn't have the trauma of being attacked
at one of those gatherings. See if you can figure out what that
means, eh?

I've also often tried to recall the details of events that happened
early in my life and when discussing them with others who would be
familiar with them I have sometimes been corrected my recollection,
especially of the details.* It's normal* to not recall all the *exact*
details of events from years ago.

I seriously question the extent of* long term "trauma" in a otherwise
well-adjusted, mentally healthy 50 something year old woman with a
good job, 2 kids and advanced degrees.* It just doesn't add up and some
of her testimony seems to have some holes in it.

Obviously, I am not qualified to judge but in recent conversations with
a few women all over the age of 50 about this, I am not alone in my
questioning.

Here's what I speculate may have happened:

Ford is an accomplished member of academia living in California.
It's reasonable to assume her political leanings are of the
progressive-liberal persuasion, very common in her area and in
her profession.

It is very possible that when Kavanaugh's name came up as a potential
nominee she recalled having known him or "of" him back in high school.

She may have commented to friends and/or associates of her remembrance
of him and of a high school party that she "thinks" he was in
attendance.* She may have also have mentioned an encounter with
someone at that party of the nature she described in her testimony.

Those friends/associates, likely to also be of the progressive-
liberal mindset and perhaps more political in their anti-Trump
activism encouraged her to speak up, resulting in the letter
sent to Dianne Feinstein* but imploring Feinstein to keep her
identity confidential.

Here's where the true nature of your party becomes exposed.
Fienstein was more interested in using this letter as a means
of promoting her anti-Trump politics than protecting the
identity of Ford.* So, at the right time and place, when it
looked like Kavanaugh's nomination was on a course for confirmation,
she dropped the bomb.* Somehow, mysteriously, the letter was leaked to
the press.* The chain of custody of that letter and it's contents
consisted of two people.* Ford and Fienstein.

Some have reported that it was Fienstein who recommended the
left wing activist attorney to Ford.

The Dems also didn't want Ford to provide testimony privately
as Grassley offered.* They *wanted* a public display, particularly
because of the current "meetoo" movement.* Ford testified that she
either didn't understand Grassley's offer or was unaware of it.

So, Ford became a sacrifice for political purposes by your party, much
like what they are doing to Kavanaugh.* People don't matter.
Political power and leverage is all that matters.

If the "meetoo" movement was not so prevalent in the media, I suspect
the public spectacle, arranged and orchestrated by the Dems on
national TV and cable would never have happened.



I'll certainly bow to your expertise in electrical-optical plating or
whatever it was that built your business and made your fortune. That
sort of applied science is way over my knowledge base and pay grade.

But from your posts here over the years, I don't think you know much
about what may plague the human mind or psyche, other than from a couple
of samples.

I don't believe Dr. Ford's coming forward had anything to do with her
politics, nor do I question Senator Feinstein's motivation. The senator
said she was asked to keep the letter confidential. Did you think an
anti-woman right-wing lawyer would be recommended...

Kavanaugh is a bozo.


I can form some conclusions (as can anyone) simply based on life
experiences. I remind you that my comments were speculative on my part.

I fully admit that I don't know much about what may plague the human
mind or psyche. Unfortunately nor do psychiatrist and others in
the treatment of mental health issues or even in the analysis of
what causes us to think and act as we do.

A few years ago I decided to take some courses on the subject
because it was of interest and because I was dealing with someone with
some mental health issues. I wanted to understand how this person
dealt with challenges.

I lost interest when I realized that I was chasing knowledge on a
subject that my first professor admitted that even going back to Sigmund
Freud the proven knowledge in this field is limited, much being purely
theoretical and prone to debate. This short experience in education on
the subject is certainly extremely limited and doesn't come remotely
close to that of those holding degrees in the area of mental health but
it was enough for me to decide I didn't want to spend more money or time
learning about such an undefined, immature science.

I am not much of a "la-la land" type. Sorry if that offends.




Look at it this way: Harry thinks he's perfectly normal and rational.

QED!

===

I think 'Airree is a perfectly normal narcisssist. Rational? Not so
much.






Rational? You are a Republican, a party of a festering ****tangle of
racists, Nazis, child molesters, and drunk, gang-raping preppie judges who
want a promotion.

===

I have no political party that I identify with.

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:11:52 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 13:57:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:
snippage


I lost interest when I realized that I was chasing knowledge on a
subject that my first professor admitted that even going back to Sigmund
Freud the proven knowledge in this field is limited, much being purely
theoretical and prone to debate. This short experience in education on
the subject is certainly extremely limited and doesn't come remotely
close to that of those holding degrees in the area of mental health but
it was enough for me to decide I didn't want to spend more money or time
learning about such an undefined, immature science.

I am not much of a "la-la land" type. Sorry if that offends.




Look at it this way: Harry thinks he's perfectly normal and rational.

QED!

===

I think 'Airree is a perfectly normal narcisssist. Rational? Not so
much.






Rational? You are a Republican, a party of a festering ****tangle of
racists, Nazis, child molesters, and drunk, gang-raping preppie judges who
want a promotion.

Ewww!

Harry, you shouldn't let the truth disrupt your serenity.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 05:55:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:11:52 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 13:57:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:
snippage


I lost interest when I realized that I was chasing knowledge on a
subject that my first professor admitted that even going back to Sigmund
Freud the proven knowledge in this field is limited, much being purely
theoretical and prone to debate. This short experience in education on
the subject is certainly extremely limited and doesn't come remotely
close to that of those holding degrees in the area of mental health but
it was enough for me to decide I didn't want to spend more money or time
learning about such an undefined, immature science.

I am not much of a "la-la land" type. Sorry if that offends.




Look at it this way: Harry thinks he's perfectly normal and rational.

QED!

===

I think 'Airree is a perfectly normal narcisssist. Rational? Not so
much.






Rational? You are a Republican, a party of a festering ****tangle of
racists, Nazis, child molesters, and drunk, gang-raping preppie judges who
want a promotion.

Ewww!

Harry, you shouldn't let the truth disrupt your serenity.

===

Harry, you shouldn't let the truth disrupt your senility.

There, I fixed it for you. :-)

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 18:38:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 05:55:56 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:11:52 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 13:57:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:
snippage


I lost interest when I realized that I was chasing knowledge on a
subject that my first professor admitted that even going back to Sigmund
Freud the proven knowledge in this field is limited, much being purely
theoretical and prone to debate. This short experience in education on
the subject is certainly extremely limited and doesn't come remotely
close to that of those holding degrees in the area of mental health but
it was enough for me to decide I didn't want to spend more money or time
learning about such an undefined, immature science.

I am not much of a "la-la land" type. Sorry if that offends.




Look at it this way: Harry thinks he's perfectly normal and rational.

QED!

===

I think 'Airree is a perfectly normal narcisssist. Rational? Not so
much.






Rational? You are a Republican, a party of a festering ****tangle of
racists, Nazis, child molesters, and drunk, gang-raping preppie judges who
want a promotion.

Ewww!

Harry, you shouldn't let the truth disrupt your serenity.

===

Harry, you shouldn't let the truth disrupt your senility.

There, I fixed it for you. :-)


OooooKay!