"Puzzling People" by Thomas Sheridan - a puzzling person
- Thread starter Gawan
- Start date
Gimpy
The Living Force
This is pure 'duck logic'...skimming the surface. Its as if you're standing at a kitchen sink, playing with a rubber duckie and talking to yourself. Your entire posting history reads this way...talking to no one but yourself.
Which you did not do. At all.
What would that bigger picture be? Seriously....what is it?
That tells me you know he's a creep, you just don't want to hear anyone talk about it. Good luck with that.
So far you're not doing Thomas Sheridan any good by posting here. All you've done is reveal yourself to be a shining example of everything you've leveled at me, and this forum.
durabone
Jedi Council Member
Thanks for bumping this up again name.
A hopefully low noise question. I have read a lot about psychopaths that leaves me with the taste that their lack of empathy makes them like cold rolled steel. But they still exist within the confines of flesh and blood like the rest of us. The above quote now has me wondering and trying to think of examples. Does anyone think that the opposite might be possible? Could a natural-born psychopath respond to say long-term abuse/trauma by assuming the mantel of being 'nice' as a survival tactic? And then could they go on to live it out despite their dark inner nature? Would this be another way of saying that they can possibly be "potty trained?" If so how?
Thanks
Laura said:
A hopefully low noise question. I have read a lot about psychopaths that leaves me with the taste that their lack of empathy makes them like cold rolled steel. But they still exist within the confines of flesh and blood like the rest of us. The above quote now has me wondering and trying to think of examples. Does anyone think that the opposite might be possible? Could a natural-born psychopath respond to say long-term abuse/trauma by assuming the mantel of being 'nice' as a survival tactic? And then could they go on to live it out despite their dark inner nature? Would this be another way of saying that they can possibly be "potty trained?" If so how?
Thanks
ScarletBegonias
Dagobah Resident
Since they are manipulators and controllers by nature this scenario could make sense. But I wouldn't think they would be able to keep such an act up in the long run or with everyone they meet. Being nice to others doesn't feed them the way it feeds normal people.Potamus said:
Psalehesost
The Living Force
Scarlet said:
They would quite simply adapt their behavior according to what they could get away with. A psychopath can be nice and charming in order to manipulate, gain advantages, or avoid adverse consequences, but this mask drops whenever it isn't needed.
Hi All, this is my first post/response so bear with me. 
I signed up recently after having read the Wave, utilising this as a resource for my studies and have found it very helpful which is why i am here, on the Sheridan post in particular.
I became familiar with Thomas Sheridan via the usual channels: podcast interviews, randomly on youtube, then he featured in some 'roundtable' discussions as i believe has been mentioned with John Lamb Lash - who's work i do like and Jay Weidner who i was quite partial too having only heard him really speak on 'Archons'. I have also listened to his solo radio shows he puts out, read a few blog posts and i was following him on twitter!
I added Thomas Sheridan on facebook in the hope of following his work, he may have mentioned it to be ok to add him in an interview. Over the past few months i have vaguely interacted with him with 'likes' and maybe a one liner here or there. But nothing i can even recall.
Today i posted the article called Fire and Ice saying "if you read one thing today make it this" and almost immediately Thomas Sheridan responded saying i shouldn't follow articles from a 'doomsday cult'.
I did not screenshot this and i deleted it once he 'unfriended' me - i know, silly mistake, but i'll outline it below and happily answer any questions, because i realise you have to take my word for it.
Now, i'm no newbie and i'm no shaman but i am confident enough to catch basic fallacies and at the very least i will attempt to highlight why I may be misunderstanding the retort. So i responded saying something like "isn't all information of value and to be read first?" (baby with the bath water).
He followed expounding on this with ad hominems against 'channelled material' and again 'doomsday cult'.
I am also familiar with the issues with the police 'miviludes' (sp? i'm going from memory) so i simply proposed that considering they were found innocent, there must be something missing otherwise the police would certainly have acted no?
He replied furthering his comment, this time 'suspected murder' and something about how Sott/Cass finances itself.
I got the feeling he was quite aggravated, which was so strange considering the subject matter he writes about, plus i've put together an idea of him from his very very many posts and interactions on his profile (more of which later), and i had caught some obvious fallacies that i presumed he wasn't thinking as logically or clearly as perhaps he normally does.
But in my response i said he was not only launching assumptions on Sott/Cass but he began pushing them onto me, something about "if i want to follow that religion" so in my reply.. in a gentle enough way said I was not 'into it as a religion' and the catastrophes they speak of are cited with scientists who speak of cyclical events. I then said, because it literally fell into my head "Is this something to do with Weidner?"
I had tried to reason with him (though by now not enjoying the accusations! for myself or those empty and baseless directed here) i got the feeling it was not about reason and more personal - as any facts or even logic were yet to be produced!
He responded something like "what about Weidner" then ended with him saying something about Cass thinking there is a comet coming, driven by aliens but if it's my religion then i can go and enjoy it, or some very weak insult. I mean not even cutting or clever. Again, surprising.
I went to respond, this time i was to call him out, but again lightly using debateable comparisons of Graham Hancock talking about his interactions 'Mother Ayuahasca' but he had unfriended me!
I was quite taken aback considering i expect no one to 'believe' any thing, however i do expect, from apparently alternative researchers (and the first to deign me with attention *flutter*), almost impeccability in 'entertaining an idea' and any outright belittlement of a 'quirky' topic was THE red flag for me. I've made the mistake of dispelling something too fast, hence why i gave him opportunity to reconsider, by giving him the error in his logic but as you saw he went for the playground basics. Again, wow.
Which brings me to a suspicion i had of him, the instances i noted were his interactions on facebook which were very much based on him, him on stage playing an instrument, his paintings, even regular rotation of profile pictures.. (and i'll let my zen slip here, he aint a pretty profile!!!! which ironically made me permit such vanity!!!!!! ).
That was that. But i tweeted about it..
1)ThomasSheriden just 'unfriended' after asserting 'my belief in doomsday cult' when i asked for proof... Researcher extraordinnaire!!
2)He was defending his friend Wiedner (tho kept his reasons quiet) preferring empty assertions and ad homs. Bladdy ell.
3)He accepts 'archons' (appara) BUT lawd forbid 'aliens' or channeling. Thats just bonkers. Who said i 'beweaved'??
4)*makes comment* *furiously taps UNFRIEND, dammit, ¡¡¡¡HURRY!!!!* - and thats adult debate.
5)For a narcissisit/psycho researcher he curiously ego status updates/profile pic daily AND unfriends whn u disagree! Teehee.
My tweets didn't post till later because i did pop out and had no internet connection. Oh, and yes i imagine you're all glad you're not on twitter reading the spelling errors and crap in them tweets. I know, forgive me.
I see that there could be much more to this than a bad day and overlooked information in defence of a friend. And i will continue to 'entertain' that assumption for now. I do not tend to permit that behavour amongst 'learned people' i respect.
Lessons...
I signed up recently after having read the Wave, utilising this as a resource for my studies and have found it very helpful which is why i am here, on the Sheridan post in particular.
I became familiar with Thomas Sheridan via the usual channels: podcast interviews, randomly on youtube, then he featured in some 'roundtable' discussions as i believe has been mentioned with John Lamb Lash - who's work i do like and Jay Weidner who i was quite partial too having only heard him really speak on 'Archons'. I have also listened to his solo radio shows he puts out, read a few blog posts and i was following him on twitter!
I added Thomas Sheridan on facebook in the hope of following his work, he may have mentioned it to be ok to add him in an interview. Over the past few months i have vaguely interacted with him with 'likes' and maybe a one liner here or there. But nothing i can even recall.
Today i posted the article called Fire and Ice saying "if you read one thing today make it this" and almost immediately Thomas Sheridan responded saying i shouldn't follow articles from a 'doomsday cult'.
I did not screenshot this and i deleted it once he 'unfriended' me - i know, silly mistake, but i'll outline it below and happily answer any questions, because i realise you have to take my word for it.
Now, i'm no newbie and i'm no shaman but i am confident enough to catch basic fallacies and at the very least i will attempt to highlight why I may be misunderstanding the retort. So i responded saying something like "isn't all information of value and to be read first?" (baby with the bath water).
He followed expounding on this with ad hominems against 'channelled material' and again 'doomsday cult'.
I am also familiar with the issues with the police 'miviludes' (sp? i'm going from memory) so i simply proposed that considering they were found innocent, there must be something missing otherwise the police would certainly have acted no?
He replied furthering his comment, this time 'suspected murder' and something about how Sott/Cass finances itself.
I got the feeling he was quite aggravated, which was so strange considering the subject matter he writes about, plus i've put together an idea of him from his very very many posts and interactions on his profile (more of which later), and i had caught some obvious fallacies that i presumed he wasn't thinking as logically or clearly as perhaps he normally does.
But in my response i said he was not only launching assumptions on Sott/Cass but he began pushing them onto me, something about "if i want to follow that religion" so in my reply.. in a gentle enough way said I was not 'into it as a religion' and the catastrophes they speak of are cited with scientists who speak of cyclical events. I then said, because it literally fell into my head "Is this something to do with Weidner?"
I had tried to reason with him (though by now not enjoying the accusations! for myself or those empty and baseless directed here) i got the feeling it was not about reason and more personal - as any facts or even logic were yet to be produced!
He responded something like "what about Weidner" then ended with him saying something about Cass thinking there is a comet coming, driven by aliens but if it's my religion then i can go and enjoy it, or some very weak insult. I mean not even cutting or clever. Again, surprising.
I went to respond, this time i was to call him out, but again lightly using debateable comparisons of Graham Hancock talking about his interactions 'Mother Ayuahasca' but he had unfriended me!
I was quite taken aback considering i expect no one to 'believe' any thing, however i do expect, from apparently alternative researchers (and the first to deign me with attention *flutter*), almost impeccability in 'entertaining an idea' and any outright belittlement of a 'quirky' topic was THE red flag for me. I've made the mistake of dispelling something too fast, hence why i gave him opportunity to reconsider, by giving him the error in his logic but as you saw he went for the playground basics. Again, wow.
Which brings me to a suspicion i had of him, the instances i noted were his interactions on facebook which were very much based on him, him on stage playing an instrument, his paintings, even regular rotation of profile pictures.. (and i'll let my zen slip here, he aint a pretty profile!!!! which ironically made me permit such vanity!!!!!! ).
That was that. But i tweeted about it..
1)ThomasSheriden just 'unfriended' after asserting 'my belief in doomsday cult' when i asked for proof... Researcher extraordinnaire!!
2)He was defending his friend Wiedner (tho kept his reasons quiet) preferring empty assertions and ad homs. Bladdy ell.
3)He accepts 'archons' (appara) BUT lawd forbid 'aliens' or channeling. Thats just bonkers. Who said i 'beweaved'??
4)*makes comment* *furiously taps UNFRIEND, dammit, ¡¡¡¡HURRY!!!!* - and thats adult debate.
5)For a narcissisit/psycho researcher he curiously ego status updates/profile pic daily AND unfriends whn u disagree! Teehee.
My tweets didn't post till later because i did pop out and had no internet connection. Oh, and yes i imagine you're all glad you're not on twitter reading the spelling errors and crap in them tweets. I know, forgive me.
I see that there could be much more to this than a bad day and overlooked information in defence of a friend. And i will continue to 'entertain' that assumption for now. I do not tend to permit that behavour amongst 'learned people' i respect.
Lessons...
Thanks for sharing itellsya. And yes, that is him.
Thats again a total twist of facts by Sheridan. Sott.net took a stand against these assumptions about comet Elenin made up by Richard Hoagland.
And if you like you could further introduce yourself (also when you stated already some things here) in the newbies section and tell us how you found this place, though nothing personal has to be shared.
itellsya said:
Thats again a total twist of facts by Sheridan. Sott.net took a stand against these assumptions about comet Elenin made up by Richard Hoagland.
And if you like you could further introduce yourself (also when you stated already some things here) in the newbies section and tell us how you found this place, though nothing personal has to be shared.
Thanks Gawan i'll be sure to do that, in a funny way this incident prompted me to post and I'll probably practice writing a blog post, so i see the benefit of it already! And perhaps the exposure will assist others.
If told correctly it's a funny story: 'author' on psychopathy is psychopath' - something for a slow family gathering i guess.
It was about 3am last night when i posted so i happened to only got to the speculative discussion about him and it was only later - page 10-15 here - where i saw the sadist stories; i would not have been so shocked yesterday had i seen that!! (i skimmed and still felt polluted)
It's a real shame i didn't save our exchange, i was more concerned that his comments and subsequent 'unfriend' would put off my, erm, suspicious friends (more prone to believe an accusing stranger than their long time pal... ) and therefore negate the post entirely, hence why i just removed it before i left. His argumentation would have exposed him for what he is so I'll know better for next time.
I quite easily disputed his accusations and am fully aware of how he was attempting to twist it, so i am under no illusions.
If anything it has reaffirmed my understanding of the knowledge i have acrued from places like here, including the recommended reading.
Life changing for me.
Appreciate the ear and the work everyone
If told correctly it's a funny story: 'author' on psychopathy is psychopath' - something for a slow family gathering i guess.
It was about 3am last night when i posted so i happened to only got to the speculative discussion about him and it was only later - page 10-15 here - where i saw the sadist stories; i would not have been so shocked yesterday had i seen that!! (i skimmed and still felt polluted)
It's a real shame i didn't save our exchange, i was more concerned that his comments and subsequent 'unfriend' would put off my, erm, suspicious friends (more prone to believe an accusing stranger than their long time pal... ) and therefore negate the post entirely, hence why i just removed it before i left. His argumentation would have exposed him for what he is so I'll know better for next time.
I quite easily disputed his accusations and am fully aware of how he was attempting to twist it, so i am under no illusions.
If anything it has reaffirmed my understanding of the knowledge i have acrued from places like here, including the recommended reading.
Life changing for me.
Appreciate the ear and the work everyone