The Predator - a dark truth right under your own nose, literally

d3ck3r said:
Another thing is that you said I came here with "ONLY" my experiences and this is not true. I've quoted Mark Hedsel for a reason and there is alot of Carlos Castaneda's quotes in my work too.

I think that Laura is talking about your night experience, the things you have seen while you were sleeping. It's very precise and particular. I don't think that the authors you are talking about have experienced or witnessed the same.
In fact, it's exactly what I meant when I adviced you to be less absolute with your theory.
Before saying something is true you have to test, compare, read, share experiences... your conclusion must be built from a long and hard work and not only from your own experience and some books you have read. One of the rule here is scepticism so with such a weak background, you can't prove anything. But you can start an interesting work about it.

[quote author=Laura]
Keep in mind that this sort of thing is exactly what Sigmund Freud did: he examined himself and projected his own psychology onto all of humanity and screwed up the science of psychology for a very, very long time. [/quote]

Unfortunately, it's not the only example of this kind of huge mistakes. When I read that I quickly think about archeologia and all the lies people believe about our history. There are too many shortcuts in the work of some people... If you add to this some factors as pressure of lobbies, money, power, envy, fear, dishonesty arrogance, you can imagine and understand the results.
 
d3ck3r said:
@Laura
What you describe above sounds very much like a psychedelic trip of the LSD or ayahuasca variety.

I never used anything like that, it happened to me after some time of my attacks on Cassczat group.

Now, you come along with ONLY your personal experiences and announce that this is how it is for everyone?

No, this is misunderstanding, but its definitely me, who should be blamed for that. I've wrote in my work that my writing is applicable only to those who have STO souls but there are so many possibilities that it may not be applicable to all of them. Thanks to your work I know there are people without souls and people with souls that didn't choose alignment and those that choosed STS - my work doesn't apply to those. Sorry for that misunderstanding, it is my fault.

Another thing is that you said I came here with "ONLY" my experiences and this is not true. I've quoted Mark Hedsel for a reason and there is alot of Carlos Castaneda's quotes in my work too.

All humans search for meaning in there life - they will often assign great (emotional) meaning to things that are significant to them.
The Cass forum may have started from a more esoteric point of view, but over the years has built up a library of research that explains many of those 'esoteric' things from a practical psychological point of view.
Having something solid and practical means behaviour can be defined and with effort changed.
This does not rule out the esoteric - it does however mean that real lasting change should be based on practical down to earth things like diet and psychology work.

The emotional weight of this event to you is loud and clear - this event was Highly significant to you. The interpretation of the event based is based on this emotional weight and on very little hard data. It is most likely a narrative constructed around the emotional significance of the event.
Having observed this in myself and observed it in many others it becomes easier and easier to identify.

Some questions then - are you here to preach this 'as the only way', or are you open to other possibilities?

Are you really looking for Emotional validation "this event in my life was so Emotionally significant it changed me" - and if you got that could you accept the story you created after the event to explain it may not be valid? That it's really just the emotional weight you'd like others to recognise?
 
d3ck3r said:
@Laura
What you describe above sounds very much like a psychedelic trip of the LSD or ayahuasca variety.

I never used anything like that, it happened to me after some time of my attacks on Cassczat group.

Which suggests that it is a stress reaction due to brain chemistry changes.

d3ck3r said:
Now, you come along with ONLY your personal experiences and announce that this is how it is for everyone?

No, this is misunderstanding, but its definitely me, who should be blamed for that. I've wrote in my work that my writing is applicable only to those who have STO souls

You are making a HUGE assumption here that you even have a soul, much less an "STO" one; and then projecting that out as though it applies to others?

Do you see the incredible egocentricity here? No, I don't think you do nor do I think you can.

d3ck3r said:
but there are so many possibilities that it may not be applicable to all of them. Thanks to your work I know there are people without souls and people with souls that didn't choose alignment and those that choosed STS - my work doesn't apply to those. Sorry for that misunderstanding, it is my fault.

It is the fault of your astonishing egocentricity which is probably not even your conscious fault.

d3ck3r said:
Another thing is that you said I came here with "ONLY" my experiences and this is not true. I've quoted Mark Hedsel for a reason and there is alot of Carlos Castaneda's quotes in my work too.

Cherry picking.
 
d3ck3r said:
Yes, I am not insulting. I am criticizing, because there is more to learn about this topic.

Quote from your e-book referring to Laura's Buffers, Programs and "the Predator's Mind" post, translated:

Dona Laurachot The Knight tried to fight dragons here, but failed miserably since they had been just windmills all along. She lied to you by saying that she understood what the "Predator's Mind" is. Considering that her post is full of Psychology, I'm going to add it's full of nonsense.

Are you sure you're not insulting?

Shouldn't you think about that you didn't even knew what I am talking about, yet you made assumption of me being in error and tried to teach me about it?

We are not talking about me here. Deflecting and turning back my suggestion is not going to help you, or anyone for that matter.

Isn't it you who is making an assumption without facts about me not knowing what you're talking about? Why are you being so defensive? Because of one suggestion for you to make a little thought experiment and see how what you yourself used to make your point could apply to you, too?

And all of that based on a single experience of one of 8 billion people on the planet. Who is teaching here? Talk about projecting...
 
Once again we find the solution in Lobaczewski:

We already know that every society contains a certain percentage of people carrying psychological deviations caused by various inherited or acquired factors which produce anomalies in perception, thought, and character. Many such people attempt to impart meaning to their deviant lives by means of social hyperactivity. They create their own myths and ideologies of overcompensation and have the tendency to egotistically insinuate to others their own deviant perceptions and the resulting goals and ideas.


Egotism: We call egotism the attitude, subconsciously conditioned as a rule, to which we attribute excessive value to our instinctive reflex, early acquired imaginings and habits, and individual world view. Egotism fosters the domination of subconscious life and makes it difficult to accept disintegrative states, which hampers a personality’s normal evolution. This in turn favors the appearance of the above-mentioned para-appropriate reactions. An egotist measures other people by his own yardstick, treating his concepts and experiential manner as objective criteria. He would like to force other people to feel and think very much the same way he does.

Triumphant repression of self-critical or unpleasant concepts from the field of consciousness gradually gives rise to the above-mentioned phenomena of conversion thinking, or paralogistics, paramoralisms, and the use of reversion blockades. They wind up streaming so profusely that they flood the average person’s mind. Everything becomes subordinated to their over-compensatory conviction that they are exceptional, sometimes even messianic. An ideology emerges, true in part, whose value is supposedly superior. However, if we analyze the exact functions of such an ideology in the spellbinder’s personality, we perceive that it is a means of self-charming, useful for repressing those tormenting self-critical associations into the subconscious. This ideology’s instrumental role in influencing other people also serves the spellbinder’s needs.

When they extrapolate their earlier experiences and thus believe they will always find converts to the ideology they propound, these spell-binders are not wrong. They only feel shock (or even paramoral indignation) when it turns out that their influence extends to a limited minority, whereas most people’s attitude to their activities remains critical, pained and disturbed. The spellbinder is thus confronted with a choice: either withdraw back into his void or strengthen his position by improving the effectiveness of his activities.

The spellbinder places on a high moral plane anyone who has succumbed to his influence and incorporated the experiential method he imposes. He showers such people with attention and property, if possible. Critics are met with “moral” outrage. It can even be proclaimed that the compliant minority is in fact the moral majority (Bolsheviks), since it professes the best ideology and honors a leader whose qualities are above average. …

...both spellbinding and self-charming make it impossible to perceive reality accurately enough to foresee results logically. However, spellbinders nurture great optimism and harbor visions of future triumphs similar to those they enjoyed over their own crippled souls. It is also possible for optimism to be a pathological symptom. …

Such an individual fishes an environment or society for people amenable to his influence, deepening their psychological weaknesses until they finally join together in a ponerogenic union. …

The awareness that a spellbinder is always a pathological individual should protect us from the known results of a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena, ensuring us an objective criteria for more effective action.

[...]
Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy...

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly... Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, but they pay little attention to the feelings of others, tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easy become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, whenever the schizoids embitter other people’s lives, that is. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotions and a feeling for the psychological realities of this essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to the incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which is working as though on sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity. Because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7 % of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary.

A schizoid’s ponerological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising the younger generation. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper”, transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can take on macro-social proportions if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.

In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are like; they interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation thanks to the participation of their own richer, psychological world view. However, many readers critically reject such works with moral disgust but without being aware of the specific cause. ....

During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit marked by injury to individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix such a world. Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world view, a schizoidally impoverished psychological world view thus does not stand out during such times and is accepted as legal tender. These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world view. ....

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time.


In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake. The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies. Others are provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, also they fail to grasp this essential cause of the error.

Societal interpretation of such activities is broken down into the main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict. The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. This already contains the component of a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena.

We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological. People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. This apperception often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and leads to acceptance of forceful methods and revolutionary means.
 
d3ck3r said:
Does this mean that I'm already a psychopath in your eyes?

You tick all the boxes. As Ark wrote to you yesterday, privately, if it were up to him, he would have banned you at the beginning. He's a theoreticician but I'm an experimentalist; I like to test and observe and see if things can be modified.
 
I understand, do you want me to leave this forum then? or do you want me to continue talking with you?
 
d3ck3r said:
I understand, do you want me to leave this forum then? or do you want me to continue talking with you?

If you are here to ask questions with the intention of learning, you are welcome to stay. But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't. You have EXPERIENCES that need to be discussed and analyzed by others because you cannot do this yourself.
 
@Laura
If you are here to ask questions with the intention of learning, you are welcome to stay.

Then I'll stay, because I have some questions. If this is not the proper place to ask such questions, then please point me in the right direction.

My first question is: Does anyone here knows something about the Phoenix mythology? I'm looking for information about it. I've found it in Chinese and Arabian mythology. If there are any books or other sources that you would recommend about it then I will be happy if you share it with me.

Second question: I'm looking for information concerning brain damage and its consequences. I'm wondering if me scoring so many boxes as you say, isn't somehow related to me having somewhat different shape of my skull. To be more specific: left side of my skull is more flat then the right side. My mother said that it is so, because when I was a baby, I liked to sleep on my left side.

But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't.

You are trying to submit me to your rule and I will not submit. One thing I can agree upon here is that I won't try to show no one here again that I am right, and I will keep my further discoveries to myself. Can we agree upon that?

You have EXPERIENCES that need to be discussed and analyzed by others because you cannot do this yourself.

If you accidentally burn your finger, would you go and discuss that with people that never experienced that themselves? Would you find their "expertise" about it better than yours?
 
d3ck3r said:
But right away you must give up the idea that you have a clue about anything: you don't.

You are trying to submit me to your rule and I will not submit. One thing I can agree upon here is that I won't try to show no one here again that I am right, and I will keep my further discoveries to myself. Can we agree upon that?

No. Taking the entire situation into account.

:bye:
 
d3ck3r, you are coming across as though you know what's true for others, and as though you have "the One True Way." Whether you're right nor not, thinking this way stops the learning process for you. For myself, I'm willing to entertain the idea that it's possible to have another being inside ones' body, but then again, it's not really one of my top priorities at this time.

Further, as someone who has studied psychology for many years, I can agree with you that there are generally quite a few flaws in it. However, there is no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because I have also seen it help many, many people, including myself. It's far too big a field for you to simply proclaim "psychology is wrong." You clearly have a mind for detail, so I'm sure you can see that.

On the other hand, I also don't think Laura's being so quick to diagnose people as psychopaths from a few posts in a forum is helpful in the least. I'll bet I could tick off several of those boxes at one time or another for just about everyone on the internet, including Laura (and myself, I'm sure). It may to convenient to label people and then cut them off when we don't agree, but that's not helpful at all if the goal is to support and learn from each other.

If you have information that would be useful to others (the key here being "useful"), then by all means share it. Try not to get on your high horse by proclaiming that those who don't agree are somehow "wrong." If you can't do this, then Laura's assessment may be right, though, as I said, diagnosing psychopathology from forum posts is dangerous territory.

I haven't been on this forum long myself, but I have followed Laura's work for some time now. She has a brilliant mind, if a bit hot-headed. (We're a lot alike - LOL!) But seriously, she's knows how to do research, and for the most part, she usually keeps a very objective point of view. Remember that your subjective reality has little or nothing to do with others' subjective realities, and keep in mind that we are all part of one "fragmented soul unit."

And maybe the most important question that I would have for you is, "Is your goal here to learn or to teach?" If it is to learn, then we are all on the same page. If it's to teach, maybe starting your own website would be more productive for you?
 
Alkhemist said:
On the other hand, I also don't think Laura's being so quick to diagnose people as psychopaths from a few posts in a forum is helpful in the least. I'll bet I could tick off several of those boxes at one time or another for just about everyone on the internet, including Laura (and myself, I'm sure). It may to convenient to label people and then cut them off when we don't agree, but that's not helpful at all if the goal is to support and learn from each other.

You may be forgetting the context, here. This member is not new, and he has a past with the group. That adds up. And in any case, I didn't read it as an accusation. Just basically a good quote from Lobazcewski that fits quite well. The label is not the most important thing. The content of the quote is.

Also, one thing is not to agree, and another is to let someone who is basically distorting your work be allowed to subtly attack you in your own house. Why allow that? As you say, he can go teach somewhere else. You may want to re-read Possibility of Being's last post, where she quoted an excerpt from his e-book.

Possibility of Being said:
Quote from your e-book referring to Laura's Buffers, Programs and "the Predator's Mind" post, translated:

Dona Laurachot The Knight tried to fight dragons here, but failed miserably since they had been just windmills all along. She lied to you by saying that she understood what the "Predator's Mind" is. Considering that her post is full of Psychology, I'm going to add it's full of nonsense.

Are you sure you're not insulting?

Based on what he wrote, I don't think he would have benefited from anything here, because he says he knows better. I.e., he apparently doesn't know much about how the subconscious mind can work, how his own ego works, etc. How can you benefit from feedback if you don't question yourself? Re-read his last post:

d3ck3r said:
You are trying to submit me to your rule and I will not submit.Distorsion of Laura's post. He can't admit he hasn't got a clue. Big ego, impossible for him to benefit from anything here. One thing I can agree upon here is that I won't try to show no one here again that I am right, and I will keep my further discoveries to myself. Can we agree upon that?So, he still thinks he's right and knows better, he'll just keep quiet about that.

That should answer your question. He is not here to learn.

The story he told about his "revelation" sounds to me like he has some serious issue. And if that's the case, we are not equipped to help him. So, again, it is better for him to find a place that is more adapted to his needs. Actually, he seems to be a bit obsessed with proving someone wrong (based on one experience, no data), instead of learning and doing what is right. When someone obsesses and persists in engaging with those they are trying to disprove, and those who don't want to engage with them, that tends to be a sign of pathology.
 
Alkhemist said:
d3ck3r, you are coming across as though you know what's true for others, and as though you have "the One True Way." Whether you're right nor not, thinking this way stops the learning process for you. For myself, I'm willing to entertain the idea that it's possible to have another being inside ones' body, but then again, it's not really one of my top priorities at this time.

Further, as someone who has studied psychology for many years, I can agree with you that there are generally quite a few flaws in it. However, there is no sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because I have also seen it help many, many people, including myself. It's far too big a field for you to simply proclaim "psychology is wrong." You clearly have a mind for detail, so I'm sure you can see that.

Lobaczewski said:
Such an individual fishes an environment or society for people amenable to his influence, deepening their psychological weaknesses....

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake. The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies. Others are provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, also they fail to grasp this essential cause of the error.

Societal interpretation of such activities is broken down into the main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict. The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. This already contains the component of a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena.

We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological. People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. This apperception often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and leads to acceptance of forceful methods and revolutionary means.

Alkhemist said:
On the other hand, I also don't think Laura's being so quick to diagnose people as psychopaths from a few posts in a forum is helpful in the least. I'll bet I could tick off several of those boxes at one time or another for just about everyone on the internet, including Laura (and myself, I'm sure). It may to convenient to label people and then cut them off when we don't agree, but that's not helpful at all if the goal is to support and learn from each other.

On our forum, we have a clearly stated Mission which is described in the forum guidelines. At the end, these guidelines state the following:

We the moderators reserve the right to do anything and everything we see fit to ensure a friendly comfortable environment for our guests; that includes deleting you and all of your posts if you break any of these rules or act like a psychological deviant at any time past present or future. Oh yeah people, I said future, Tom Cruise has nothin' on us.

Now, that is stated rather humorously, but there IS a history behind it.The fact is, we, the creators of this forum, that is, Ark and myself, have had many, many years of interacting with people in a didactic setting, quite effectively, I should add. I also have many years experience as a hypnotherapist and researcher, mother of five children who have, I should add, turned out very well (the proof and the pudding and all that). I have also conducted an experiment in superluminal communication that has produced extremely interesting results (interesting enough to bring down the ire of the psychopaths on my head!). Ark has been a student of Gurdjieffian ideas for many, many years, as have I. We worked on ourselves separately, and then together, effecting dramatic changes in our personal lives and our expanded reality. We then began sharing the results of our work on the net. This attracted people and we began to help them connect with each other and work on themselves in the same ways that we found gave rapid results.

We do NOT use telepathy to "diagnose" anyone. In fact, we don't diagnose: we assess and give our opinions and frame our words and actions based on those assessments. So far, based on the history of this forum, we bat them out of the park almost every time. In short, the historical track record, preserved on this forum for anyone who has the time to find and read the threads, is our primary data that our method of studying "word gestures", semantics, etc, is a viable diagnostic tool. And it is also a valuable healing modality.

Sometimes I feel like a "fast gun" who has to be constantly challenged by every other fast gun who comes into town. And even moreso because, shudder!, women most definitely must NOT be fast guns! I am not fast because I practiced to engage in any kind of contest with anyone... I am fast because I have been practicing on sacred cows that have threatened me, my family and others, and what I really need is not to have to defend my fastness, but some help with those damn cows! I have a limited amount of time left on this earth and I conserve my energy.

Consider Annie Oakley who became such a fantastic shot because her father was dead and feeding the family depended on her aim and efficiency. Bullets were scarce, and if she missed, her family went hungry. She was highly motivated to be both fast and accurate - out of her "female nurturing" orientation! If it had been just for the sake of competition, she might not have been so motivated because competition is not generally part of the female archetype. Cooperation for the survival of others is, however.

And that's what drives me.

The bottom line question I always test everything by is: Do I trust this enough to recommend it to my beloved children? If it doesn't pass that test, you can bet that I won't. Is it the TRUEST thing I can find to give my children?

Because, after all, I do expect to be gone from this planet some day and they must carry on. Let me give them the best I can, and let me work as hard as I can so that this best IS the best. 

And that means I don't have time for people who can't be helped - who are NOT ASKING.
 
Alkhemist said:
On the other hand, I also don't think Laura's being so quick to diagnose people as psychopaths from a few posts in a forum is helpful in the least. I'll bet I could tick off several of those boxes at one time or another for just about everyone on the internet, including Laura (and myself, I'm sure). It may to convenient to label people and then cut them off when we don't agree, but that's not helpful at all if the goal is to support and learn from each other.

First, obviously the person in question is not here to learn because he "already knows", and don't you think that support should be mutual between both parties? Members here supported him, Laura included (despite him insulting her from the get-go and she knew it) by offering suggestions that he could apply to see his situation more objectively. I didn't see him grab that help and utilize it.

Second, more often than not when people without enough experience on pathological personalities see somebody else with lots of experience handle a situation very fast come to the conclusion that they "label easily" and "cut people off because they don't agree with them". That is probably understandable for the inexperienced person. It's like watching a violin virtuoso who has practiced her craft for decades, and because of that, she can make it look so easy bringing her violin to life with the most complex melodies ever written for the ears of her awestrucked audience. But what the audience doesn't see is how this person dedicated all her life to this craft, sacrificing a lot of other things in the way to get there. Unlike the virtuoso, Laura did not really set out to practice how to spot pathological personalities, she had to do it again and again and again, learning from life and from mistakes, in order to protect her family and our community here, us. So, like they say, practice makes... fast :D
 
Back
Top Bottom