«

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:53:06 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:37:53 -0400, jls <> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:52:01 -0500, Russ D <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:21:30 -0400, jls <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:01:21 -0500, Russ D <>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now that's capitalism.
>>>>
>>>>It may be "capitalising" on someone else's illegal behavior, but it is
>>>>not the right way to pursue true "capitalism".
>>>
>>>The WHOLE paradigm of "capitalism" is to personally benefit off of the
>>>misfortunes of others. There is NO OTHER DEFINITION.
>>
>>Utter bullshit. I suggest you actually read something.
>>
>>>Ask Oprah. Her whole
>>>empire is founded on exploiting the misfortunes of others. As are the
>>>incomes of EVERY LAST CEO ON THE PLANET.
>>
>>Ah, okay, now I know you're just pulling my chain.
>
>People who have the attitude Russ D shows are almost always people who
>have had no success of their own and resent the success of others. By
>portraying successful people as evil, they attempt to justify their
>own failures as a mark of goodness.

Really? I retired at the age of 25 off of the money I made through the
arts. I am not a greedy person so I didn't want much per year for the rest
of my life, allowing me to pursue anything I damn well please for the rest
of my life.

But this is not about me and my source of income. It is about the TRUE
definition of capitalism. Oprah has built her whole foundation on
exploiting the misfortunes of others, from day one. That's all she's ever
done (just like all of those who subscribe to christianity always exploit
the misfortunes of others for their own personal gain, financial or
otherwise). Rarely, now that Oprah has made all that money from exploiting
the misfortunes of others, will she have a non-exploitive show, acting like
she's doing everyone a favor by doing so, but that's still rare. Those who
are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as heads of The Red Cross gain
all their income off of the disasters in others' lives. The CEOs of
insurance companies all get paid off of the fears and hardships of others.
Every employee of every TV news show in the world gets paid by exploiting
any and all disasters in other's lives day by day. Bill Gates has built his
whole foundation on exploiting his theft of other's software.

I can cite thousands of examples of how this "capitalism", that you wish
was different, is not what you think it is. How does what you believe
disprove any of this?

I have also observed that those who exploit the misfortunes of others the
most for the own greatest personal gain, in the name of capitalism, are the
first and loudest to deny doing just that.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:53:06 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:37:53 -0400, jls <> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:52:01 -0500, Russ D <>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:21:30 -0400, jls <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:01:21 -0500, Russ D <>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now that's capitalism.
>>>>
>>>>It may be "capitalising" on someone else's illegal behavior, but it is
>>>>not the right way to pursue true "capitalism".
>>>
>>>The WHOLE paradigm of "capitalism" is to personally benefit off of the
>>>misfortunes of others. There is NO OTHER DEFINITION.
>>
>>Utter bullshit. I suggest you actually read something.
>>
>>>Ask Oprah. Her whole
>>>empire is founded on exploiting the misfortunes of others. As are the
>>>incomes of EVERY LAST CEO ON THE PLANET.
>>
>>Ah, okay, now I know you're just pulling my chain.
>
>People who have the attitude Russ D shows are almost always people who
>have had no success of their own and resent the success of others. By
>portraying successful people as evil, they attempt to justify their
>own failures as a mark of goodness.

Really? I retired at the age of 25 off of the money I made through the
arts. I am not a greedy person so I didn't want much per year for the rest
of my life, allowing me to pursue anything I damn well please for the rest
of my life.

But this is not about me and my source of income. It is about the TRUE
definition of capitalism. Oprah has built her whole foundation on
exploiting the misfortunes of others, from day one. That's all she's ever
done (just like all of those who subscribe to christianity always exploit
the misfortunes of others for their own personal gain, financial or
otherwise). Rarely, now that Oprah has made all that money from exploiting
the misfortunes of others, will she have a non-exploitive show, acting like
she's doing everyone a favor by doing so, but that's still rare. Those who
are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as heads of The Red Cross gain
all their income off of the disasters in others' lives. The CEOs of
insurance companies all get paid off of the fears and hardships of others.
Every employee of every TV news show in the world gets paid by exploiting
any and all disasters in other's lives day by day. Bill Gates has built his
whole foundation on exploiting his theft of other's software.

I can cite thousands of examples of how this "capitalism", that you wish
was different, is not what you think it is. How does what you believe
disprove any of this?

I have also observed that those who exploit the misfortunes of others the
most for the own greatest personal gain, in the name of capitalism, are the
first and loudest to deny doing just that.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.


BTW: You might want to call up the CEO's of BP who claimed that taxpayers
were not going to have to pay one cent nor lose any of their livelihood for
their Gulf oil disaster. Now they're going to claim it as one giant tax
write-off. Because they can, and they'll get away with it. Benefiting off
of the misfortunes of others, misfortunes that THEY created for everyone
else, all in order to retain their wealth and gain even more. All the while
those capitalist shareholders will cheer them on so they can line their
pockets off of the destroyed lives of their neighbors along the coast.

Do you want more examples that prove capitalism is NOT what you think it
is?

Don't tell me that I don't know the real definition of capitalism in the
real world.

"Russ D" <> wrote in message
news:...

>
> Really? I retired at the age of 25 off of the money I made through the
> arts. I am not a greedy person so I didn't want much per year for the rest
> of my life, allowing me to pursue anything I damn well please for the rest
> of my life.
>

Really! Judging from the caliber of your postings, you haven't attained that
age in months.

--
Peter

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:14:56 -0500, Russ D <>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:53:06 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:37:53 -0400, jls <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:52:01 -0500, Russ D <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:21:30 -0400, jls <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:01:21 -0500, Russ D <>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now that's capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>It may be "capitalising" on someone else's illegal behavior, but it is
>>>>>not the right way to pursue true "capitalism".
>>>>
>>>>The WHOLE paradigm of "capitalism" is to personally benefit off of the
>>>>misfortunes of others. There is NO OTHER DEFINITION.
>>>
>>>Utter bullshit. I suggest you actually read something.
>>>
>>>>Ask Oprah. Her whole
>>>>empire is founded on exploiting the misfortunes of others. As are the
>>>>incomes of EVERY LAST CEO ON THE PLANET.
>>>
>>>Ah, okay, now I know you're just pulling my chain.
>>
>>People who have the attitude Russ D shows are almost always people who
>>have had no success of their own and resent the success of others. By
>>portraying successful people as evil, they attempt to justify their
>>own failures as a mark of goodness.
>
>Really? I retired at the age of 25 off of the money I made through the
>arts. I am not a greedy person so I didn't want much per year for the rest
>of my life, allowing me to pursue anything I damn well please for the rest
>of my life.
>
>But this is not about me and my source of income.

Nor is it about fiction. Don't confuse real people with your
imaginary life.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Jul 29, 12:14*pm, Russ D <ru...@myowndomain.org> wrote:
>
>
> Really? I retired at the age of 25 off of the money I made through the
> arts.

Really? Kindly cite your many accomplishments and provide references
so we may share in your wonderful art.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:14:04 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-07-29 19:38:43 -0700, Twibil <> said:
>
>> On Jul 29, 12:14*pm, Russ D <ru...@myowndomain.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Really? I retired at the age of 25 off of the money I made through the
>>> arts.
>>
>> Really? Kindly cite your many accomplishments and provide references
>> so we may share in your wonderful art.
>
>There is only this. He sold his life story to Thomas Harris, to be
>depicted as the protagonist in "Silence of The Lambs."
>Meet "Buffalo Bill", man of many "skins."
><
>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1f7loZbcoR...ffalo_bill.jpg
>>
>
>...and the full back story;
>< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo...e_of_the_Lambs) >

Having fun in your imaginary world with your imaginary friends, DaffyDuck?

That's called being psychotic. But you probably already knew that from your
years and years under professional care.

On Jul 29, 9:40*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org>
wrote:
>
>
> That's called being psychotic.

Well, no.

He's reasonably opinionated and occasionally gets things wrong, but -
unlike you- he'll actually admit to it. He also doesn't try to hide
his identity by constantly nym-shifiting, he never claims authority or
talent he doesn't actually have, he frequently tries to be helpful,
and he seems to have little or no need to build up his ego by slamming
others.

In short; compared to you, he's a model of stability. (Of course,
compared to you, Mel Gibson is *also* a model of stability.)

Say hello to Nurse Ratched for us.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:47:38 -0700 (PDT), Twibil <>
wrote:

>On Jul 29, 9:40*pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's called being psychotic.
>
>Well, no.
>
>He's reasonably opinionated and occasionally gets things wrong, but -
>unlike you- he'll actually admit to it. He also doesn't try to hide
>his identity by constantly nym-shifiting, he never claims authority or
>talent he doesn't actually have, he frequently tries to be helpful,
>and he seems to have little or no need to build up his ego by slamming
>others.
>
>In short; compared to you, he's a model of stability. (Of course,
>compared to you, Mel Gibson is *also* a model of stability.)
>
>Say hello to Nurse Ratched for us.


Having fun in your imaginary world with your imaginary friends, Twatbil?

That's called being psychotic. But you probably already knew that from your
years and years under professional care.

On Jul 30, 12:54*am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org>
wrote:
>
>
> Having fun in your imaginary world with your imaginary friends, Twatbil?

Oh dear. It thinks that repeating the same things over and over will
make them come true. Even when it uses the same silly line to reply
to completely different people.

This is closely akin to the theory that endlessly turning over a huge
pile of horse manure will eventually result in uncovering a pony.

> That's called being psychotic. But you probably already knew that from your
> years and years under professional care.

Here's your bad news, Pookie: for several years *I* was the guy who
was providing that professional care to folks just like you.

http://www.dmh.ca.gov/services_and_p...lt.asp#history

The good news is that with modern psycho-active drugs, intensive and
long-term talk-therapy -and probably electroshock treatments as well-
common schizophrenia such as yours can now frequently be controlled,
if not eliminated.

There *is* hope.

On Jul 30, 2:32*am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...@trollouters.org>
wrote:
>
>
> >There *is* hope.
>
> Which just goes to prove again, that the people with the most severe mental
> and emotional issues in life are drawn to study those field and become a
> part of it, in a desperate need to comprehend their own deranged failings
> and fears.

Yup. "Everyone *else* is crazy (particularly the ones who dare to
point out my problems) but *I'm* perfectly sane". Matter of fact, your
reaction is one of the definitive symptoms that anyone who's ever
worked in the filed of mental health has seen hundreds of times.

Psychopaths almost invariably try to deflect any analyisis of their
personality by playing the old schoolyard game of "I know you are, but
what am I?".

Example: If a psychologist gently points the incongruencies in a
psychopath's fantasys as a way of leading them to question their own
view of reality, they immediately claim that all psychologists are
crazy and so are in no position to judge. (See below.) Ya see; a real
psychopath will say or do practically *anything* rather than surrender
the carefully-crafted world-view that they've constructed.

You should understand that the things they do and say are not the
patient's fault. He's/she's not being intentionally obtuse, and it's
not a personal failing which can be corrected by a sudden epiphany.
("OH GEEZE! I've been acting crazy for all these years! How could I
have ever *BEEN* so stupid?!")

It's a wiring/chemical imbalance problem in the brain, and the outward
personality manifestations of these problems are only the patient's
natural reaction to a brain that's feeding them the wrong signals.

> Point out any psychiatrist or counselor and I'll show you
> someone who started out in life as a totally damaged whack-job. 100%
> guaranteed.

Fine. Just prove it. (Hint: just saying it without proof only defines
your problem more clearly. Rational people like to see actual
evidence.)

> Few get beyond that, only now they understand why they are like
> they are.

Thanks for that. Completely irrational sentences open so many doors.

> Unbeknownst to you, you just proved that again.

Um-hum. Lie down here on the couch and see if you can tell us why you
feel that way.