Law #8 - MAKE OTHER PEOPLE COME TO YOU - Sociopathic, or not?

Where's your evidence for me using NLP? You're just going to accuse without any evidence?

As you well know, Zook, one of us is lying. Let me show you how easy it is to determine who is lying.

If I know Andy, you and he have not reconciled your differences. That's just a claim you are making without any evidence (like the NLP accusation), and I cannot prove you are lying if you present no evidence. However, I can prove you are lying when you claim I have banned Andy. Like you, Andy has been suspended several times, and like you, Andy has never been banned. He can still post at UP, and he has since his last suspension. Here are his latest posts that occurred after his suspension. That's all that's needed to show how you deceptively twist the facts to benefit your agenda. In other words, you essentially lie. You have been "busted" for your deceptions many times. It was your duplicitous behavior that spotlighted you as a likely sociopath to begin with, which has now been amply confirmed. The way you lie even now continues to show how you confirm your sociopathic nature with nearly every post.

Isn't that in itself innuendo? Got hypocrisy, Zook? Accusing your opponent of your own malfeasance?

Your post is very revealing, though. You bring up selected Universal Spectrum information designed to build yourself up while ignoring the flak you received there from so many members, and not just Vajrayaya. You also didn't expand on the two separate occasions when you took refuge at UP from the heat you were getting at US. Again, that's a very deceptive way of twisting the truth to lie, Zook (lying by omission). Who does that kind of thing, and continually? You know who -- sociopaths.

 

Your feeble attempt at neurolinguistic programming, Chico?

As for anonymous ... the probability cloud there only points to GW, her friends and sockpuppets + Chico, Mags, Andy as my two sets of detractors. Andy and I have since reconciled our differences. You have been ditched by both Andy (who you have banned) ... and Mags (who no longer posts there after he had gotten into a great disagreement with you, and who probably prefers drumming over beating his head against the wall time and again when he tries to communicate with you). And you have evicted GW et al. That leaves basically just you as a regular poster at UP. I occasionally drop in to hear the pin drop. United People was a work in progress ... until it became United Chico.

"Them's are the salient facts, son. You're going about it the wrong way, boy ... I say boy, history ain't meant to be rewrote! Now pay attention." - FogLegs

The archives hold it. I'll rest it at that. *yawn*

NLP.

As for Universal Spectrum, Vajrayaya no longer posts there. He tried to take too much power when he was offered some administerial duties. He was summarily evicted from those duties, not long after he made a decision to remove me as an epsilonMOD - a token ceremonial position with no real power (just as I requested at the inception of US). I was never anything other than a regular member (other than in name). If he was threatened by my ceremonial position, well that just reveals his own insecurity. Me? I remain a member in good standing and I still occasionally post there. Nice try at historical revision from afar ... and with a dearth of facts. But hey, isn't that how you operated against Richard and Nexus ... small on facts and large on INN YOU END DOUGH?

The only place I was banned out of existence was Avalon ... and largely because King William of the Wannabee Pendragons had to get rid of me because I was pumping in too much hard reality while I was there. They wanted a soft ambience with shady lawns and lemonade springs. I wanted truths. So a mutual parting of the ways was in order. The sweet irony is ... I was recruited to the MOD chamber at Avalon in teh first place largely because I radiated fairness in my arguments (and sobriety in my communications with people). I have since lost a bit of sobriety due to my experience at United Chico. But I remain extremely fair about things. Character is something that we are born with. I have mine. You have yours. 'The archives hold both. 'Nuff said.


Pax

 

Zook, you are truly ridiculous. You can spin history all you want and shout it from the rooftops (the infamous Zookie "twist and shout", also well documented in the UP archives), but it's still a long way from being truth. You fail to mention the polls were anonymous, so there was no way to know who had voted and if they were still forum members. That changes everything, because now it's clear your assumptions are exactly that. You just spin it the way that makes you look the best. Bad sociopath.

If it's all in the archives, then why do you waste your breath spinning the Zook version? Let people do their own research, if they are interested, which I'm sure they are not. I suspect they are more likely wondering how they are going to deal with you on this forum. Did you mention all the flak you got at Universal Spectrum? And I wasn't even participating there! Yet you lost your special moderator status, aggravated the membership (a recurring pattern), and fled to United People more than once for the freedom of speech and tolerance you were allowed there, despite your suspensions.

You're impossible, Zook. Much like Bill Clinton. Bad sociopath.

 

My opinion is that the thread has some value ... it gives space for understanding the sociopathic mindset, e.g. by exposing the kind of stuff they are drawn to ... not to mention exposing those writers that are encouraging sociopathy in society. The 48 Laws of Greene are not about self-empowerment guided by conscience which, IMO, is the only kind of self-empowerment that is worth having ... rather, self-empowerment at all costs and at the expense of others, which is vectored towards evil. The decision to keep it or sweep it is yours, Rose.

Chico's mendacity is easy to prove. For one, he reset the polls because to keep the polls in place was to acknowledge that I had more supporters than detractors on the forum. Two, most of my supporters were real humans who came to exchange ideas. Virtually all my detractors, by contrast, were either (1) GW, her friends, and her sockpuppets (who later destroyed the forum due to Chico's inept handling of the situation and/or wanton disregard for idea exchange) ... or (2) the trio of Chico, Mags, and Andy (all three were attacking me because I refused to buy into their narrative of Nexus as Richard's kingdom; I even dared to have an alternative view of Nexus as a forum beset by human frailty and incompatible personalities. The trio's proactive attacks against me and my character were then countered by my reactive temper towards them. Naturally, when a vote on my suspension was initiated by Chico (I think it was Mags who egged Chico on to ban me) ... all three voted against me. Myself, I refused to cast a vote against any suspension against anybody ... because I really thought UP could manage great latitude in its accommodation of speech ... unlike the other forums that often resorted to suspensions and bans.

My genuine intentions for the forum are underscored by the following post I made, where I actually supported Chico's efforts to rescue the forum against the better evaluations of Canzirka and Lee.
http://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8170#p8170

I had earlier warned Chico that GW and her friends (and sockpuppetrs) would eventually destroy the forum ... but he didn't heed those warnings ... and then poetic justice set in when Chico, himself, became the target of those that were responsible for my temporary ban (on a 9-2 vote, after Chico reset the polls which had me favored at 6-4). As a side note, Chico even absconded from his duties as an administrator for a brief while whilst the forum was overrun by forum no-gooders and sockpuppets. It's all there in the archives.

Chico's duplicity is in play once again. Let me demonstrate. On the one hand, Chico argues that if one voluntarily quits the forum, that one's vote should be removed. Fair enough. But let's set the record straight ... Chico essentially forced the good members out by siding with the bad energy on the forum; the good members got tired of his never-ending tantrum against Richard and Nexus. The remaining members loved the bad energy; they embraced it; they promoted it ... they helped build the gallows for those who were exhausted by it ... it was more or less an acid trip for these remaining members (half of which were GW's sockpuppets). I believe I was the first one delivered to the gallows; but hey, I now wear those neckmarks like a badge of honor.

But getting back to Chico's duplicity ... so I get banned for 2 days. Fair enough. The process is what it is. But here's the rub ... everytime he mentions my banning at United People, he never mentions the quality of membership that sent me to the gallows ... or the fact that almost half of them were sockpuppets! Double standard? You betcha. I mean, if good members that voluntarily leave should have their votes rescinded ... then surely sockpuppets who send members to the gallows should have had their votes rescinded as well. Take 3 sockpuppets away, and we have a 6-2 vote against Zook, not 9-2. Take GW and her friend(s) away ... and you probably are left with 3-2. 3 votes against Zook being cast by Chico, Mags, and Andy. GW and her friends and sockpuppets actively destroyed UP1; so their votes must be rescinded in any legitimate narrative of Zook's first ban.

To be sure, rescinding GW et all will not erase Zook's neckmarks; but removing GW et al from the forum and then still yapping up a contrived narrative of "Zook was banned by membership vote!" (implying across-the-board legitimacy in the membership) ... is mendacity, duplicity, audacity, and borderline insanity. I was never banned by the genuine membership while I was there. Not enough votes. That's a cold hard fact. Of course, Chico wants to count all the votes ... including the votes of those who joined to cannibalize his forum, did indeed cannibalize the forum, and were summarily executed so that UP2 could emerge from the ashes of UP1. Oops, mea culpa, not all the votes ... after all, Chico wants to discount the votes of the good members that had voted and then voluntarily left.

When I write that inevitable gibbering ode to Chico one of these days, I'll be sure to include words that rhyme with potholes and turnip trucks. 3

Pax

 

I'll gladly give you my opinion. I am not "the decider" on this, nor is Zook. The decision is yours, given that you are taking the initiative to create a thread for each law along with a poll. I personally feel a single thread is sufficient to discuss any or all of the laws. No polling is necessary as it doesn't add anything of real value, in this case. Public consensus cannot be used to determine truth. "An idea does not gain truth as it gains followers." -- Amanda Bloom

It doesn't make sense to me to close a poll if you are interested in gauging public opinion about a static issue. The public in a forum setting is a dynamic thing, changing often, so it only makes sense to keep the polling running if you really want to know how members feel about a particular "law". Of course, I didn't bring up that I thought the polls were a bad idea to begin with, as I think I made that point early on with the same Amanda Bloom quote, if I remember correctly. You wanted the polls, so you should be free to poll as you wish.

The whole issue of polling is a complex one that I have experience with. UP was originally set up to let forum members make the major decisions via polling, instead of relying on moderators and administrators. There is a science and an art to polling legitimately, and it is easily corrupted for nefarious purposes. I've seen it happen many times, including at UP. You may recall Zook recently accusing me of "resetting the polls" at UP, suggesting I was manipulating the vote to ensure his suspension. What actually happened was a significant number of people left the forum, and I felt obliged (by a normal sense of fairness) to zero and restart all the polls, not just Zook's, to get a more accurate picture of the intent of the remaining membership. Obviously, if you voluntarily quit the forum, your vote should no longer count in determining a forum action.

Zook has continued to use that same deceptive excuse ever since, blaming me for his suspension instead of the voting results. We required an 80% or greater consensus to pass an issue, with at least 10 participants minimum (voting was optional), and only one vote per participant. It could not have been fairer, but you won't hear that from Zook. And you didn't hear it from Zook at the time either, because the forum members would have laughed in his face. He is one tricky sociopath.

 

Zook gets one right! I am so busy pointing out his errors that I rarely get the opportunity to point out his successes. There aren't many anyway, unfortunately, so I am pleased to spotlight them when they occur.

Polling the public to determine if each "law" is sociopathic in nature is indeed silly. The context and intent of every one of these recommendations (they are not laws) is the pursuit of power and control over other people. This is a pursuit especially characteristic of sociopaths. In fact, these recommendations come from studying the behavioral patterns of likely sociopaths who have been remembered by history precisely because of their deviant behaviors. They are only recommendations for those who wish to become more accomplished sociopaths. This is why Shezbeth was so enamored with them across time and forums. He was knowingly advocating and following the recommendations because they did indeed help him become a more accomplished sociopath.

I don't think I'll be paying much attention to the remaining 40 Laws of Power, or as I would now call them, Recommendations for Aspiring Sociopaths. When Zook and I agree on something, it feels like pretty solid ground to me. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

This is just plain wrong, Zook. Another gross oversimplification on your part. Another deception. And buttering up Rose is your usual tactic for gaining favor in the forum, just as you tried to do with Magamud, Mr. ULY, and so many more at UP! Anyone else would be ashamed to be so overt, but not you.

The Hegelian Dialectic is a prime example of how volition is not an indicator of non-sociopathic intent. You of all people should know this! And I know you do. Problem - Reaction - Solution, remember? People demand the solution they would never want under normal circumstances because they have been tricked! In other words, your own volition can be the product of a deception and manipulation worked upon you. This is exactly what sociopaths do! This is exactly what you do!

You don't disappoint, that's all I can say, Zook. Bad sociopath.

 

Excellent observation, Rose. It is, indeed, the difference between forcing someone to come to you - and having them naturally come to you on their own volition - that separates the ambitions of a sociopath from the radiation of an empath.

Pax

 

There is so much meaning in every word of these stated Greenelaws.

Making other people come to you?
At gunpoint? By radiating magnetism? By setting a good example? A bad example? By making a campfire on a cold October night in the woods?

This thread is merely confirming the obvious, namely, that the nature of a psychological law depends on the narrative of its implementation.

Because Greene's narrative of implementation is the pursuit of power ... every one of the 48 laws necessarily bears the sociopath label. Which then makes this thread moot, IMO. For no psychological law can be interpreted without a narrative of implementation; moreover, it's the narrative of implementation alone that determines sociopathy (or empathy). Discussing such laws without a narrative of implementation is a bit like watching the wheels go round and round ... I really luvvv to watch them roll.




Pax