I support your judgement about "Medicalizing" your opponent's arguments with the belief of having some practical value. Eric Cordian <emc@artifact.psychedelic.net> wrote:

An anonymous twit writes:

...

Anger expressed by commission is usually justified by laudable motives, e.g. concern for the well-being of the victim. The expression of the anger is dictated by the desire to wound while concealing the intention to wound -- even the existence of the anger. This is not to spare the feelings of the victim but to wound them more effectively. The intent is to provoke counteranger with such subtlety that the victim blames himself and believes his anger is not justified. That way, people with PAPD can assume the role of innocent victim (Kantor, 1992, pp. 178-180). They may make directly hostile statements because they fail to perceive their own motivating attitude, perceive their hostility too late, or believe that their attitude can be concealed.

Can't we do without Victimologist prattle on a cryptography and privacy list? Shrinks should be next after all the lawyers are fed to the lions.

"Medicalizing" your opponent's argument, instead of responding to it, is a tactic of police states, religious nuts, controlling relatives, and idiots.

Which one are you?

-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1