Watching the CTists attack / fight amongst themselves

Obviousman · 24th August 2006, 10:34 PM

Have a look at this thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=11395&st=0

Does anyone else get the impression that 'hardline' CTists attack their own whenever there is a point of disagreement?

I still say some psych students should do a study of that place and the interactions between CT / non-CT and CT / CT. I reckon there is a major award of some type in it.

brumsen · 25th August 2006, 12:01 AM

Not sure if psychology is the best or only discipline that should look into this.
Sociology, more likely.

Lots of this stuff appears to boil down to the maxim "if you're not with us, you're against us", the pronouncement of which has made Bush the object of a lot of ridicule - in Europe at least - but which appears to be universally embraced by all discussants.

Brainster · 25th August 2006, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by brumsen

Not sure if psychology is the best or only discipline that should look into this.
Sociology, more likely.

Lots of this stuff appears to boil down to the maxim "if you're not with us, you're against us", the pronouncement of which has made Bush the object of a lot of ridicule - in Europe at least - but which appears to be universally embraced by all discussants.

It's my impression that this has been brewing for awhile and that it's boiling over in the last few days is no coincidence.

For example, we all know there's a conflict between LC's call for protest at GZ and Rick Siegel and many anti-war Groups for a protest in Washington.

Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful.

brumsen · 25th August 2006, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

It's my impression that this has been brewing for awhile and that it's boiling over in the last few days is no coincidence.

For example, we all know there's a conflict between LC's call for protest at GZ and Rick Siegel and many anti-war Groups for a protest in Washington.

Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful.

Well, thanks for that terminology.
So, it's all about what to do on the 5th anniversary, according to you?

H3LL · 25th August 2006, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful.

Can you tell dictionary.com they don't seem to know.

Discussants^dict

Quote:

dis·cus·sant (d

-sk

s

nt) Pronunciation Key

n.
A participant in a formal discussion.

sat556 · 25th August 2006, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Obviousman

I still say some psych students should do a study of that place and the interactions between CT / non-CT and CT / CT. I reckon there is a major award of some type in it.

Oh it's all being noted

24th August 2006, 10:34 PM	#1
Obviousman Muse Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 652	Watching the CTists attack / fight amongst themselves Have a look at this thread: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...pic=11395&st=0 Does anyone else get the impression that 'hardline' CTists attack their own whenever there is a point of disagreement? I still say some psych students should do a study of that place and the interactions between CT / non-CT and CT / CT. I reckon there is a major award of some type in it.

25th August 2006, 12:37 AM	#3
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,460	Originally Posted by brumsen Not sure if psychology is the best or only discipline that should look into this. Sociology, more likely. Lots of this stuff appears to boil down to the maxim "if you're not with us, you're against us", the pronouncement of which has made Bush the object of a lot of ridicule - in Europe at least - but which appears to be universally embraced by all discussants. It's my impression that this has been brewing for awhile and that it's boiling over in the last few days is no coincidence. For example, we all know there's a conflict between LC's call for protest at GZ and Rick Siegel and many anti-war Groups for a protest in Washington. Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

25th August 2006, 01:37 AM	#5
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by Brainster Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful. Can you tell dictionary.com they don't seem to know. Discussants^dict Quote: dis·cus·sant (d-sksnt) Pronunciation Key n. A participant in a formal discussion.
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

25th August 2006, 01:43 AM	#6
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553	Originally Posted by Obviousman I still say some psych students should do a study of that place and the interactions between CT / non-CT and CT / CT. I reckon there is a major award of some type in it. Oh it's all being noted
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553

25th August 2006, 12:01 AM	#2
brumsen Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 438	Not sure if psychology is the best or only discipline that should look into this. Sociology, more likely. Lots of this stuff appears to boil down to the maxim "if you're not with us, you're against us", the pronouncement of which has made Bush the object of a lot of ridicule - in Europe at least - but which appears to be universally embraced by all discussants.

25th August 2006, 12:50 AM	#4
brumsen Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 438	Originally Posted by Brainster It's my impression that this has been brewing for awhile and that it's boiling over in the last few days is no coincidence. For example, we all know there's a conflict between LC's call for protest at GZ and Rick Siegel and many anti-war Groups for a protest in Washington. Discussants is not a word generally recognized in English. I don't know if there's a good substitution--all those in the discussion, or participants? Not being critical, just helpful. Well, thanks for that terminology. So, it's all about what to do on the 5th anniversary, according to you?