In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

In other words, you've confirmed my opinion that you're insane.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

De :Bruce J. Richman )
Objet : What a riot
View: Complete Thread (110 articles)
Original Format
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2003-12-03 14:56:35 PST

"And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United States at
least - by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in
involuntary committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a
psychological term and is not used to diagnose people by psychologists
and/or psychiatrists."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny no ?

Yes, no. This shows Richman writing as an ordinary person, not as a
psychologist.

Stephen








Lionel, as is his almost daily custom, made a fool of himself and once again
showed his stupidity and desperation, by inappropriately using the term
"senile" in one of his juvenile efforts to attack another poster. There are
intelligent flamers who have nothing else to say, and then there is Lionel - a
rather dumb and misinformed flamer with nothing else to say. When it was
pointed out to him that his simplistic cutting and pasting of a "dictionary
definition" of "senile" was totally lacking, he went back to the sewer (AKA
his way of looking at the world) to see what other idiotic insults he could
find.

Apparently, my posting of a clinical, psychiatrically-approved definition of
"senile dementia" was too much for him to either comprehend or accept. So - in
an act of desperation - he decided to make sure we all understand that he is
insane - i.e. he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong and is
unaware of the consequences of his actions - which is the legal definition of
insanity.

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If Lionel were to
publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of course, be sued for
libel. His only defense would be that he is "insane:".

Lionel has also called Jacques Chirac senile. Are we to assume that Dr.
Lionel Chapuis, with his Ph.D. in Sewage & Debris, has personally evaluated Mr.
Chirac face to face and come up with this "expert opinion"? Or should we
assume that Dr. Chapuis has decided to crepitate in public on RAO? Of course,
once again, Lionel could say he;s not guilty by reason of insanity, and most of
RAO would agree with him.

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If Lionel were to
publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of course, be sued for
libel.

It seems that since a few times you are a little bit isolated on your
capsizing wreck... like me in my sewers.
Note that I prefer to have the feet on the firm earth. ;-)

Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If Lionel
were to
publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of course,
be sued for
libel.

It seems that since a few times you are a little bit isolated on your

capsizing wreck... like me in my sewers.
Note that I prefer to have the feet on the firm earth. ;-)

Any evidence to support your delusional statements? Or can we assume
that once again, as you always manage to do, you've made a fool of
yourself?

The only one exposed as a pathological liar, delusional idiot, and
chronic flamer who makes statements with no evidence to suppore them is
you, Lionel. Your world of lies and misinformation is all you have and
almost nobody other than Krueger - LOL !!! ( a really great
endorsement) supports it. You and Krueger are recognized for what you
are by the vast majority of RAO posters - LOL !!!!

Below, we have yet _another_ "attack thread" initiated by the one and
only Bruce J. Richman !!


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :

In other words, you've confirmed my opinion that you're insane.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

De :Bruce J. Richman )
Objet : What a riot
View: Complete Thread (110 articles)
Original Format
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2003-12-03 14:56:35 PST

"And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United
States at
least - by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in
involuntary committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a
psychological term and is not used to diagnose people by
psychologists
and/or psychiatrists."


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny no ?

Yes, no. This shows Richman writing as an ordinary person, not as a
psychologist.

Stephen








Lionel, as is his almost daily custom, made a fool of himself and
once again
showed his stupidity and desperation, by inappropriately using the
term
"senile" in one of his juvenile efforts to attack another poster.
There are
intelligent flamers who have nothing else to say, and then there is
Lionel - a
rather dumb and misinformed flamer with nothing else to say. When it
was
pointed out to him that his simplistic cutting and pasting of a
"dictionary
definition" of "senile" was totally lacking, he went back to the
sewer (AKA
his way of looking at the world) to see what other idiotic insults he
could
find.

Apparently, my posting of a clinical, psychiatrically-approved
definition of
"senile dementia" was too much for him to either comprehend or
accept. So - in
an act of desperation - he decided to make sure we all understand
that he is
insane - i.e. he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong
and is
unaware of the consequences of his actions - which is the legal
definition of
insanity.

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If Lionel
were to
publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of course,
be sued for
libel. His only defense would be that he is "insane:".

Lionel has also called Jacques Chirac senile. Are we to assume that
Dr.
Lionel Chapuis, with his Ph.D. in Sewage & Debris, has personally
evaluated Mr.
Chirac face to face and come up with this "expert opinion"? Or
should we
assume that Dr. Chapuis has decided to crepitate in public on RAO?
Of course,
once again, Lionel could say he;s not guilty by reason of insanity,
and most of
RAO would agree with him.

wrote:
Below, we have yet _another_ "attack thread" initiated by the one and
only Bruce J. Richman !!


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :

In other words, you've confirmed my opinion that you're
insane.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

De :Bruce J. Richman )
Objet : What a riot
View: Complete Thread (110 articles)
Original Format
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2003-12-03 14:56:35 PST

"And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United
States at
least - by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in
involuntary committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a
psychological term and is not used to diagnose people by
psychologists
and/or psychiatrists."



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny no ?

Yes, no. This shows Richman writing as an ordinary person, not as
a
psychologist.

Stephen








Lionel, as is his almost daily custom, made a fool of himself and
once again
showed his stupidity and desperation, by inappropriately using the
term
"senile" in one of his juvenile efforts to attack another poster.
There are
intelligent flamers who have nothing else to say, and then there is
Lionel - a
rather dumb and misinformed flamer with nothing else to say. When
it
was
pointed out to him that his simplistic cutting and pasting of a
"dictionary
definition" of "senile" was totally lacking, he went back to the
sewer (AKA
his way of looking at the world) to see what other idiotic insults
he
could
find.

Apparently, my posting of a clinical, psychiatrically-approved
definition of
"senile dementia" was too much for him to either comprehend or
accept. So - in
an act of desperation - he decided to make sure we all understand
that he is
insane - i.e. he doesn't know the difference between right and
wrong
and is
unaware of the consequences of his actions - which is the legal
definition of
insanity.

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If Lionel
were to
publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of course,
be sued for
libel. His only defense would be that he is "insane:".

Lionel has also called Jacques Chirac senile. Are we to assume
that
Dr.
Lionel Chapuis, with his Ph.D. in Sewage & Debris, has personally
evaluated Mr.
Chirac face to face and come up with this "expert opinion"? Or
should we
assume that Dr. Chapuis has decided to crepitate in public on RAO?
Of course,
once again, Lionel could say he;s not guilty by reason of insanity,
and most of
RAO would agree with him.

However, unlike Lionel's DELUSIONAL attack thread, mine is in response
to his attack thread. Unlike you and Lionel, I don't have any
particdular need to start attack threads without provocation. Also,
mine is based on clear evidence in his posts that Lionel is insane -
i=2Ee. he doesn't know the difference between what is right and what is
wrong and is unaware of the consequences of his actions.

He has also claimed that Jacques Chirac is senile.


Since Lionel's attack threads - just like the ones you hide behind with
no name - are based on false beliefs not supported by any Of c evidence
they qualify as delusional.

Of course, if Lionel can prove that Jacques Chirac is senile, Im sure
the rest of the French citizens will be greatly relieved.

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :


Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If Lionel

were to

publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of course,

be sued for

libel.

It seems that since a few times you are a little bit isolated on your


capsizing wreck... like me in my sewers.
Note that I prefer to have the feet on the firm earth. ;-)


Any evidence to support your delusional statements? Or can we assume
that once again, as you always manage to do, you've made a fool of
yourself?

The only one exposed as a pathological liar, delusional idiot, and
chronic flamer who makes statements with no evidence to suppore them is
you, Lionel. Your world of lies and misinformation is all you have and
almost nobody other than Krueger - LOL !!! ( a really great
endorsement) supports it. You and Krueger are recognized for what you
are by the vast majority of RAO posters - LOL !!!!


Nothing about the Hamas Doc ?

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
wrote:

Below, we have yet _another_ "attack thread" initiated by the one and
only Bruce J. Richman !!


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman a écrit :


In other words, you've confirmed my opinion that you're

insane.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

De :Bruce J. Richman )
Objet : What a riot
View: Complete Thread (110 articles)
Original Format
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2003-12-03 14:56:35 PST

"And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United

States at

least - by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in
involuntary committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a
psychological term and is not used to diagnose people by

psychologists

and/or psychiatrists."



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny no ?

Yes, no. This shows Richman writing as an ordinary person, not as

a

psychologist.

Stephen








Lionel, as is his almost daily custom, made a fool of himself and

once again

showed his stupidity and desperation, by inappropriately using the

term

"senile" in one of his juvenile efforts to attack another poster.

There are

intelligent flamers who have nothing else to say, and then there is

Lionel - a

rather dumb and misinformed flamer with nothing else to say. When

it

was

pointed out to him that his simplistic cutting and pasting of a

"dictionary

definition" of "senile" was totally lacking, he went back to the

sewer (AKA

his way of looking at the world) to see what other idiotic insults

he

could

find.

Apparently, my posting of a clinical, psychiatrically-approved

definition of

"senile dementia" was too much for him to either comprehend or

accept. So - in

an act of desperation - he decided to make sure we all understand

that he is

insane - i.e. he doesn't know the difference between right and

wrong

and is

unaware of the consequences of his actions - which is the legal

definition of

insanity.

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If Lionel

were to

publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of course,

be sued for

libel. His only defense would be that he is "insane:".

Lionel has also called Jacques Chirac senile. Are we to assume

that

Dr.

Lionel Chapuis, with his Ph.D. in Sewage & Debris, has personally

evaluated Mr.

Chirac face to face and come up with this "expert opinion"? Or

should we

assume that Dr. Chapuis has decided to crepitate in public on RAO?

Of course,

once again, Lionel could say he;s not guilty by reason of insanity,

and most of

RAO would agree with him.


However, unlike Lionel's DELUSIONAL attack thread, mine is in response
to his attack thread. Unlike you and Lionel, I don't have any
particdular need to start attack threads without provocation. Also,
mine is based on clear evidence in his posts that Lionel is insane -
i.e. he doesn't know the difference between what is right and what is
wrong and is unaware of the consequences of his actions.

He has also claimed that Jacques Chirac is senile.


Since Lionel's attack threads - just like the ones you hide behind with
no name - are based on false beliefs not supported by any Of c evidence
they qualify as delusional.

Of course, if Lionel can prove that Jacques Chirac is senile, Im sure
the rest of the French citizens will be greatly relieved.


And what about the Hamas Doc ?

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
wrote:
Below, we have yet _another_ "attack thread" initiated by the one
and
only Bruce J. Richman !!



ranting attack snipped


However, unlike Lionel's DELUSIONAL attack thread, mine is in
response
to his attack thread.


Well, at least you are now admitting that you initiate attack threads,
BJ. That's real progress. ;-)

Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :


Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If
Lionel

were to

publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of
course,

be sued for

libel.

It seems that since a few times you are a little bit isolated on
your


capsizing wreck... like me in my sewers.
Note that I prefer to have the feet on the firm earth. ;-)


Any evidence to support your delusional statements? Or can we
assume
that once again, as you always manage to do, you've made a fool of
yourself?

The only one exposed as a pathological liar, delusional idiot, and
chronic flamer who makes statements with no evidence to suppore
them is
you, Lionel. Your world of lies and misinformation is all you have
and
almost nobody other than Krueger - LOL !!! ( a really great
endorsement) supports it. You and Krueger are recognized for what
you
are by the vast majority of RAO posters - LOL !!!!


Nothing about the Hamas Doc ?
Have you informed Jacques Chirac of your diagnosis?

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman a écrit :



Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If

Lionel

were to


publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of

course,

be sued for


libel.

It seems that since a few times you are a little bit isolated on

your


capsizing wreck... like me in my sewers.
Note that I prefer to have the feet on the firm earth. ;-)


Any evidence to support your delusional statements? Or can we

assume

that once again, as you always manage to do, you've made a fool of
yourself?

The only one exposed as a pathological liar, delusional idiot, and
chronic flamer who makes statements with no evidence to suppore

them is

you, Lionel. Your world of lies and misinformation is all you have

and

almost nobody other than Krueger - LOL !!! ( a really great
endorsement) supports it. You and Krueger are recognized for what

you

are by the vast majority of RAO posters - LOL !!!!


Nothing about the Hamas Doc ?

Have you informed Jacques Chirac of your diagnosis?

No I have informed Bernadette. ;-)

Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
wrote:

Below, we have yet _another_ "attack thread" initiated by the one
and
only Bruce J. Richman !!


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :


In other words, you've confirmed my opinion that you're

insane.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

De :Bruce J. Richman )
Objet : What a riot
View: Complete Thread (110 articles)
Original Format
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2003-12-03 14:56:35 PST

"And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United

States at

least - by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also in
involuntary committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not a
psychological term and is not used to diagnose people by

psychologists

and/or psychiatrists."




------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny no ?

Yes, no. This shows Richman writing as an ordinary person, not as

a

psychologist.

Stephen








Lionel, as is his almost daily custom, made a fool of himself and

once again

showed his stupidity and desperation, by inappropriately using the

term

"senile" in one of his juvenile efforts to attack another poster.

There are

intelligent flamers who have nothing else to say, and then there
is

Lionel - a

rather dumb and misinformed flamer with nothing else to say. When

it

was

pointed out to him that his simplistic cutting and pasting of a

"dictionary

definition" of "senile" was totally lacking, he went back to the

sewer (AKA

his way of looking at the world) to see what other idiotic insults

he

could

find.

Apparently, my posting of a clinical, psychiatrically-approved

definition of

"senile dementia" was too much for him to either comprehend or

accept. So - in

an act of desperation - he decided to make sure we all understand

that he is

insane - i.e. he doesn't know the difference between right and

wrong

and is

unaware of the consequences of his actions - which is the legal

definition of

insanity.

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If
Lionel

were to

publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of
course,

be sued for

libel. His only defense would be that he is "insane:".

Lionel has also called Jacques Chirac senile. Are we to assume

that

Dr.

Lionel Chapuis, with his Ph.D. in Sewage & Debris, has personally

evaluated Mr.

Chirac face to face and come up with this "expert opinion"? Or

should we

assume that Dr. Chapuis has decided to crepitate in public on RAO?

Of course,

once again, Lionel could say he;s not guilty by reason of
insanity,

and most of

RAO would agree with him.


However, unlike Lionel's DELUSIONAL attack thread, mine is in
response
to his attack thread. Unlike you and Lionel, I don't have any
particdular need to start attack threads without provocation.
Also,
mine is based on clear evidence in his posts that Lionel is insane
-
i.e. he doesn't know the difference between what is right and what
is
wrong and is unaware of the consequences of his actions.

He has also claimed that Jacques Chirac is senile.


Since Lionel's attack threads - just like the ones you hide behind
with
no name - are based on false beliefs not supported by any Of c
evidence
they qualify as delusional.

Of course, if Lionel can prove that Jacques Chirac is senile, Im
sure
the rest of the French citizens will be greatly relieved.


And what about the Hamas Doc ?

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

..=2E...and so on and so on. ;-)

a écrit :

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's tirade, it
needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist. For
me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce such
kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

....But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in such
regular way. :-(

wrote:
Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
wrote:

Below, we have yet _another_ "attack thread" initiated by the one
and
only Bruce J. Richman !!


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

In article ,
Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :


In other words, you've confirmed my opinion that you're

insane.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

De :Bruce J. Richman )
Objet : What a riot
View: Complete Thread (110 articles)
Original Format
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2003-12-03 14:56:35 PST

"And for the record, "insane" - is a term used in the United

States at

least - by lawyers primarily in criminal procedings and also
in
involuntary committments to psychiatric hospitals. It is not
a
psychological term and is not used to diagnose people by

psychologists

and/or psychiatrists."





------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny no ?

Yes, no. This shows Richman writing as an ordinary person, not
as

a

psychologist.

Stephen








Lionel, as is his almost daily custom, made a fool of himself
and

once again

showed his stupidity and desperation, by inappropriately using
the

term

"senile" in one of his juvenile efforts to attack another
poster.

There are

intelligent flamers who have nothing else to say, and then there
is

Lionel - a

rather dumb and misinformed flamer with nothing else to say.
When

it

was

pointed out to him that his simplistic cutting and pasting of a

"dictionary

definition" of "senile" was totally lacking, he went back to
the

sewer (AKA

his way of looking at the world) to see what other idiotic
insults

he

could

find.

Apparently, my posting of a clinical, psychiatrically-approved

definition of

"senile dementia" was too much for him to either comprehend or

accept. So - in

an act of desperation - he decided to make sure we all
understand

that he is

insane - i.e. he doesn't know the difference between right and

wrong

and is

unaware of the consequences of his actions - which is the legal

definition of

insanity.

Note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a medical one. If
Lionel

were to

publish his idiotic comments about "senility", he could, of
course,

be sued for

libel. His only defense would be that he is "insane:".

Lionel has also called Jacques Chirac senile. Are we to assume

that

Dr.

Lionel Chapuis, with his Ph.D. in Sewage & Debris, has
personally

evaluated Mr.

Chirac face to face and come up with this "expert opinion"? Or

should we

assume that Dr. Chapuis has decided to crepitate in public on
RAO?

Of course,

once again, Lionel could say he;s not guilty by reason of
insanity,

and most of

RAO would agree with him.


However, unlike Lionel's DELUSIONAL attack thread, mine is in
response
to his attack thread. Unlike you and Lionel, I don't have any
particdular need to start attack threads without provocation.
Also,
mine is based on clear evidence in his posts that Lionel is
insane
-
i.e. he doesn't know the difference between what is right and
what
is
wrong and is unaware of the consequences of his actions.

He has also claimed that Jacques Chirac is senile.


Since Lionel's attack threads - just like the ones you hide
behind
with
no name - are based on false beliefs not supported by any Of c
evidence
they qualify as delusional.

Of course, if Lionel can prove that Jacques Chirac is senile, Im
sure
the rest of the French citizens will be greatly relieved.


And what about the Hamas Doc ?

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

In response to statements that clearly require those descriptive
adjectives. I understand your sensitivity to words like "sockpuppet",
"libel", and "slander". Facing your own behavior is difficult, isn't
it?

wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
wrote:
Below, we have yet _another_ "attack thread" initiated by the one
and
only Bruce J. Richman !!



ranting attack snipped


However, unlike Lionel's DELUSIONAL attack thread, mine is in
response
to his attack thread.


Well, at least you are now admitting that you initiate attack
threads,
BJ. That's real progress. ;-)


I've never denied it. However, not without provocation - an important
factor you like to ignore. Will you now be questioning Krueger and
Lionel about their attack thread habits and how they cnange the title
of threads quite frequently?

Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's tirade,
it
needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist.
For
me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce
such
kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in
such
regular way. :-(


He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And _so_
predictable. :-(

Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's tirade,
it
needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist.
For
me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce
such
kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in
such
regular way. :-(
More meaningless and false babble from RAO's resident buffoon.

a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

a écrit :


"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's tirade,

it

needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist.

For

me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce

such

kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in

such

regular way. :-(



He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And _so_
predictable. :-(

So predictable that now I appreciate only on odd days

wrote:
Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's
tirade,
it
needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist.
For
me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce
such
kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in
such
regular way. :-(


He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And _so_
predictable. :-(

Not as predictable as your spasmodic emerging from the shadows, behind
a sockpuppet facade, to spread your delusional bull****.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
wrote:

snipped



"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

In response to statements that clearly require

"In response"? BJ, you are like a well tuned lawn mower: one pull of
your cord or press of your button and off you go, howling "delusional",
"libel",
"slander", "sockpuppet", "character assassination", "seven year
history", "anti-semetic", etc., etc. You drone on and on, just like a
Briggs & Stratton. ;-)

Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :
Lionel wrote:

a =E9crit :


"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's
tirade,

it

needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist.

For

me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce

such

kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in

such

regular way. :-(



He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And
_so_
predictable. :-(

So predictable that now I appreciate only on odd days

A buffoon and a sockpuppet agreeing on their delusional statements is
quite predictable. Lionel obviously feels more comfortable talking to
sockpuppets since they don't involve too much reality. Perhaps "Lionel
Chapuis" and "sewer worker" are also fabrications. That would explain
the attraction these 2 idiots feel for each other.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's
tirade,
it
needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist.
For
me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce
such
kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in
such
regular way. :-(
Another incisive, insightful post from RAO's most entertaining
participant.

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

a écrit :

Lionel wrote:


a écrit :



"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's

tirade,

it


needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an artist.

For


me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral farce

such


kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group in

such


regular way. :-(



He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And

_so_

predictable. :-(

So predictable that now I appreciate only on odd days


A buffoon and a sockpuppet agreeing on their delusional statements is
quite predictable. Lionel obviously feels more comfortable talking to
sockpuppets since they don't involve too much reality. Perhaps "Lionel
Chapuis" and "sewer worker" are also fabrications. That would explain
the attraction these 2 idiots feel for each other.

Everything is possible Bruce since your delirium doesn't seem to have
any limit.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:

Well, at least you are now admitting that you initiate attack
threads, BJ. That's real progress. ;-)

I've never denied it.

LOL!

However, not without provocation - an important factor you like to ignore.

Unfortunately Brucie, we know what you consider to be provocation - a post
from 3-5 years ago.

Will you now be questioning Krueger and
Lionel about their attack thread habits and how they change the title
of threads quite frequently?

Define "quite frequently" and compare the frequency with which I change
thread titles with that of Middius.

Ohhhh! Kryptonite!

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
wrote:
Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's
tirade,
it
needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an
artist.
For
me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral
farce
such
kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group
in
such
regular way. :-(


He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And
_so_
predictable. :-(

Not as predictable as your spasmodic emerging from the shadows,
behind
a sockpuppet facade, to spread your delusional bull****.



Right, BJ, everyone who thinks you have the brains of a Twinkie and the
judgement of a two-year-old is "spread[ing] delusional bull****". How
convienient for you.

Lionel a écrit :

pyjamarama wrote:




Source: Israel Defense Forces Web site




LOL ! I see that you know how to chose your sources. )

Reply






© 2004 Google


That laughter and accusation about "picking sources" indicates where
Lionel stands on this issue.


Should I've believed WMD story since it was emanating from your president ?
I note that you have quoted one of the most famous democrat posting on
RAO. IMHO This choice doesn't honor you.

I don't know if you will have convinced somebody with that but IMHO you
have failed

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:

Well, at least you are now admitting that you initiate attack
threads, BJ. That's real progress. ;-)

I've never denied it.

LOL!

However, not without provocation - an important factor you like to
ignore.

Unfortunately Brucie, we know what you consider to be provocation - a
post
from 3-5 years ago.



Prove it, Arnie !!! You're the ome that has recently claimed that
since you've been attacked so many times in the past, you now have the
right to attack people that have attacked you before. Once again,
Krueger's just making things up, as is his routine custom.


Will you now be questioning Krueger and
Lionel about their attack thread habits and how they change the
title
of threads quite frequently?

Define "quite frequently" and compare the frequency with which I
change
thread titles with that of Middius.

Ohhhh! Kryptonite!

Validate the false statement you made about me above.
Krueger's Fact-Challenged Statement = Hypocrisy !!!!

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com




You're the ome that has recently claimed that
since you've been attacked so many times in the past, you now have the
right to attack people that have attacked you before.

Yup, and I'm talking about your attacks one me last week or a day or two
ago.

Lionel wrote:
Lionel a =E9crit :

pyjamarama wrote:




Source: Israel Defense Forces Web site




LOL ! I see that you know how to chose your sources. )

Reply






=A9 2004 Google


That laughter and accusation about "picking sources" indicates
where
Lionel stands on this issue.


Should I've believed WMD story since it was emanating from your
president ?
I note that you have quoted one of the most famous democrat posting
on
RAO. IMHO This choice doesn't honor you.

I don't know if you will have convinced somebody with that but IMHO
you
have failed

Your opinion is worthless. You've tried to equate the assassination of
Yassin with the killing of civilians by suicide bombers. Even McKelvy
called you on that idiotic attempt of yours to equate a clearly
military target with a clearly civilian target.

You've failed to convince anybody that you're not significantly
prejudiced in favor of the Palestinians and more, specifically, the
military operations of Hamas.

Perhaps you'd like to explain your use of the term "Jewish zealot" over
and over again in your posts?

Or, perhaps you'd like to explain why you alone, AFAIK, have been the
only RAO poster to flame other people based on their religious
background.

Answer those questions, before you ask questions of others, hypocrite.

Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
Lionel wrote:

a =E9crit :

Lionel wrote:


a =E9crit :



"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's

tirade,

it


needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an
artist.

For


me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral
farce

such


kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group
in

such


regular way. :-(



He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And

_so_

predictable. :-(

So predictable that now I appreciate only on odd days


A buffoon and a sockpuppet agreeing on their delusional statements
is
quite predictable. Lionel obviously feels more comfortable talking
to
sockpuppets since they don't involve too much reality. Perhaps
"Lionel
Chapuis" and "sewer worker" are also fabrications. That would
explain
the attraction these 2 idiots feel for each other.

Everything is possible Bruce since your delirium doesn't seem to have
any limit.


LOL!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com




You're the ome that has recently claimed that
since you've been attacked so many times in the past, you now have
the
right to attack people that have attacked you before.

Yup, and I'm talking about your attacks one me last week or a day or
two
ago.

And you've attacked me numerous times in the recent past and not just
"3-5 years ago". In fact, it's quite common for you to join people
like McKelvy and various sockpuppets whenever you feel like it in
personal attacks atgainst me. You've also recently initiated attack
threads with my name in them without provocation, as in a thread
involving Lionel in which your name had not been mentioned.

Your deceptive deletion of your prior statement about provocation based
on events happening "3 to 5 years ago" is noted. Obviously, you
couldn't substantiate it.

wrote:
Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
Lionel wrote:

a =E9crit :

Lionel wrote:


a =E9crit :



"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's

tirade,

it


needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an
artist.

For


me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral
farce

such


kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group
in

such


regular way. :-(



He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And

_so_

predictable. :-(

So predictable that now I appreciate only on odd days


A buffoon and a sockpuppet agreeing on their delusional
statements
is
quite predictable. Lionel obviously feels more comfortable
talking
to
sockpuppets since they don't involve too much reality. Perhaps
"Lionel
Chapuis" and "sewer worker" are also fabrications. That would
explain
the attraction these 2 idiots feel for each other.

Everything is possible Bruce since your delirium doesn't seem to
have
any limit.


LOL!

A sockpuppet laughs at a buffoon's misuse of another psychiatric term.
ROFLMAO !!!!

wrote:
Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
Lionel wrote:

a =E9crit :

Lionel wrote:


a =E9crit :



"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's

tirade,

it


needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an
artist.

For


me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral
farce

such


kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group
in

such


regular way. :-(



He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And

_so_

predictable. :-(

So predictable that now I appreciate only on odd days


A buffoon and a sockpuppet agreeing on their delusional
statements
is
quite predictable. Lionel obviously feels more comfortable
talking
to
sockpuppets since they don't involve too much reality. Perhaps
"Lionel
Chapuis" and "sewer worker" are also fabrications. That would
explain
the attraction these 2 idiots feel for each other.

Everything is possible Bruce since your delirium doesn't seem to
have
any limit.


Define "delirium", "Lionel". Amuse us by once again exhibiting your
stupidity.

LOL !!!

Bruce J. Richman wrote:


Or, perhaps you'd like to explain why you alone, AFAIK, have been the
only RAO poster to flame other people based on their religious
background.


I guess you missed the dozens (hundreds?) of posts where the nutball
posting as "George M. Middius" flamed, mocked and taunted Arny Krueger
for being a Christian (or, in Middius-ese, a "Kristian")?

Answer those questions, before you ask questions of others, hypocrite.

You are the real hypocrite, BJ, and overlooking the vile behavior of
the non-existant (i.e., "sockpuppet") "George M. Middius" proves the
point.

:-(

wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
wrote:
Lionel wrote:
a =E9crit :

"Delusional!"
"Libel!"
"Slander!"
"Sockpuppet!"
"Character Assassination!"
"Seven year history!"
"Anti-semetic!"

.....and so on and so on. ;-)

Between you an me the first time I have read one of Richman's
tirade,
it
needs some kind courage, I have said myself this man is an
artist.
For
me it was so grotestque that it was sounding like a theatral
farce
such
kind of theatre that Italian authors were writing by the end of
middle-age...

...But an artist will not have the impudence to pollute a group
in
such
regular way. :-(


He does come across as a kind of "self parody", doesn't he? And
_so_
predictable. :-(

Not as predictable as your spasmodic emerging from the shadows,
behind
a sockpuppet facade, to spread your delusional bull****.



Right, BJ, everyone who thinks you have the brains of a Twinkie and
the
judgement of a two-year-old is "spread[ing] delusional bull****". How
convienient for you.

Except no such people exist escept in your deranged mind. Your
idiocy, however, is pretty much accepted by RAO posters that have IQs
that are over 70 - which excludes you and Lionel, of course.

wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote:


Or, perhaps you'd like to explain why you alone, AFAIK, have been
the
only RAO poster to flame other people based on their religious
background.


I guess you missed the dozens (hundreds?) of posts where the nutball
posting as "George M. Middius" flamed, mocked and taunted Arny
Krueger
for being a Christian (or, in Middius-ese, a "Kristian")?

Answer those questions, before you ask questions of others,
hypocrite.

You are the real hypocrite, BJ, and overlooking the vile behavior of
the non-existant (i.e., "sockpuppet") "George M. Middius" proves the
point.

:-(


You have yet to convince anybody other than yourself, sockpuppet, that
George M. Middius is a sockpuppet. Your listing of various sources of
information which you can't prove you ever checked, was a joke. (And of
course, you *couldn't* check certain types of information which a
person might keep private).

You've overlooked, supported and piled on the vile behavior of
pathological liars and flamers like Krueger and Lionel for a long time.
You're one of RAO's most rabid Kroopologists (to quote a commonly used
term and now, a supporter of an idiotic French poster who wouldn't know
the truth if he fell into it by mistake.

Your hypocritical rants, which seem to appear by cue whenever the heat
is turned up on your very few allies (see above) are expected and
rejected by just about everybody else.

:-) :-)

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

Lionel a écrit :


pyjamarama wrote:





Source: Israel Defense Forces Web site




LOL ! I see that you know how to chose your sources. )

Reply






© 2004 Google


That laughter and accusation about "picking sources" indicates

where

Lionel stands on this issue.


Should I've believed WMD story since it was emanating from your

president ?

I note that you have quoted one of the most famous democrat posting

on

RAO. IMHO This choice doesn't honor you.

I don't know if you will have convinced somebody with that but IMHO

you

have failed


Your opinion is worthless. You've tried to equate the assassination of
Yassin with the killing of civilians by suicide bombers. Even McKelvy
called you on that idiotic attempt of yours to equate a clearly
military target with a clearly civilian target.

But you have said many time that McKelvy is an idiot an a pathological liar.


You've failed to convince anybody that you're not significantly
prejudiced in favor of the Palestinians and more, specifically, the
military operations of Hamas.

That's false I have convinced Sander, he wrote that to you at least 2
times (do you have memory problems ?) and many other participants of the
thread...

Perhaps you'd like to explain your use of the term "Jewish zealot" over
and over again in your posts?

Do you mean that the Zealots was not Jewish ?

Or, perhaps you'd like to explain why you alone, AFAIK, have been the
only RAO poster to flame other people based on their religious
background.

That's obviously wrong I have read many message in which Middius is
mocking both Art Sackman and Arnold Krueger because of their religion.

Answer those questions, before you ask questions of others, hypocrite.

This has been done.

Do you feel happy to have quoted a message from pyjamarama ?

Do you believe everything written on the "Israel Defense Forces Web site" ?


....Hypocrite.

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

Define "delirium", "Lionel". Amuse us by once again exhibiting your
stupidity.

You just need to ask ! :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DELIRE


Introduction à la notion de délire



Le délire se situe entre d'une part la médecine psychiatrique et d'autre
part la société, l'histoire de cette société et sa culture. D'un côté on
aura donc les notions de soin, de guérison, de pathologique et de
l'autre seront les notions de fantasme, d'art, de religion... Le
"symptôme délire" est un problème médical, qu'il faut relativiser en
tenant compte de l'époque, du lieu...

Le délire est aussi une pensée, qui prendra une orientation suivant la
position de l'observateur, en tant que symptôme ou création. Le délire
prend effet dans une notion de perte, comme reconstruction particulière
d'un réel, de façon trop nette et sans ratés. Au moment où un délirant
renonce à son délire, existe pour lui (et occasionnellement les autres)
un risque très grand car, sans sa reconstruction adaptée, le malade se
retrouve face à un vide trop fort et contre lequel il n'a plus de
protection.

Le délire est une révélation que l'on croit venir de l'extérieur mais
qui est en fait originaire de l'intérieur du sujet. Certaines personnes
situeront le délire dans le non-Moi, et d'autres le situeront
partiellement dans le Moi. Les soignants "psy" de tendance analytique
(Psychanalystes, psychologues, psychiatres analytiques, infirmiers de
secteur psychiatrique...), et les artistes (du moins certains) se
rejoignent quand ils reconnaissent l'origine du délire dans leur Moi.
Mais il est beaucoup plus fréquent de rencontrer des personnes ayant
attribué au non-Moi la cause de leurs délires.



- Le délire prend son sens par rapport à d'autres unités; c'est
donc un symptôme.

- Dans le rapport qu'il a avec la réalité, le malade délirant se
trompe; le délire est donc aussi une erreur.



Psychogenèse :



Premier niveau : angoisse.

Deuxième niveau : projection.

Troisième niveau : retour (introjection, incorporation...).



Il sera toujours question de vide, et d'inquiétude.



Premier stade : déréalisation. L'Objet devient irréel, méconnaissable.

Deuxième stade : dépersonnalisation. Le sujet délirant ne se reconnaît
plus ("Est-ce bien moi?").

Troisième stade : délire. Les autres ne reconnaissent plus la personne.
S'est alors rajoutée pour le sujet délirant, la notion de conviction.





Le soignant face au délire (face à la souffrance, et non à l'anormalité)



Le délire est un moyen de ramener le réel à soi, quand il est vécu trop
éloigné. De cette manière, il comble un vide (tout comme d'ailleurs la
création, ainsi que la dépression...). Le soignant est confronté à
l'être délirant, tandis que le créateur est confronté à l'expression de
l'être délirant. Le soignant devra donner un sens, une signification du
délire, avec ce qu'il connaît des références socio culturelles de son
patient, et en ayant toujours à l'esprit ses références personnelles, sa
propre subjectivité, ses croyances d'homme ou de femme (par delà
l'infirmier, le médecin...).





Les délires psychiatriques



Les délires aigus :



Il faut distinguer le diagnostic de symptôme (dans le moment), du
diagnostic de structure (beaucoup plus difficile à évaluer. Demande
parfois des années). Notons aussi le distinguo que l'école Française
fait entre les bouffées délirantes aiguës et les délires chroniques
systématisés. Pour les Américains par exemple, la nosographie laisse une
grande part à la schizophrénie, aux dépens entre autres de la paranoïa.

Les caractères généraux du délire aigu sont très variés mais néanmoins
soudains, brutaux, en rupture par rapport à l'histoire du sujet, et
présentant un tableau riche mais provisoire. Dans les délires aigus,
nous avons:

*

Les affections somatiques à forme psychiatrique. Si le cas est
relativement peu fréquent, il sera néanmoins nécessaire de faire un
examen médical général avant de poser un diagnostic. De même, chez les
personnes gées, on aura tendance à donner un tableau de démence alors
qu'il peut s'agir d'une simple déshydratation (accès au dossier "démence
sénile"). Le facteur biologique exogène est supérieur dans ce cas, au
facteur psychique endogène. Il faut alors remarquer les signes associés,
comme la souffrance, le changement de couleur, les troubles somatiques,
la confusion (accès au dossier "confusion mentale")... Dans ces formes
d'affections, notons par exemple les affections cérébrales organiques,
donnant des "psychoses organiques" comme l'épilepsie (accès au dossier
"épilepsie"), tumeur cérébrale, traumatisme, trouble vasculaire
cérébral...), les affections générales (neuro endocriniennes, maladies
générales comme les fièvres par infection ou forte grippe..) et enfin
les intoxications aiguës (tentative de suicide, prise de stupéfiants,
inhalations accidentelles d'oxyde de carbone, alcool, delirium tremens,
prise d'amphétamines, d'éther, de médicaments, de "coupe faim",
d'anti-tuberculeux, de digitaliques, de psychotropes, de barbituriques...).
*

Les affections psychiatriques non psychotiques. Il s'agira donc
de névroses ou de sujet "border line". On rencontre ainsi les
"psychoses" puerpérales qui est un délire aigu non psychotique après
l'accouchement (accès au dossier "psychose puerpérale"), les hystéries
aiguës (accès au dossier "hystérie"), l'hypocondrie aiguë, les névroses
obsessionnelles (accès au dossier "névrose obsessionnelle") etc... dont
les aspects sont parfois délirants.
*

La bouffée délirante aiguë (ou BDA). Elle pourra prendre toutes
les formes (par opposition aux délires monomorphes), et aura donc des
aspects très variables. On oppose la BDA au délire chronique car ce
dernier est assez pauvre et très rigide, évoluant dans une seule
direction. La BDA est globale, et touche toute la personnalité. Le sujet
adhère alors totalement à son délire (à l'inverse du délire chronique)
et son état affectif retranscrit bien le ressenti. On note un trouble de
l'espace et du temps, et l'oubli une fois le délire fini. La BDA est une
atteinte superficielle, qui n'altère pas la structure interne, quand
bien même garde t-elle un aspect spectaculaire. L'évolution est très
favorable, sauf possibilités de récidives sur le même mode ou
aggravation. (accès au dossier "bouffée délirante"). Notons que
l'aggravation tend à prouver à posteriori que le diagnostic de BDA
n'était pas approprié (il pouvait alors s'agir de schizophrénie à son
début).
*

Les poussées aiguës de psychose aiguë. La seule structure que
l'on peut qualifier à la fois de psychotique et à caractère aigu est la
psychose maniaco dépressive (ou PMD). On note deux aspects: Le délire
mélancolique aigu (accès au dossier "mélancolie"), et l'accès maniaque
aigu. Ce sont des moments aigus, mais une PMD peut ne jamais
extérioriser de délires ou d'accès. Lors des délires, on note un
négativisme complet par bouffées aiguës (accès au dossier "psychose
maniaco dépressive").
*

Les poussées aiguës de psychose chronique. On peut observer, sur
le coup, une décompensation par exemple qui, parce qu'on ne connaît rien
de l'anamnèse, prend une forme aiguë. C'est un délire aigu fait
d'étrangeté et de discordance dans les cas de schizophrénie. Ca peut
être aussi une poussée aiguë chez un paranoïaque, ou une psychose
"guérie" (maladie dont l'évolution a été raccourcie par les progrès de
la psychiatrie) qui nécessite un suivi relationnel car seule l'évolution
a été stoppée mais la pathologie n'a été que stabilisée, malheureusement
provisoirement.



La notion de délire aigu a l'avantage de se limiter à un diagnostic de
symptôme, lorsque par exemple on ne connaît pas tout de l'histoire de la
pathologie. C'est un repère (et une précaution) que seule la nosographie
Française s'est donnée.





Les délires chroniques :



Il y a ici une notion de temps, quantitativement et qualitativement.
Pratiquement, si le délire est chronique, il ne diminue pas. Il ne
s'agit plus d'idée délirante, mais d'une construction, un système
délirant institué, et infiltré dans la personnalité. Le soin consistera
seulement à "effacer" le délire. Mais paradoxalement, le délire apparaît
ici délimité, petit, bien qu'intouchable. Le sujet ne change pas et sa
personnalité reste apparemment indemne, jusqu'à ce qu'un affect soit
plus gravement atteint.



Mécanisme au niveau purement psychiatrique :

Interprétation

Illusion

Hallucination

Mécanisme au niveau analytique :

Déni

Clivage

Projection



Dans les délires chroniques, nous avons :

*

Les délires systématisés complets (ou paranoïaques). Ils sont
pris dans le caractère de la personnalité, avec cohérence et clarté. En
général, le délire apparaît lentement. Dans ces formes de délires,
notons le délire de revendication, avec thème de préjudice et
d'injustice, d'une manière très logique et rationnelle (inventeurs,
idéalistes, sinistrés...), le délire passionnel (délire érotomaniaque,
de jalousie, sensitif... se présente comme un dépressif, discrètement
persécutoire. C'est le délire de Kretschmer, entre paranoïa et
dépression), et enfin le délire d'interprétation, avec décryptage quasi
systématique de tous les signes extérieurs et intérieurs (délire de
filiation...). (accès au dossier "paranoïa").
*

Les délires systématisés partiels. Le délire concerne dans ce cas
une partie de la personnalité. Notons ainsi la psychose hallucinatoire
chronique ou PHC (accès au dossier "psychose hallucinatoire chronique"):
Le sujet a un système limité d'hallucinations concernant l'un ou
plusieurs des cinq sens. Par moments, il y a la survenue de ces
hallucinations, avec un attachement et une fixation dans une idée quasi
"obsédante". Le sujet paraît presque indifférent mais il y a néanmoins
une participation affective. Le délire peut rester enkysté, ou
s'aggraver. L'affect se met alors à déborder, le passage à l'acte
devient possible. La PHC est une étape quasi intermédiaire entre un
système organisé (de type paranoïaque) et un système non organisé (de
type schizophrénique). La PHC est néanmoins une forme rare, mais
masquée. Les hallucinations auditives, tactiles ou profondes, sont
celles dont la fréquence est la plus importante. Dans les délires
systématisés partiels, notons aussi la paraphrénie (ou délire
fantastique): Les sujets qui en sont atteint ne consultent que rarement.
Ils ont un délire partiel à base de constructions d'idées polymorphes et
riches, tout en conservant un aspect réel adapté. Ces personnes ont des
convictions absurdes, en spectateurs amusés de leurs propres délires, et
dont les thèmes sont néanmoins souvent connus (templiers, atlantide...).
Il n'y a pas de sens apparent, d'utilité évidente. Il y a par contre un
risque d'aggravation en se désagrégeant, pour se rapprocher de la
schizophrénie.
*

Les délires non systématisés (ou paranoïdes). (Ne pas confondre
avec le délire paranoïaque, qui lui est systématisé). Le délire est ici
incohérent et polymorphe. Les délires non systématisés concernent
principalement les schizophrènes (accès au dossier "schizophrénie"), où
tout est double, ambigu, en opposition (le paranoïaque par contre, est
UN et absolu).



Conclusion



Toutes les catégories citées ci-dessus sont importantes à connaître mais
il faut aussi savoir que les limites, au niveau pratique, ne sont pas
formelles.

Les paranoïaques et les schizophrènes ont en commun une perte, un vide
immense qui a été reconstruit par un délire chronique. Le paranoïaque
est parvenu à reconstruire solidement et logiquement. Le schizophrène
n'a pas cette maîtrise, cette logique.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote:


Or, perhaps you'd like to explain why you alone, AFAIK, have been
the
only RAO poster to flame other people based on their religious
background.


I guess you missed the dozens (hundreds?) of posts where the
nutball
posting as "George M. Middius" flamed, mocked and taunted Arny
Krueger
for being a Christian (or, in Middius-ese, a "Kristian")?

Answer those questions, before you ask questions of others,
hypocrite.

You are the real hypocrite, BJ, and overlooking the vile behavior
of
the non-existant (i.e., "sockpuppet") "George M. Middius" proves
the
point.

:-(


You have yet to convince anybody other than yourself, sockpuppet,
that
George M. Middius is a sockpuppet.


I think you are lying, BJ. Others have said the same, and more than
once.





Your listing of various sources of
information which you can't prove you ever checked, was a joke.


Try this, BJ:

http://www.locateamerica.com


type in George Middius, then hit search.....


What's that???? No results???? So....."George Middius" is a real person
who doesn't drive, doesn't vote, doesn't have a vehicle registered in
his name, has no bank accounts,no credit cards, no credit history and
has never owned any real estate? Tell me another one, BJ, but give me a
few minutes to stop laughing.....

Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman a =E9crit :
Lionel wrote:

Lionel a =E9crit :


pyjamarama wrote:





Source: Israel Defense Forces Web site




LOL ! I see that you know how to chose your sources. )

Reply






=A9 2004 Google


That laughter and accusation about "picking sources" indicates

where

Lionel stands on this issue.


Should I've believed WMD story since it was emanating from your

president ?

I note that you have quoted one of the most famous democrat
posting

on

RAO. IMHO This choice doesn't honor you.

I don't know if you will have convinced somebody with that but
IMHO

you

have failed


Your opinion is worthless. You've tried to equate the
assassination of
Yassin with the killing of civilians by suicide bombers. Even
McKelvy
called you on that idiotic attempt of yours to equate a clearly
military target with a clearly civilian target.

But you have said many time that McKelvy is an idiot an a
pathological liar.



However, on this particular issue, he was able to see through your
prejudices and correctly evaluate your support of Hamas.


You've failed to convince anybody that you're not significantly
prejudiced in favor of the Palestinians and more, specifically, the
military operations of Hamas.

That's false I have convinced Sander, he wrote that to you at least

He didn't say you weren't in favor of the Palestinians. He simply said
that you meant to say that one type of violence leads to another. If
that was your intention, you should have said so, and should not have
tried to directly equate the killing of Sheik Yassin with the killing
of women and children in buses.

2
times (do you have memory problems ?) and many other participants of
the
thread...

Perhaps you'd like to explain your use of the term "Jewish zealot"
over
and over again in your posts?

Do you mean that the Zealots was not Jewish ?

You were not talking about Biblical history. You were using the term
in direct reference to myself and Art Sackman. You obviously are now
trying to avoid admitting that you did this and had no evidence to
suggest that either he or I are "zealots". You just don't like our
politics and disagreements with Krueger and a few others.



Or, perhaps you'd like to explain why you alone, AFAIK, have been
the
only RAO poster to flame other people based on their religious
background.

That's obviously wrong I have read many message in which Middius is
mocking both Art Sackman and Arnold Krueger because of their
religion.


Do you known what Niddius' religion happens to be? You can find it the
Google record. Then you'll have to retract the sstatement above, or be
exposed as a liar. Also, Krueger is the one that makes a point of
talking about his church attendance. All Middius has done is point out
the hypocrisy inherent in claiming to be particularly religious and
then going on a public NG and flaming away for over 7 years. I'd
suggest you read a thread entitled "Have You Had A Bad Krueger
Experience" to get a better historical perspective on what has *really*
happened on RAO.

Oh, and speaking of religion, do a Google search under the terms Jeff
Adams and Krueger. As many of us recall, Jeff had a clerical
background and tried, unsuccessfully, on numerous occasions to use
Biblical scripture to convince Krueger that his personal attack habits
were not in keeping with his professed Christianity.

IMHO, there is a big difference between questioning somebody's
religious beliefs because of their online behavior, and using terms
like "Jewish zealot" which are meaningless when applied to any RAO
posters. And, when coupled with your obvious pro-Palestinian
prejudices, strongly suggest that you are antisemitic.

Answer those questions, before you ask questions of others,
hypocrite.

This has been done.



Do you feel happy to have quoted a message from pyjamarama ?


The point of that posting was to illustrate your response to it. You
laughed at it, implying that you think the credible news story in the
Detroit Free Press was a joke. It wasn't.


Do you believe everything written on the "Israel Defense Forces Web
site" ?



I haven't read it. There is a difference between a credible newspaper
report and reports contained on the web sites of combattants. Do you
subscribe to Al Jazeera and believe the propaganda it spreads?

For the record, I've always favored a negotiated settlement between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. Remember that it was Arafat who
rejected an offer for peace that most objective observers thought was
reasonable, He walked away from the negotiating table at Camp David
and the Intifada started soon after that. You can't deny that piece of
history. If he had not done so, the Palestinians could have had a
state for several years now, instead of more casualties, corruption,
and a failed economy. Also, history will record who started almost all
of the wars in the israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hint: It wasn't
Israel. "Land for peace" has worked pretty well for both Egypt and
Jordan. But the Palestinians have rejected that - espcially, Hamas.
The rest is history.









=20
...Hypocrite.

wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
wrote:
Bruce J. Richman wrote:


Or, perhaps you'd like to explain why you alone, AFAIK, have
been
the
only RAO poster to flame other people based on their religious
background.


I guess you missed the dozens (hundreds?) of posts where the
nutball
posting as "George M. Middius" flamed, mocked and taunted Arny
Krueger
for being a Christian (or, in Middius-ese, a "Kristian")?

Answer those questions, before you ask questions of others,
hypocrite.

You are the real hypocrite, BJ, and overlooking the vile behavior
of
the non-existant (i.e., "sockpuppet") "George M. Middius" proves
the
point.

:-(


You have yet to convince anybody other than yourself, sockpuppet,
that
George M. Middius is a sockpuppet.


I think you are lying, BJ. Others have said the same, and more than
once.





Your listing of various sources of
information which you can't prove you ever checked, was a joke.


Try this, BJ:

http://www.locateamerica.com


type in George Middius, then hit search.....


What's that???? No results???? So....."George Middius" is a real
person
who doesn't drive, doesn't vote, doesn't have a vehicle registered in
his name, has no bank accounts,no credit cards, no credit history and
has never owned any real estate? Tell me another one, BJ, but give me
a
few minutes to stop laughing.....

The only ones that will be laughing will be those that see through the
numerous lies of you and Krueger.

Plenty of people don't drive and/or don't vote, and/or don't own a car.
You don't have access to financial information about him such as bank
accounts or credit history, unless you want to claim that you can hack
through encrypted information not commonly available. And whether he
has or has not owned real estate is not a proof of identity, either.

Now, we'll all sit back and laugh at your silly attempts to claim
you've proved anything. The only thing you've managed to prove is that
you are afraid to post under your real name.

LOL !!!! (on behalf of the majority of RAO readers that can probably
see through your rather simplistic assertions).