Crazy is a bad thing? That’s where I’ve been going wrong!
Damn SIATD, and I thought you had morals.
Hello F(r)iends,
Hilarious!
Nice job there, Psyque…err Pees.
SIATD was in on it, so was James#2, and PG.
With your ability to see behind the conspiracy we will soon discover who really killed JFK… oh wait, someone beat you to it!
{all in good fun}
-Thirst
when did this happen? And if you guys don’t mind asking, why did it happen either? I mean i know she’s a bit 
sometimes but, she’s no PoR…right? 
Yes I have met PG. No you may not infer that.
See!.. Now you’re playing the game. You do pack a lot into a paragraph as far as innuendo goes - at least that goes without saying. I haven’t even sat down and responded, and already you’ve taken 5 steps towards defining the whole landscape in your own peculiar and - let’s be honest - f$@cked up way. It just makes me want to hold up my hands and say ‘why bother’?
And you know I’m still asking that question, even after I pause to consider that some people may actually be persuaded, and have been pursuaded, by your approach. Probably this thought has occupied me the most when I consider the kind of case that you represent. On the other hand, this isn’t all that often.
There is something about it though which I do find fascinating.
…
In any case, I am afforded the luxury of not giving a shit what you think, because this is not a real-world situation, and so the only consequence it can have is when I personally read what you say, and evaluate its validity. So why don’t you get your act together, and hit me with the real deal already? I don’t have the patience of a saint. In the end though, I do have the apathy of several Eichmanns, as far as you’re concerned. I would perhaps get more worked up about all of this, but you know you just don’t really phase me all that much. I am the lazy guy asleep in the hammock, and you are the fly buzzing around my ear.
In other words then, I don’t care about what you think - for two reasons. One, I don’t find it compelling. And two, I am for the most not forced to respond. This is one fact which you had right all along, and which I acknowledged as such, though somewhat vaguely.
The problem is that you just can’t seem to handle a fact without turning it into something false.
Regards,
James
Oh My Gawwwd!! How could I have misse THAT!!! It was staring me in the face like a cats anus.
(Hi P & Q 
)
James,
I was somewhat interested in what you would say, vis a vie: your last message.
I can appreciate where you’re coming from but as I read the post I couldn’t help but think “Yeah Yeah… but…”
You made it out like you don’t feel compelled to respond to Psyque, but you wouldn’t have responded to anyone about this, no matter how nicely or elegantly they were to inquire. Not that you have to, it’s just funny that you would try and pin it on Psyque’s ‘technique’.
Me and Psyque seem to share the passion for getting to the bottom of certain things and so I’ll admit I am somewhat interested in this whole thing now that PG has been banned.
You’re interesting in that you hide, you dodge and manuevre while P is all offense.
The cat is out of the bag now though, whatever happened probably wasn’t all that exciting cause no offense but… you’re not. But here you are making it exciting. That’s why I like you.
Ex-actly.
To which the correct response of course is: How do you know that I haven’t responded to other people about this? It’s interesting what you take for granted here. But my question takes the ground from beneath this whole paragraph.
And of course I am going to "pin it" on Psyque’s technique. He, like many other of us, can use the same words as someone else to ask an entirely different question. This is kind of like the rhetorical equivalent of the Schlieffen Plan, if you see what I’m saying. Is it deliberate? Well, if you listen to Psyque then he does nothing without a reason. At the least there is some degree of deliberation.
…
Also don’t forget that you’re speculating. You have your own brand of innuendo - it is something like Good Cop to Psyque’s Bad Cop. It’s a little bit more agnostic, picking out little things and making gentle suggestions. But there is a definite simularity, which is your way of using layered language to convey half of the message of what you are saying, whilst at the same time professing a ‘straight-shooter’ mentality. This is another way of saying that you know how to play the game, but sometimes you think you’re not playing the game, when in fact you are. Though by saying this perhaps I am giving you too little credit.
Psyque, on the other hand, is a little bit different; in that he thinks he is the game, and that the line between playtime and seriousness is somehow a direct function of his own argumentative position. Kind of like Good and Evil being direct functions of What God Does. Come to think of it, I believe I have just provided ‘Psyque-like’ conclusive evidence that Psyque has a Messiah Complex. 
Regards,
James
I’m sure you’ve responded to some degree or another. One similar to your last post if I had to take a guess…
I don’t like the PMs though… for the reasons you came close to with this:
Anyways you’ve dodged the issue again, which isn’t to say I’m surprised… I gotta give you some credit, you do love to save face.
This is an easy thing to do though…
Has anyone counted the number of times Psyque inquired as to PG’s physical appearence? There is an underlying tone here that belies an attempt at discovering a conspiracy.
Whereas I joked earlier about (basically) a love triangle the more I think about what is really going on here the more I believe that what we have is a love rhombazoid.
I don’t really see how a love for trying to figure things out equates to a love for (one of) the individual parts to a mystery.
I was never good at logic though.
Older man asking for pictures of a younger female over the internet… seriously OG, aren’t the simplest explanations the best?
It’s a big jump
And the conspiracy about James and PG isn’t? Why do you insist one be logical but not the other.
Here is my conspiracy theory. Psyque is still upset at James for something that occurred here at ILP and is using James’ recent misfortune to capitalize (to cause certain people to doubt Jame’s veracity).
If James is PG then James is a liar. If James is a liar then maybe he has lied about other things which would make look pretty bad. Not only that, but would call into question James’ own rather pointed assessment of Mr. pees.
So you see, by means of this convoluted ad hom played as conspiracy theory for the uninitiated, psyque gains some measure of revenge.
As proof I give you this thread itself. The vitroilic thinly veiled contempt, the fact that Pees keeps focusing on james (forgotten about SIATD already).
Again, arent the simplest explanations the best?
Well… James has admitted that they met. She snaps and badtalks James, and now we find out she’s been banned.
I doubt whatever it is that happened with J2 and PG is worth this much effort but like I said earlier, thus is the game, not knowing is why it’s fun - this is pretty much the backbone of philosophy. I think Psyque just really likes to play as me and you obviously do too with our involvement in this thread. Everyone likes to solve stuff. It seems to me by your logic you could have some harboured anger towards Psyque and you are using this is as an avenue, just as you accused Psyque of doing by pointing out the PG thing here.
I don’t know obviously, but it doesn’t seem to unlikely that Psyque simply likes to solve ‘mysteries’. I think most people mistake his enthusiasm or persistentness with anger. I very much doubt he’s sitting there with steam coming out of his ears because some 20 year old kid said a couple things. He’s just an intense guy.
I suppose that is fair enough, however, I know exactly those I had, shall we say, angry exchanges with over the years here… feel free to check through my posts to see if Psyque and I have ever tangled horns about anything. I can recall two interactions with him, one was advice he gave me concerning an abnormal psychology course, and the other was when he laughed at a joke I made about Plato.
This is the problem with just assuming anything… it means nothing.
I will say that, it is obvious to us both that something of a personal nature is occurring in this thread. You see one source, I see another. It wasn’t until I read James’ reply that I remembered that he and Psyque have a history of sorts, which, upon reflection, called into question the entire motive of this thread.
While I do not know Psyque well enough to either like or dislike him, I do feel he is being dishonest about his intent, whether it is he likes young girls, or despises James, or he is James… that is all incidental.
Fair enough.
Just to pull up my armchair for a second: I think James gets a backlash of Psyque’s contrétemps with Dunamis back in the day. Psyque has a ‘type’ I think, which just really gets under his skin. Couple that with a seemingly endless energy for pointless tit-for-tat, and you have a recipe for disaster just waiting to happen. Car-Crash Souflé.
I think there is a clash of sorts between psychology and philosophy.
Sometimes I get the impression that each wonders the use of each other and thus we see a square off between the words that are written and the intentions behind them. The ‘heavyweights’ from either side so to speak.
I personally think it’s funny that in most cases psychology seems to prevail in the sense that Psyque can literally get anyone to start talking and then we hop the fence and see that ‘prevailing’ has a liquified meaning.
It’s all very funny…
Problem solved in that case. Psychology and philosophy - both useless.