Sadistic superego

Après L Orage wrote:I think people can decide for themselves whether this is a lie or not.

That's ironic (if not disingenuous) when you posted a sound byte referring only to the part that supported your position. How do people decide anything if they are unfamiliar with the context, or that there is merit in the rebuttal?

That's the answer to your initial question about why I (to you) "defend" him. There seems to be a prevalent repeating the same assertion which seems biased like that. I don't know why it is. I don't care. I just point it out when the topic arises.

I do agree this one has some "there" there. It's not as cut and dried as the dog-pile suggests. I actually think his rebuttal is more problematic. If he wants to use that degree (which, at this point, is more for vanity and IMO detracts from his work) that's fine. But, he could be clearer on the rebuttal page. He only implies that the problem is one of accreditation when he says the university "is now accredited."

If I were him, I would explain it as: In 1982 accreditation wasn't as required. It seemed like a legitimate credential being licensed by the state. This was confirmed to me when, two years later diploma mills were investigated and closed. My university was not affected. Today, my university is accredited, but that accreditation does not extend to degrees granted in 1982.

I think the way he says it on the rebuttal page is like he's deliberately trying to omit that distinction between "authorized, licensed post-secondary education by the State of California's then-stringent requirements" vs "accredited by a private agency." His rebuttal seems to avoid that distinction, simply saying he university wasn't affliliated with one in a different state which was "authorized and licensed" by much lower standards. (The one normally referred to as a diploma mill.). He kind of addresses what it was *not* instead of getting to the core of the issue, why it was considered legitimate (as a lessor credential) at the time.

But, that's what you expect from a narcissist. And, it makes the story so much more understandable instead of just reciting 3 words to continue the "dog pile" mentality. I'm definitely glad to understand this topic better.

I think the way he says it on the rebuttal page is like he's deliberately trying to omit that distinction between "authorized, licensed post-secondary education by the State of California's then-stringent requirements" vs "accredited by a private agency." His rebuttal seems to avoid that distinction, simply saying he university wasn't affliliated with one in a different state which was "authorized and licensed" by much lower standards. (The one normally referred to as a diploma mill.). He kind of addresses what it was *not* instead of getting to the core of the issue, why it was considered legitimate (as a lessor credential) at the time.

I think we actually agree now, Truth. I feel like I understand the topic better as well. And this is partly thanks to your digging. Do not think my opinion did not evolve during this exchange, cause it did evolve.

I also feel like you are implying that I am disingenuous and that I am contributing to the "dogpile" mentality and I am guessing that getting angry at me is a way to distract yourself against the pain that this kind of topic brings up. In other words, I feel like it is possible that you concentrate on the bits in my posts that seem negative in order to protect yourself from the painful feelings that arise when your ethics are put in question (even though I never meant that, I am just assuming that is what you feel I am doing).

Après L Orage wrote:I also feel like you are implying that I am disingenuous

As you know, I didn't imply it, I said it.

You asked me to explain a "NEED" to be defensive. At the same time making a serious allegation. That looked like a perfect opportunity for you to answer your own question. And, you did. More than I expected.

I became somewhat annoyed when it appeared you didn't recognize your responsibility for the slur you made. I wasn't looking to do your homework to prove your point. But, it was also ironic that you were confirming that you merely repeated something. That's exactly what I mentioned when I said complaints seemed to be more of a self-perpetuating nature -- without a need to understand the basis of the complaints (because that's when we can find common ground and speak with more understanding).

However, yes, I thought it was contemptuous when you selectively quoted a video in a way to promulgate the slur, not the truth. That conduct is not something I would be proud of. If you are, that's fine. But, now you know why I chime in occasionally to mention how the complaints seem to be self-perpetuating in nature, and perhaps attributable to something that has as much (or more) to do with the perpetuators than the person they don't like.

I believe those are normal reactions. Implying I am engaging in transference or internalizing anger (as a result of my "need to defend" being demonstrated) seems gaslight'ee to me. Frankly, it puts a perspective on your comments about my reply to the non's thread, when I simply replied to you in good faith with more details you had asked for (after realizing what I had described based upon an assumption was actually what you meant.).

I'm sorry, but that's all I'm seeing right now. I'm certainly not averse to sharing the most unsavory elements of my self-awareness. As with anything, I suppose time will tell.

I'm curious how you believe a normal person would feel about that. Did you expect to be patted on the back for contributing to the misunderstanding I was talking about? Or, just go along with the dog-pile mentality?

It's possible I'm more sensitive to him simply because Ns are known to have a greater empathy for themselves.

But, maybe I just see the kind of obvious self-fulfilling opposition that I mentioned (and you demonstrated). Just like the non's thread could have been more simply explained at face value (within it's context)?

I don't think I have much more to contribute to you. It does seem to be about you. If you could be more direct in the future, that might help. I will jump in wherever I believe I can add some insight.

Ouch, I begin to feel what it feels like for people who get close to you. Still, good luck with your recovery.