[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> When a catchphrase like "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is picked up by   
   >> various members of a group, it's a strong indicator that there is more   
   >> than a grain of truth behind it.   
   >   
   > Yet if all the "various members" using a term are tied to the person who   
   > began using it (whether PJR or yourself), it is evidence of nothing more   
   > than those ties.   
      
   No, George.  It's evidence that you lie so damn much that everyone sees   
   you as a pathological liar.   
      
   >> In terms you might better be able to understand, I am not just asking   
   >> you why you lie so much -- I am pointing out that others here have   
   >> accused you of doing just that.   
   >   
   >>>> Why I revived it in PJR's absence, George   
   >>>> immediately began tit-for-tatting it back to me.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, Lying Michael; I don't use that phrase. Whenever I catch you in a   
   >>> lie I simply note it by calling you Lying Michael, and move on.   
   >>   
   >> Really, George.  You're acting like a butthurt little boy again.   
   >   
   > Note to self: the subject continues to deny he is engaging in   
   > transference.   
      
   You don't know that transference is, George.   
      
   >> When I pose the rhetorical question of "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?",   
   >> you respond in typical tit-for-tat fashion by addressing me as "Lying   
   >> Michael."   
   >   
   > No, Lying Michael. The only time I call you Lying Michael is when you   
   > have told a lie in the paragraph I am immediately responding to - it   
   > makes them easier to find, when someone does a search.   
      
   Which is meaningless.  Every time I ask you why you lie so much is taken   
   as a lie by you, so you always respond with a "lying Michael."   
   Regardless of how you slice it, the end result is still the same.   
      
   >> An adult would choose to refute the point I'd claimed they'd been lying   
   >> about -- assuming that my accusation was untrue.   
   >   
   > Indeed it does. Which is why every paragraph I write with that uses the   
   > term "Lying Michael" contains a refutation of what the lie I am pointing   
   > to.   
      
   A refutation involves presenting evidence to the contrary, George.  Not   
   merely a denial of what someone has said.   
      
   >> Refutation goes a much   
   >> farther way to establishing one's innocence than yet another variation   
   >> on IKYABWAI.   
   >   
   > That is correct.   
   >   
   >> And where is the archival evidence to back your statement up?   
   >   
   > Do a search on the group for "Lying Michael". For older statements, do a   
   > search on the group for "Pedodragon lie."   
      
   All you've managed to say is that you call me "Lying Michael" when you   
   claim that I have lied.  You then cite the previous statement I'd made   
   as the lie you are referring to.  You do not even so much as attempt to   
   disprove my so-called lie.   
      
   Labeling a statement as a lie is not refutation.  It is a variant of   
   IKYABWAI.   
      
   >> One only has to look at this particular exchange to see that you are   
   >> simply repeating back what I said to you, and redirecting it back at me   
   >> (IKYABWAI).   
   >   
   >> As previously noted, you repeatedly show yourself to be incapable of   
   >> expressing a single original thought.   
   >>   
   >>>> I also find George's description of how abused children are prone to   
   >>>> becoming lying adults telling -- as George also had an abusive parent   
   >>>> (actually both of George's parents were abusive).   
   >>>   
   >>> No, Lying Michael, that is not what I said (which is probably why you   
   >>> tried snipping it.) I said it's reasonable to think that all children   
   >>> try lying to escape punishment at some time. Whether they continue it,   
   >>> as children and later on as adults, is contingent on how well it worked   
   >>> for them.   
   >>   
   >> Why do you lie so much, Dunce?   
   >>   
   >> Don't you realize that I can easily reference the statements you've made   
   >> in *this* thread?   
   >>   
   >> Here is what you said, and I quote:   
   >>   
   >> "Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape   
   >> punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad   
   >> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at   
   >> least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie   
   >> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie   
   >> successfully, and escape punishment, more than once."   
   >   
   > Exactly. "Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to   
   > escape punishment" (not just abused children, but all children) -- and   
   > whether they learn to be liars depends on how successful their attempts   
   > at lying as chilsewn were.   
      
   What about this pronouncement which appears within the same quote: "and   
   an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it [and] learn how to   
   do it successfully."   
      
      
   >>>> It seems that George   
   >>>> has finally answered PJR's ongoing question of "Why do you lie so much,   
   >>>> Dunce."   
   >>>   
   >>> I've answered that question many a time, usually with "Why do you   
   >>> project so much, Piggy?" - the same phrase I use on you when   
   >>> you copy it. Of course, with him (and with you) it's as much conscious   
   >>> preemption as unconscious projection, but   
   >>> there was no point trying to explain all that to him.   
   >>   
   >> You are wrong, George.  It's merely the recognition of something that is   
   >> obvious to everyone here   
   >   
   > If you still had "everyone" (Team Monkey and your assorted Bandar-Log)   
   > here in this group, they would be quoting and sharing your post back and   
   > forth, and that would be all people would be able to read. However, as   
   > you have already noted, "everyone" is not "here" - they have all gone   
   > away to your facebook group, leaving just you, me, and my colleague.   
      
   We were talking about a statement made by PJR, George.  I said that the   
   frequency with which he used it directly corresponded to the frequency   
   of your lies which prompted its use.  You claimed that it was a   
   preemptive tactic to somehow stop you from calling attention to any lie   
   that he supposedly made.   
      
   What has the make-believe "Bandar-Log" got to do with it?  Or the fact   
   that you and your Donkey are the only people here?   
      
   >> -- that you are a pathological liar.  In one   
   >> post in this thread, you claimed that abused children were prone to   
   >> becoming liars in adult life.  When I referred to your statement, you   
   >> denied it, claiming that you'd only said that all children lied at one   
   >> time or another.  I only had to return to the beginning of this thread   
   >> to pull your original statement and post it here for all to see.   
   >   
   > That is the post we are now discussing. However, However, Lying Michael,   
   > the statement you found and put back in the thread (thank you for doing   
   > that) says exactly what I claimed it does; while your paraphrase was   
   > shown to be another lie and misrepresentation.   
      
   You stated: "and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it   
   [and] learn how to do it successfully."   
      
   >> You lie.   
   >> Not once.  Not twice.  But over and over again.   
   >>   
   >> The sad part is that I don't think you're even aware that you are doing   
   >> it.  Lying has become such an ingrained part of your personality   
   >> (including lying to yourself), that you subconsciously falsify your   
   >> perception of yourself, and others, on a continuous basis.   
   >   
   > Now, all that sounds like things I have said about you. But rather than   
   > slip into the preemption game by caling it IKYABWAI, I think it would be   
   > more productive to simply note that you're engaging in transference   
   > (trying to analyze your analyst) and move on.   
      
   OMFG!  You are misusing the word.  Stop it.   
      
   That is COUNTERTRANSFERENCE.   
      
   Transference is when one projects characteristics of a third party onto   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)