On 14 Aug 2002 at 21:37, Blunderov wrote:
> joedees@bellsouth.net Wed 2002/08/14 05:55 PM wrote:
> "And you would attribute sanity to a man who would drop chemical
> weapons on his neighboring countries and upon minorities in his own,
> who would attempt to annex another nation and then, when a third
> country succeeded in expelling him, attempt to assasinate that
> country's president after he had left office, who would, during that attempted
> annexation and ensuing battle, attempt to provoke a counterattack from
> a nuclear power he has sworn to destroy by raining SCUD missiles down
> upon them just in an attempt to gain sympathy, and who would offer a
> 25k bounty to the family of every suicide bomber who attacks that
> nuclear power's citizens? You would be in the vast minority, even
> among psychological professionals."
>
> [Blunderov]
> I'm no authority on what is sane and what is not. Just the same, it
> does strike me that the behaviour to which you refer might just as
> easily be the work of an extremely angry man as it might be that of an
> insane one. Perhaps we might canvas the opinion of the Kirkasaurus?
> I'm not sure that he doesn't consider everyone to be insane to some
> extent anyway, but I must not put words in his mouth.
>
> What bothers me is the haunting melody of another thread in which the
> propensity for those in authority to declare their opponents insane
> was fleetingly aired. This is such a stereotypical response that it
> should be viewed with suspicion wherever it is encountered IMO.
>
Whether he is clinical or simply so enraged that he would perpetrate a
nuclear terror attack, the result is the same - and insane. "Mad" does
have two meanings; perhaps he is so much the first that it has driven
him into the second.
>
> Of course he may be as mad as a March hare.
>
> But me, I can tell a hawk from a handsaw I think.
>
> Fond regards
>
Likewise.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT