Alright, so here it is. First of all ... Do I care? No. Do I have the time? No. Is it worth it? No. Can I think of at least one reason why not to? Yes. Does that change anything? No. Do I dislike Russell Cox? No.
Second, even if Russell Cox did not direct his comments at me nor my fellow poster's it is still required to defend the peace.
Finally, anyone not interested in this discussion needn't read on. It's just a few people trying to clear something up amongst themselves.
Euphemism's that Russell Cox has used in his 1st posting on this particular thread:[list:66d9e634fe]"You people are the whiniest bunch of children I have ever seen." Of course we are not children. Of course we are not whining. And of course he hasn't seen us. Note that through the use of you people he has directed this comment to everyone previous to his postings whether they know themselves to be included or not.
"If you were all trumpet players you'd refuse to buy an F because you bought a C, and you believe you are entitled to it" Here he attempts to rationalize his idea by making everyone into trumpet players. Furthermore, his use of directed commands show that he is saying that everyone, as a trumpet player, would do as he said. He is not letting there be the possibility that even if everyone were trumpet players that some of them might not do as he explains. Using Euphemisms can be dangerous. It is a way of sterilizing the subject so that it conforms to one's own rules and then putting it to a test that works only by those other set of rules.
"Grow. Up."This is likely a dissassociated reference to his Euphemism that "you people" are children. This is a method of concreting an Euphemism subtly in a disconnected manner than that with the first instance so as to sneek it by and try to get it in subconsciously. Honestly it works very well and is done often by those with many layers of encrypted history. And in some cases there is nothing destructive about it. But here I find his continued persistant analogy that "you people"are children who are whining and must grow up, to be the kind of comments one should reserve for no one. Not even professionals use such terminology to help others. In this case it is simply a further example of beratement.
"you're not entitled the world"Of course I don't think anyone thinks that. However, Russell's subconsience is likely resounding some fortified previous conversations with others, and of family, in which this Euphemism was used whenever a person desired something not within the realm of what the offerer is/was willing to give. However, the use of this Euphemism continues to be a disrespectful way to treat others who understand clearly this is not true. Such Euphemisms can be picked up very early on in life. Children learn to use them as a method of connecting and explaining something that they do not understand. At such an early and impressionable age these expressions can grow unmonitored into adult-hood and wind up being used in general sociative communication. It is liekly better for one to dispense with analogous speech in order to not appear cryptic. Euphemism-laiden speech makes the other person on the other end of the communicating have the burden of deciphering the underlying meaning of what a person is saying.
"The people that want MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE make me sick"Of course we do not make him sick. I doubt he is perched on his stomache over a bed with a bucket under his mouth. here we have the use of Euphemism to try to communicate an internal feeling/thought which might have been harder and less obstinate to explain otherwise. The connection here with how society decrypts this Euphemism is more common and as such is more excuseable. In other words it is not necessary really to understand the person much further to decrypt this one because it is a highly common part of speech. But, none-the-less it is another example of the frequence in which Russell Cox depends on Euphemisms to communicate, thereby obligating the particpant into decrypting his speech. I do not see anythign wrong with this Euphamism except that it illuminates others to the fact that Russell Cox uses language sonsisting of gross refenrences in his speech. It is only reflective of his mind, not of his character. And this one is tolerable as most people have used it once before and quicly, almost fluently, understand it's meaning. But I must reiterate, that Russell Cox is burdening the participant with needing to adhere to his own set of rules in order to speak with him. It is an unconscious demand, and in some cases a result of a possible superiority complex, a condition that I'll save for another discussion in another century.
"The next thing we'll probably see is the *SAME* whiners over and over again trying to con Herb"Again a subtle attempt at fortifying a previous Euphemism regarding "you people"being children. Also, here we find some very complex psycho-jargon which once decrypted reveals some interesting thigns about Russell Cox. Specifically the use of teh phrasesame whiners...trying to con Herb. Forget that here he is even contradicting his own rules. He has setup one set of rules for the decryption of one meaning and than encased another inside the original. It's actually quite interesting. On the one hand he is referring now directly to the whiners, but he is using a Euphemism which indirectly calls the whiners "con-artists", or perhaps he meant us to decrypt it as "theives" (only he can know this). But what we have here is, if you try to decrypt the word con, you must fundamentally accept the decrypted meaning of whiners. Very clever. A kind of auto sub-encryption-encapsulation. And all the while, only an indirect reference to calling you peoplethieves or criminals. And of course children are not con-artists. It is nice to make the Euphemism to try to understand how they like to try to get you to do things you do not want them to. But con-artist are relaly adults or teens ready to be thrown in jail. Would you throw a child in jail? Of course not. So this Euphemism is very obviously askew. But this tells me something about Russell Cox's subconscious... When you roll those two specific Euphemism's up into one Euphemism it describes someone who's own reality suggests a dislike of children. The encapsulation process itself and what Russell Cox already accepts as his reality without decryption shows this. Ergo Russell Cox does not like children, if only slightly. It is only lightly suggested through decryption, but the process of encapsulation itself shows how his subconscious tells us this quite directly. So we see, another reason not to use Euphemism's is to not unconsciously give away your subconscious. Of course our subconscious is always there able to be read like a book by a professional. This is one of the modern marvels of a post-freudian society, and it has proven very helpful to society to attempt to read the subconscious. But, I digress...
and the final Euphemism, or more specifically psycho-trick worth noting:
Either save up for the damn Pro Edition or go elsewhere, as this whining and 'con artist' guilt trips is pathetic.Let's just ignore the use of escalted uncivil language inthis one, as well as it's underlying accusatory manner. here we have a 5th attempt at indirect fortification of the original Euphemism that you people[/] are a [b]bunch of children.[/list:u:66d9e634fe]
That is what I have found in his first post to be of obvious significance. However I was able to find 7 other small Euphemistic remarks, which were not worth mentioning.
Interestingly, I have found his reply post to contain a near 3 fold increase in the frequency of the use of Euphemism. This may suggest that in confrontation he becomes more cryptic so as to necessitate the particpant in further and elevatated decryption which is likely an ego-protective mechanism whereby the other perons must think harder to understand even the simplist underlying meaning. A kind of maze. By doing this he has set a trap, whereby if the participant cannot decrypt or sufficiently respond, the encrypter gains a self-gratification and a fortification of a possibly already existant superiority complex.
Russell if you wish to apologize for your indirect beratement as well as the chastizing that you have put me through attempting to simply initially explain that your post was fairly uncivil and unacceptable, then I would gladly return the favor witha detailed apology as well as an abondonment of my Phase II analysis of your second posting/response.
Evan Evans