From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 13:37:49 MDT
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
annaxation 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 50k 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.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:53 MDT