spendius wrote:I must say that it is quite obvious that you have little or no knowledge of psychology etc., etc., blah, blah, woof, woof . . .
What is obvious to you is not necessarily to reasonably be assumed. I've read sufficient of your protestations of specialized knowledged--you're a scientist when you spread your burro shitto in the ID thread; you claim to be a philosopher in the philosophy threads; and here you claim expert knowledge of psychology. I believe none of it. If you have seen many references in your self-alleged wide reading, it should be a simple matter for you to provide citations here to support your contention. I need no snotty remarks from you about what one would do to get a definition of vanity--something which you display constantly with your claims to expertise, but for which expertise no one here has any evidence. Tell us, oh pyschological oracle, how a researcher qualifies and quantifies vanity for purposes of supporting such a silly contention as you've just made.
You assume that i'm angry--don't confuse contempt for your line of crap with anger. You contend a denial. I deny nothing which you have demonstrated and supported with citations of an appropriate literature--which is to say, nothing. You end with a specious, and once again, unsupported contention about younger men being initiated into sexuality by older women. That crap is not germane to the topic, and has no bearing upon the accusation which i make once again. You are misogynistic by nature--the evidence is all over this web site in your posts. I submit that you fear women, that you don't deal with them effectively, and so you belittle them.
I haven't the least doubt that you'll claim yet more expertise for which you provide no evidence, and then wander off again into one of your sexual fantasy obsessions, which i suspect is as close as you ever get to a genuine relationship with a woman.