It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by tetra50
Your link is broken.
As far as the conversation we are engaged in presently, I did not table the word "schizophrenia" - you did. My assertion is that there are a variety of conditions, injuries, and illnesses that can cause symptoms like hearing voices or delusional thinking.
Having said that, I never went so far as to make an accusation of delusion. I merely tabled the possibility.
For what it's worth - simply suggesting that you are not in the typical age range associated with dissociative disorders is not diagnostically relevant. Atypical presentation means "not typical" and is still a very strong possibility. My only hope would be that anyone hearing voices entertain the potential for more pedestrian explanations than psychotronic attack.
You argue that you are a middle aged housewife as if that might preclude you somehow from the potential of illness or injury. I ask that you reverse that logic and ask why DARPA would target such a person? Surely there must be a very poignant and pressing cause... Something other than the fact that you may have Googled some suspected key words or posted opinionated statements online - as there are millions, if not billions of people who have done such things, and more... and never suffered such "attacks".
Again, I apologize if you are taking these statements as judgment or on a personal level. They are not intended to be such at all. They are merely the application of Occams razor to a tabled discussion.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by tetra50
Your link is broken.
As far as the conversation we are engaged in presently, I did not table the word "schizophrenia" - you did. My assertion is that there are a variety of conditions, injuries, and illnesses that can cause symptoms like hearing voices or delusional thinking.
Having said that, I never went so far as to make an accusation of delusion. I merely tabled the possibility.
For what it's worth - simply suggesting that you are not in the typical age range associated with dissociative disorders is not diagnostically relevant. Atypical presentation means "not typical" and is still a very strong possibility. My only hope would be that anyone hearing voices entertain the potential for more pedestrian explanations than psychotronic attack.
You argue that you are a middle aged housewife as if that might preclude you somehow from the potential of illness or injury. I ask that you reverse that logic and ask why DARPA would target such a person? Surely there must be a very poignant and pressing cause... Something other than the fact that you may have Googled some suspected key words or posted opinionated statements online - as there are millions, if not billions of people who have done such things, and more... and never suffered such "attacks".
Again, I apologize if you are taking these statements as judgment or on a personal level. They are not intended to be such at all. They are merely the application of Occams razor to a tabled discussion.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by thruthseek3r
You cannot table a one sided discussion on ATS. If you wish to do so, I suggest creating a blog.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by thruthseek3r
Do you not see the entrenched thinking involved in simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as either woefully uninformed or deliberately obfuscating?
Again, flatly refusing to entertain any explanation other than the one you are emotionally led to believing is highly contrary to reason.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by thruthseek3r
Do you not see the entrenched thinking involved in simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as either woefully uninformed or deliberately obfuscating?
Again, flatly refusing to entertain any explanation other than the one you are emotionally led to believing is highly contrary to reason.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by thruthseek3r
Do you not see the entrenched thinking involved in simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as either woefully uninformed or deliberately obfuscating?
Again, flatly refusing to entertain any explanation other than the one you are emotionally led to believing is highly contrary to reason.
Originally posted by Hefficide
So very telling to me. All I've done is table the idea that there are far more logical conclusions than being the victim of psychometric warfare. In response a series of escalations have occurred where civility is out of the window, an attempt to silence all opinions other than those who agree blindly with the OP was made, and now the insults and personal shots sink in.
All because I dared suggest that some grand hyper tech conspiracy was not the most likely explanation for hearing voices.
As for the personal statements? If you feel let down that I do not think selective psychotronic attack of random citizens is the most likely explanation for hearing voices - then you obviously had the wrong impression of me to begin with. I am not in the habit of enabling irrationality.
Originally posted by Hefficide
So very telling to me. All I've done is table the idea that there are far more logical conclusions than being the victim of psychometric warfare. In response a series of escalations have occurred where civility is out of the window, an attempt to silence all opinions other than those who agree blindly with the OP was made, and now the insults and personal shots sink in.
All because I dared suggest that some grand hyper tech conspiracy was not the most likely explanation for hearing voices.
As for the personal statements? If you feel let down that I do not think selective psychotronic attack of random citizens is the most likely explanation for hearing voices - then you obviously had the wrong impression of me to begin with. I am not in the habit of enabling irrationality.
Originally posted by tetra50
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by thruthseek3r
You cannot table a one sided discussion on ATS. If you wish to do so, I suggest creating a blog.
What a cop out......for someone who defends another and disagrees wtih you. I would have thought more of you than that.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by thruthseek3r
Do you not see the entrenched thinking involved in simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as either woefully uninformed or deliberately obfuscating?
Again, flatly refusing to entertain any explanation other than the one you are emotionally led to believing is highly contrary to reason.
Originally posted by tetra50
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by thruthseek3r
Do you not see the entrenched thinking involved in simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as either woefully uninformed or deliberately obfuscating?
Again, flatly refusing to entertain any explanation other than the one you are emotionally led to believing is highly contrary to reason.
It isn't emotional. We've provided you with many credible sources. Look in the mirror, as to who is being emotional, and reactionary in their rejection of everything they are presented with. Who, here, shows the bias?
I wonder.
Originally posted by Hefficide
So very telling to me. All I've done is table the idea that there are far more logical conclusions than being the victim of psychometric warfare. In response a series of escalations have occurred where civility is out of the window, an attempt to silence all opinions other than those who agree blindly with the OP was made, and now the insults and personal shots sink in.
All because I dared suggest that some grand hyper tech conspiracy was not the most likely explanation for hearing voices.
As for the personal statements? If you feel let down that I do not think selective psychotronic attack of random citizens is the most likely explanation for hearing voices - then you obviously had the wrong impression of me to begin with. I am not in the habit of enabling irrationality.