red man that's a bit stupid. its clearly a play on the statement call it as i see it.

do you think that i think i can visibly see it? switch your brain on and stop making silly comments.

i will call it as i see it. in other words if i think you are angry then i will say so. you denying it doesn't mean im wrong. you wouldn't admit it either way.

and there has been a definite difference in some of your posts and their style which is what i base my opinion on.

and it hasn't changed.

but anyway. i wont exactly be losing sleep over your criticism of my opinion. you spent several posts accusing me of being a liar when you had no basis to do so.

Raj

"if you are wetting your pants with excitement and cannot wait then find it yourself."

Hmm. Have any of my posts warranted that reaction? No they haven't.

You see the above comment is actual anger, in its tone, not percieved.

Kneerash a hypocrite??? Now come on Raj your one of the biggest on here without a doubt.

Raj

"i will call it as i see it. in other words if i think you are angry then i will say so. you denying it doesn't mean im wrong. you wouldn't admit it either way."

Like I said. I honestly haven't posted a single comment in anger.

"and there has been a definite difference in some of your posts"

I've posted comments of a less serious nature, which have been intimated with a emoticon. You've interpreted these as me 'seething'. Excuse me if I don't hold much stock in how different my posts have been.

red man - actual anger? if you say so!

thanks for repeating your denial. but like i said. you wouldn't admit it, would you?

you have often used the smiley when youre clearly trying to gain the upper hand.

don't worry, im good at psychology. you may even believe your denials.

i don't.

im not sure why youre going on about it. the constant protests suggest im right to be honest.

Raj

Was your response, about me 'wetting myself to know' warranted or provoked in any way? I asked you a reasonable question. You posted an angry response back.

"you have often used the smiley when youre clearly trying to gain the upper hand."

You know this how? What are you basing this on? Seeing as I'm the one posting the comment. I know the intended tone. Me using a smiley is indicating something I find amusing. You interpret it, strangely, as the opposite.

"don't worry, im good at psychology. you may even believe your denials."

I assume you've studied Psychology then? The thing is I have.

Who's going on about it? You're the one that brings up 'seething' when more often than anyone on this entire thread, and dare I say it this entire forum.

red man I actually didn't realise youd take that so badly. it wasn't meant to upset you.

are you going to switch your brain on or am I going to have to type 'in my opinion' everytime I post something I think?

as I said. you wouldn't post saying how angry id made you, would you? so your denials mean nothing to me.

you are the one going on about it. for several posts now you question why I call you and others angry from time to time.

I don't bring up seething. I say if I think someone is seething.

not sure why youre still going on about it. its my opinion and you haven't changed it in the slightest.

But you're the one who seems to be getting all the joy from this raj I've not been on this thread in ages bar a single comment here and there, you keep bringing it up that you proved something not me, you seem to wear it like a badge of honor that you won in a battle.

You criticize TOOR for spending time going back through the thread yet you sent your own time googling my username please explain how that is not hypocritical?

But I see what you're doing here, you claim to be good at psychology but you're clearly not, I've studied it although only in relation to how it relates to cinema, you show now real signs of being some intellect as you shirk every challenge that another user sets for you.

You just keep saying you won and this can frustrate people, you then claim people are angry and that you've won, nothing very clever about that.

If you really are good at psychology as you claim then post something that's well constructed and articulate that can clearly explain and demonstrate how you've "won"

wow kneerash. you have quite a lot to say don't you?

I don't bring up our little argument, you do. you come on every now and then and bring it up. even though it was months ago.

googling your username and finding those posts took less than 2 minutes. if theresonlyonereds found that post in less than 2 minutes then I will retract my statement. but I doubt it did. don't you?

you give off a lot of signs of anger to me. you might want to work on that.

Raj

There you go back to default setting. Claim the other person is upset. All I said was if you've got proof of what you've accused TOOR of, why not post it. The disproportionate response you have back doesn't suggest you're angry. It confirms it.

The thing is. When you post 'you're seething' and claiming 'I made you seeth' you're posting that as a statement of fact, not opinion.

I'm not going on about it. This is called having a discussion. At the moment we're discussing your claims to make individuals 'seeth'. Who was the first person to bring uk 'seething', with various people, today? I've been merely commenting on your perception & how you read posts wrongly.

"not sure why youre still going on about it. its my opinion and you haven't changed it in the slightest."

Here we have the crux of all this. I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just telling you that you are wrong. I know the tone in which my comments are intended. You don't. I've been honest about the tone of my comments. I'm having a debate. Something you appear to consistently struggle with.

you give off a lot of signs of anger to me. you might want to work on that.


You've just done it again raj, done exactly what I said you do, where's the clever psychology in that?

Claiming winning after making people angry and then parading it about like a returning war hero.

I'm not angry, anger is a very strong emotion, I'm calm but have been frustrated at times during these debates. But that's all you are here to do, annoy someone and claim some moral victory, like I said nothing clever about that it's the very definition of being a wum.

I offered to change my username to give you thus victory you seem to sorely need, you haven't taken up that challenge despite claiming you did it in two minutes. You've been requested to do loads of stuff on this thread yet never once actually done anything bar claim the user us angry and that you've won. Now I could unerstand if it would involve you spending hours of time to do so but you've been on here all evening surly you can spend two mins to "own" me and finally put me in my place?

You're a good wum I'll give you that, but a psychological mastermind you are not.

And yes I've plenty so say for myself, it's why I use a forumn like this as it gives me the opportunity to express my opinion.

Raj

Any chance if this proof on TOOR?

What exactly is it you're waiting for?

He's just a run of the mill wum redman that's all, he finally showed himself up with his I'm good at psychology claim.

What area of psychology did you study redman? I did a degree in film literature and drama and studied the psychological aspect of cinema from both the writer/director pov and from that of the audience. Interesting stuff from that side but I tried to read more on it in my own time but found it quite dense and tough to read coupled with all the stuff I had to do for my own course I never went back to it. Anything you would recommend that's not really heavy?

Kneerash

I studied Psychology at degree level with a view to working in mental health. I haven't had a chance to take it further as me and my wife want to start a family, so working has been at the forefront. Most of the stuff I've read is mental health related, the DSM manuals are good bedtime reading . It's a fascinating subject. A particularly interesting experiment, and my personal favourite, is Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. My Uncle is in Sports Psychology and has worked with certain clubs.

"psychological aspect of cinema from both the writer/director pov and from that of the audience"

Anything you'd recommend on that. Can't say I've heard much about it. Sounds I retesting though .

'Retesting' . I meant really interesting honest.

We did allot on voyerism both in the actual film and how the audience watches and relates to film. I got sone shock the first day I started my degree we watched the scene in blue velvet (I'd never seen it before) where the lads in the closet and Dennis hopper comes in with the gas tank and basically rapes the woman, I was thinking what have I got myself into here but it was really interesting how he perceives what's going on and how even though he's disturbed by it he is drawn towards the woman in a sort of protective yet perverse way.

It was only a small aspect of the course so we dis some basic stuff like Freud, jaques lacan and frantz fannon I'd recommend any of their essays as it can be applied to a wide variety of subjects we were able to take stuff they wrote and apply it to film literature and drama. I started the course for the film but really got into drama as it progressed I really enjoy the study of narrative, how it's formed etc.

My brother works in mental health and I've skimmed some of his stuff, fair play for getting a degree in it it's tough going but well worth studying.

I'm currently looking at going onto a masters course but not sure what way to go yet, there's loads of great degree courses here in Ireland part time but to masters level at part time you're choices are limited.

I've no kids ao have the time to go back but would have to be part time as I work and couldn't afford to go back full time or I'd have to live at home again and don't think the misses would fancy living with my mother!

ah red man - we do love a trier.

two things amused me. firstly, the idea that a light hearted remark about you being excited about the proof means I am angry.

but most of all - in the same post you tell me that I am wrong when I accuse you of being angry, yet you state its confirmed that I am angry.

hypocrisy, contradictory.

whatever you want to call it, its a classic post!

kneerash how can I be the wum when its you that rejoins the thread and brings up the subject matter?

we weren't talking about me proving youre an obsessed hypocrite before you came back.

so you brought it up. I responded and you became frustrated.

oh wait. does this mean you are wumming yourself?

good that you admitted to being frustrated though that doesn't make me a wum. it just means that if people choose to have an off topic argument with me then I will probably win.

Raj

"two things amused me. firstly, the idea that a light hearted remark about you being excited about the proof means I am angry."

Ok, well you really need to work on how you read comments, and consider the tone. 'Excitement'? All I did was ask you a personally reasonable question. This is where we differ. I can read the tone of a comment, you can't. Your unprovoked comment about me 'wetting myself' had an angry tone about it.

"but most of all - in the same post you tell me that I am wrong when I accuse you of being angry, yet you state its confirmed that I am angry."

Further confirmation of how much you struggle. Again the tone in which I posted wasn't an angry one. The time in which you posted was an angry one. Note the difference. So no, you're wrong again there Raj. No hypocrisy, or contradiction.

I get the impression, by the amount of times you accuse people of being angry, that you read posts in an angry tone. I get the impression you either do it as a forum tactic. Or you generally just an angry person.

Raj

Still no sign of that proof on TOOR?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

good that you admitted to being frustrated though that doesn't make me a wum. it just means that if people choose to have an off topic argument with me then I will probably win

-------------

This is also hilarious when I was debating with someone else, you leap in throwing insults, go off topic and I was clearly able to show how your accusation was inaccurate, you on the other hand, well you posted a link showing a small piece of my user history, no actual comments or any real data that would prove anything, I "won" that debate and have also caught you out lying on several occasions.

But you spend hours of your precious time this thread, you've invested much more time and energy on this then I have, how’s that winning? Any answer to that question, like every other question I've posed?

Mancblueloz

yeah pretty much also refuses to prove any of the points he makes. He's a plain old wum, nothing articulate or intelligent about what he does.

You're angry = I win - The Raj mantra

Getting online at 7:20 to do it as well.