[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor] ….Honestly the impact of the flippers is much less then people make them out to be. The impact of the banks behavior with the loan mods DWARFS the flipper impact with respect to available inventory.[/quote]

I concur 100 percent. Astute observation, SD, and one that, mysteriously, continues to go unobserved by those in power.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor] ….Honestly the impact of the flippers is much less then people make them out to be. The impact of the banks behavior with the loan mods DWARFS the flipper impact with respect to available inventory.[/quote]

I concur 100 percent. Astute observation, SD, and one that, mysteriously, continues to go unobserved by those in power.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]i think we are encouraged to suffer from this. i read an article in a recent trade journal about “confidence” in my line of work. a successful person said when she was young, she was asked by senior partner if she knew how to do a particular task ona tight timeline. she said ‘sure!” she gave this as an example of the correct way to be at work to move ahead. i understand a can-do attitude, and “fake it till you make it”, the problem is, dude, you may be the guy who leaks a billion barrels int he gulf or whatever. on the other hand, president is so complex a task no one is really competent, i suppose.[/quote]

Scaredy, I think the practice you cite is endemic in the workplace, especially today plenty of evidence in documentaries like “Smartest Guys In The Room” or some of the recent Frontline docs on the financial meltdown.

But anosognosia is different. These people honestly have absolutely no clue that they’re not dealing with a full deck, so to speak. Socially, they are competent, and function in a completely normal way. They escape notice from almost everyone because there’s not the duplication of skills in the workplace that there used to be. I think, in many situations, jobs have become so specialized that their co-workers (and, in some cases, their supervisors) may have no clue as to what their job really entails. If they are really confident in their abilities, it becomes even difficult to determine that they are incompetent.

Here’s part of Dr. Babinski’s description: “One such patient . . . hit by left hemiplegia has largely maintained her intellectual and affective faculties, for many months. She remembered past events well, was willing to talk, expressed herself correctly, her ideas were sensible; she was interested in persons known to her and asked about new people . . . No hallucinations, delirium, confusional state, confabulation. What did contrast with the apparent preservation of intelligence of this patient was that she seemed to ignore the existence of a nearly complete hemiplegia, which she had been afraid of for many years. Never did she complain about it; never did she even allude to it. If she was asked to move her right arm, she immediately executed the command. If she was asked to move the left one, she stayed still, silent, and behaved as if the question had been put to somebody else.”

Fascinating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]i think we are encouraged to suffer from this. i read an article in a recent trade journal about “confidence” in my line of work. a successful person said when she was young, she was asked by senior partner if she knew how to do a particular task ona tight timeline. she said ‘sure!” she gave this as an example of the correct way to be at work to move ahead. i understand a can-do attitude, and “fake it till you make it”, the problem is, dude, you may be the guy who leaks a billion barrels int he gulf or whatever. on the other hand, president is so complex a task no one is really competent, i suppose.[/quote]

Scaredy, I think the practice you cite is endemic in the workplace, especially today plenty of evidence in documentaries like “Smartest Guys In The Room” or some of the recent Frontline docs on the financial meltdown.

But anosognosia is different. These people honestly have absolutely no clue that they’re not dealing with a full deck, so to speak. Socially, they are competent, and function in a completely normal way. They escape notice from almost everyone because there’s not the duplication of skills in the workplace that there used to be. I think, in many situations, jobs have become so specialized that their co-workers (and, in some cases, their supervisors) may have no clue as to what their job really entails. If they are really confident in their abilities, it becomes even difficult to determine that they are incompetent.

Here’s part of Dr. Babinski’s description: “One such patient . . . hit by left hemiplegia has largely maintained her intellectual and affective faculties, for many months. She remembered past events well, was willing to talk, expressed herself correctly, her ideas were sensible; she was interested in persons known to her and asked about new people . . . No hallucinations, delirium, confusional state, confabulation. What did contrast with the apparent preservation of intelligence of this patient was that she seemed to ignore the existence of a nearly complete hemiplegia, which she had been afraid of for many years. Never did she complain about it; never did she even allude to it. If she was asked to move her right arm, she immediately executed the command. If she was asked to move the left one, she stayed still, silent, and behaved as if the question had been put to somebody else.”

Fascinating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]i think we are encouraged to suffer from this. i read an article in a recent trade journal about “confidence” in my line of work. a successful person said when she was young, she was asked by senior partner if she knew how to do a particular task ona tight timeline. she said ‘sure!” she gave this as an example of the correct way to be at work to move ahead. i understand a can-do attitude, and “fake it till you make it”, the problem is, dude, you may be the guy who leaks a billion barrels int he gulf or whatever. on the other hand, president is so complex a task no one is really competent, i suppose.[/quote]

Scaredy, I think the practice you cite is endemic in the workplace, especially today plenty of evidence in documentaries like “Smartest Guys In The Room” or some of the recent Frontline docs on the financial meltdown.

But anosognosia is different. These people honestly have absolutely no clue that they’re not dealing with a full deck, so to speak. Socially, they are competent, and function in a completely normal way. They escape notice from almost everyone because there’s not the duplication of skills in the workplace that there used to be. I think, in many situations, jobs have become so specialized that their co-workers (and, in some cases, their supervisors) may have no clue as to what their job really entails. If they are really confident in their abilities, it becomes even difficult to determine that they are incompetent.

Here’s part of Dr. Babinski’s description: “One such patient . . . hit by left hemiplegia has largely maintained her intellectual and affective faculties, for many months. She remembered past events well, was willing to talk, expressed herself correctly, her ideas were sensible; she was interested in persons known to her and asked about new people . . . No hallucinations, delirium, confusional state, confabulation. What did contrast with the apparent preservation of intelligence of this patient was that she seemed to ignore the existence of a nearly complete hemiplegia, which she had been afraid of for many years. Never did she complain about it; never did she even allude to it. If she was asked to move her right arm, she immediately executed the command. If she was asked to move the left one, she stayed still, silent, and behaved as if the question had been put to somebody else.”

Fascinating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]i think we are encouraged to suffer from this. i read an article in a recent trade journal about “confidence” in my line of work. a successful person said when she was young, she was asked by senior partner if she knew how to do a particular task ona tight timeline. she said ‘sure!” she gave this as an example of the correct way to be at work to move ahead. i understand a can-do attitude, and “fake it till you make it”, the problem is, dude, you may be the guy who leaks a billion barrels int he gulf or whatever. on the other hand, president is so complex a task no one is really competent, i suppose.[/quote]

Scaredy, I think the practice you cite is endemic in the workplace, especially today plenty of evidence in documentaries like “Smartest Guys In The Room” or some of the recent Frontline docs on the financial meltdown.

But anosognosia is different. These people honestly have absolutely no clue that they’re not dealing with a full deck, so to speak. Socially, they are competent, and function in a completely normal way. They escape notice from almost everyone because there’s not the duplication of skills in the workplace that there used to be. I think, in many situations, jobs have become so specialized that their co-workers (and, in some cases, their supervisors) may have no clue as to what their job really entails. If they are really confident in their abilities, it becomes even difficult to determine that they are incompetent.

Here’s part of Dr. Babinski’s description: “One such patient . . . hit by left hemiplegia has largely maintained her intellectual and affective faculties, for many months. She remembered past events well, was willing to talk, expressed herself correctly, her ideas were sensible; she was interested in persons known to her and asked about new people . . . No hallucinations, delirium, confusional state, confabulation. What did contrast with the apparent preservation of intelligence of this patient was that she seemed to ignore the existence of a nearly complete hemiplegia, which she had been afraid of for many years. Never did she complain about it; never did she even allude to it. If she was asked to move her right arm, she immediately executed the command. If she was asked to move the left one, she stayed still, silent, and behaved as if the question had been put to somebody else.”

Fascinating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=walterwhite]i think we are encouraged to suffer from this. i read an article in a recent trade journal about “confidence” in my line of work. a successful person said when she was young, she was asked by senior partner if she knew how to do a particular task ona tight timeline. she said ‘sure!” she gave this as an example of the correct way to be at work to move ahead. i understand a can-do attitude, and “fake it till you make it”, the problem is, dude, you may be the guy who leaks a billion barrels int he gulf or whatever. on the other hand, president is so complex a task no one is really competent, i suppose.[/quote]

Scaredy, I think the practice you cite is endemic in the workplace, especially today plenty of evidence in documentaries like “Smartest Guys In The Room” or some of the recent Frontline docs on the financial meltdown.

But anosognosia is different. These people honestly have absolutely no clue that they’re not dealing with a full deck, so to speak. Socially, they are competent, and function in a completely normal way. They escape notice from almost everyone because there’s not the duplication of skills in the workplace that there used to be. I think, in many situations, jobs have become so specialized that their co-workers (and, in some cases, their supervisors) may have no clue as to what their job really entails. If they are really confident in their abilities, it becomes even difficult to determine that they are incompetent.

Here’s part of Dr. Babinski’s description: “One such patient . . . hit by left hemiplegia has largely maintained her intellectual and affective faculties, for many months. She remembered past events well, was willing to talk, expressed herself correctly, her ideas were sensible; she was interested in persons known to her and asked about new people . . . No hallucinations, delirium, confusional state, confabulation. What did contrast with the apparent preservation of intelligence of this patient was that she seemed to ignore the existence of a nearly complete hemiplegia, which she had been afraid of for many years. Never did she complain about it; never did she even allude to it. If she was asked to move her right arm, she immediately executed the command. If she was asked to move the left one, she stayed still, silent, and behaved as if the question had been put to somebody else.”

Fascinating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)[/quote]

Jp: Well stated, and you’re right. Had Eaves used Mother Teresa, or Michael Jackson, or even Adolf Hitler as her example, it would have been a complete non-issue. I think certain posters on this board are now overly sensitive and the mere whiff of potential politics sets them off.

I thought Eaves went out of her way to explain herself, but it fell on completely deaf ears. Well, when you try to use logic, reason and a rationale argument and that fails…[/quote]

jp, jim, alan, and brian, thanks for your input, and your support. I had, indeed, planned that as my last post attempting to explain my actions. I spent too much time on that effort, and now am really crunching the books so as to not flunk my finals.

However, it’s good to see so many of the great minds of Piggs checking in on this thread. Jim, I am honored to have fallen on my sword if that’s what it took to get y’all in on what I consider a great topic. I have continued to follow the series of articles, and it’s is truly compelling. Kudos to davelj for bringing to our attention.

Installment 2 is especially enlightening on the topic of anosognosia, providing much info on Dr. Babinski, the neurologist who introduced the topic in the literature a hundred years ago (also the guy who’s responsible for your physician scraping the bottom of your feet with the sharp end of the reflex hammer during your physical). Anosognosia can be very confusing, but the info in article #2 is illuminating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)[/quote]

Jp: Well stated, and you’re right. Had Eaves used Mother Teresa, or Michael Jackson, or even Adolf Hitler as her example, it would have been a complete non-issue. I think certain posters on this board are now overly sensitive and the mere whiff of potential politics sets them off.

I thought Eaves went out of her way to explain herself, but it fell on completely deaf ears. Well, when you try to use logic, reason and a rationale argument and that fails…[/quote]

jp, jim, alan, and brian, thanks for your input, and your support. I had, indeed, planned that as my last post attempting to explain my actions. I spent too much time on that effort, and now am really crunching the books so as to not flunk my finals.

However, it’s good to see so many of the great minds of Piggs checking in on this thread. Jim, I am honored to have fallen on my sword if that’s what it took to get y’all in on what I consider a great topic. I have continued to follow the series of articles, and it’s is truly compelling. Kudos to davelj for bringing to our attention.

Installment 2 is especially enlightening on the topic of anosognosia, providing much info on Dr. Babinski, the neurologist who introduced the topic in the literature a hundred years ago (also the guy who’s responsible for your physician scraping the bottom of your feet with the sharp end of the reflex hammer during your physical). Anosognosia can be very confusing, but the info in article #2 is illuminating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)[/quote]

Jp: Well stated, and you’re right. Had Eaves used Mother Teresa, or Michael Jackson, or even Adolf Hitler as her example, it would have been a complete non-issue. I think certain posters on this board are now overly sensitive and the mere whiff of potential politics sets them off.

I thought Eaves went out of her way to explain herself, but it fell on completely deaf ears. Well, when you try to use logic, reason and a rationale argument and that fails…[/quote]

jp, jim, alan, and brian, thanks for your input, and your support. I had, indeed, planned that as my last post attempting to explain my actions. I spent too much time on that effort, and now am really crunching the books so as to not flunk my finals.

However, it’s good to see so many of the great minds of Piggs checking in on this thread. Jim, I am honored to have fallen on my sword if that’s what it took to get y’all in on what I consider a great topic. I have continued to follow the series of articles, and it’s is truly compelling. Kudos to davelj for bringing to our attention.

Installment 2 is especially enlightening on the topic of anosognosia, providing much info on Dr. Babinski, the neurologist who introduced the topic in the literature a hundred years ago (also the guy who’s responsible for your physician scraping the bottom of your feet with the sharp end of the reflex hammer during your physical). Anosognosia can be very confusing, but the info in article #2 is illuminating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)[/quote]

Jp: Well stated, and you’re right. Had Eaves used Mother Teresa, or Michael Jackson, or even Adolf Hitler as her example, it would have been a complete non-issue. I think certain posters on this board are now overly sensitive and the mere whiff of potential politics sets them off.

I thought Eaves went out of her way to explain herself, but it fell on completely deaf ears. Well, when you try to use logic, reason and a rationale argument and that fails…[/quote]

jp, jim, alan, and brian, thanks for your input, and your support. I had, indeed, planned that as my last post attempting to explain my actions. I spent too much time on that effort, and now am really crunching the books so as to not flunk my finals.

However, it’s good to see so many of the great minds of Piggs checking in on this thread. Jim, I am honored to have fallen on my sword if that’s what it took to get y’all in on what I consider a great topic. I have continued to follow the series of articles, and it’s is truly compelling. Kudos to davelj for bringing to our attention.

Installment 2 is especially enlightening on the topic of anosognosia, providing much info on Dr. Babinski, the neurologist who introduced the topic in the literature a hundred years ago (also the guy who’s responsible for your physician scraping the bottom of your feet with the sharp end of the reflex hammer during your physical). Anosognosia can be very confusing, but the info in article #2 is illuminating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)[/quote]

Jp: Well stated, and you’re right. Had Eaves used Mother Teresa, or Michael Jackson, or even Adolf Hitler as her example, it would have been a complete non-issue. I think certain posters on this board are now overly sensitive and the mere whiff of potential politics sets them off.

I thought Eaves went out of her way to explain herself, but it fell on completely deaf ears. Well, when you try to use logic, reason and a rationale argument and that fails…[/quote]

jp, jim, alan, and brian, thanks for your input, and your support. I had, indeed, planned that as my last post attempting to explain my actions. I spent too much time on that effort, and now am really crunching the books so as to not flunk my finals.

However, it’s good to see so many of the great minds of Piggs checking in on this thread. Jim, I am honored to have fallen on my sword if that’s what it took to get y’all in on what I consider a great topic. I have continued to follow the series of articles, and it’s is truly compelling. Kudos to davelj for bringing to our attention.

Installment 2 is especially enlightening on the topic of anosognosia, providing much info on Dr. Babinski, the neurologist who introduced the topic in the literature a hundred years ago (also the guy who’s responsible for your physician scraping the bottom of your feet with the sharp end of the reflex hammer during your physical). Anosognosia can be very confusing, but the info in article #2 is illuminating.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[Author]

Posts