Polymath

[eccentrically1]

http://www.bucket-outlet.com/Galvanized ... h-Lids.htm

[daxwc]

Jim: Yes, this should have been over long ago. But bill continues to post lies…

Everybody that now interacts with you is lying, inferior or an idiot. Bill’s episode was just the straw that broke the camel’s back in a string of odd behavior anyway. Then your lies started and it been unraveling and snow balling ever since. Now your whole house of cards has fallen and you have two options. Take the cards to a new game or the forum plays wack a mole.

[cloud camper]

As our polymath has always lived with the fantasy he had PM right at his fingertips and now finds he does not, this of course is a bitter pill to swallow.

Add to that he had the forum under his thumb for years, extracting predictable oohs and ahhs from the peanut gallery on cue with every stroke of the keyboard, now finds that the old reliable tricks of manipulation no longer work.

One can only play the "I've got a secret" card and sympathy cards so long before the plebes catch on.

Then they turn on you with a vengeance.

[jim_mich]

As our polymath has always lived with the fantasy he had PM right at his fingertips and now finds he does not, this of course is a bitter pill to swallow.

Lies, lies, and more lies, by the cloud camper, the Master Liar.

Give it up cloud camper. You are only trolling for attention. You never post anything that is Bessler Wheel related.

[jim_mich]

Everybody that now interacts with you is lying, inferior or an idiot.

Lies, lies, and more lies, by the daxwc, another Master Liar.

Marchello is not lying, inferior or an idiot. He is intelligent and truthful. So is WaltzCee. So is Fletcher. Many others are very truthful. But not everyone can be an intelligent polymath. I never hold that against anyone.

EVERYONE that interacts with me is not lying, inferior or an idiot. Thus daxwc's statement is a total lie.

When ignorance and lies are mixed with personal attacks, then you have lying stinky trolls.

Grow up people. Stop the harassment. Stop the name-calling. You trolls usually throw the first punch. I simply fight back.

[eccentrically1]

If you stop saying you found PM, they (the trolls) will stop.

[cloud camper]

Why a liar accuses you of doing what they themselves are doing:

https://datingasociopath.com/2013/06/08 ... -themself/

[jim_mich]

The sociopath will always accuse YOU of what they are guilty of themself

I've known this for many years. It seems cloud camper admits do doing that which he keeps accusing me of.

Cloud camper, you are one sick dude, you need help.

[daxwc]

Jim: EVERYONE that interacts with me is not lying, inferior or an idiot. Thus daxwc's statement is a total lie.

I meant interacts such as have a different opinion than you; I didn’t say follows or ask vague questions that you will answer. If they put you to the test they would be there too.

EC1: If you stop saying you found PM, they (the trolls) will stop.

I think it is too late for that. What he needed to do is say sorry to the forum and be on his way.

Jim: But not everyone can be an intelligent polymath.

LOL; just in case some soul out there figures you will change.

[daxwc]

"Sociopaths are masters at influence and deception. Very little of what they say actually checks out in terms of facts or reality, but they're extremely skillful at making the things they say sound believable, even if they're just making them up out of thin air. Sociopathic people are masters at weaving elaborate fictional explanations to justify their actions. When caught red-handed, they respond with anger and threats, then weave new fabrications to explain away whatever they were caught doing."

Does it sound familiar to anyone you know jim?

[ME]

As this "discussion" gets more and more rigid and polarized, there's almost no way to revert back to nuance.
I seem to be no part of the pack(flock/herd/swarm/school -which is it?) of trolls, here's my attempt to add some (nuance) (a fruitless exercise anyway):

The Plan-item "A": "First get something that works!!!" should be layered and needs to be replaced by:

A.1 "First get something that might work."
A.2 "First get something that actually works for you."
A.3 "First get something that might work for the patent office."
A.4 "First get something that works for the patent office."
A.5 "First get something that might work perpetually."
A.6 "First get something that works perpetually and proofed by a physical example."
A.7 "First get something that works perpetually and proofed by multiple physical examples."
A.8 "First get something that works perpetually and proofed by outsourced multiple physical examples."

It compresses nicely to: "First get something viable", and I hope such addition helps both sides to settle this.
If it does help: don't expect the "other side" to admit one thing or the other, because ... polarized. (So Jim both 'never' and 'actually' intended it like this)
If it doesn't: Oh well, I tried.

Some (I think unnecessary) notes:
-There's nothing wrong to think about patents when at A.1 but it's only too early and distractive, while too late at A.8.
-Even though one reaches A.4, one still can choose not to patent..
-Even though one reaches A.6, it's possible it's still deceptive and not an actual PMM... but still worthwhile to pursue.
-The order is not rigid: a principle could be perpetual but not patentable, or something is patentable while not being perpetual...
-Failing at A.2 doesn't automatically exclude the rest.

I'm convinced Jim convinced himself of being totally convinced of having a working principle
As I see it: Jim defends his confidence and not his principle which is just protected by his defense (conveniently, or deliberately)
It obviously "works" for him, not for the rest of us.

I have no clue if stubbornness is part of the defense or a side effect of being a polymath, and I have no opinion about the rest of the finger-pointing. It could all be completely or partially true, false, or mixed from whichever viewpoint, I just have other things to do.

Every one is convinced about something at some point (me too) - just don't forget to add the grains of salt.

---
If this is all beside some point, there is always another way to look at things... there always is.
A nice gem found at wiki:

During polarization, there is a tendency for the opposing sides of the argument to make increasingly disagreeable statements, thereby creating more and more distance between the two sides. This is known as the "pendulum effect".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(psychology)

[daxwc]

Jim: My 'PLAN'... I posted this a while back. The first item on my list is "First get something that works!" This means a working wheel, not just a concept or idea.

Jim: I've never redefined my plan. I simply, in that one single post, truncated my description of Step [A], trying to make an idiot understand that finding something that works was more than just a quick sketch or vague concept.

Jim: Just as I know that a 12 foot board will span a 10 foot river, I also know how to make a PM wheel based upon Bessler's writings.

Even with ignoring the lie tell us Jim why the forum should let you get special treatment that you will not let others have?

[cloud camper]

What's the point of being a polymath without enjoying a few perks?

Polymaths have their priveleges!

You know, kind of like priests of a certain faith get to have their way with altar boys!

[ovyyus]

As I see it: Jim defends his confidence and not his principle which is just protected by his defense (conveniently, or deliberately)
It obviously "works" for him, not for the rest of us.

The whole point of a definition is that it is 'something that works' for everyone. That was the case until JM decided it didn't suit his agenda. There are enough good members here who understand the truth of the matter well enough, and who resist such manipulations.

[daxwc]

ME:

I have no opinion about the rest of the finger-pointing. It could all be completely or partially true, false, or mixed from whichever viewpoint, I just have other things to do.

Believe me you had to follow it close and it is impossible to catch up on all the drama now.

ME: I'm convinced Jim convinced himself of being totally convinced of having a working principle
As I see it: Jim defends his confidence and not his principle which is just protected by his defense (conveniently, or deliberately)
It obviously "works" for him, not for the rest of us.

The way I see it: Jim defends his ego and not his principle which is just deliberately protected by his defense which was put into place to cover-up his lies. It obviously "works" for him, not for the rest of us.


But ME the real issue is not only that. The issue most of us is tired of is his behaviour, this not just one issue just ask Stewart or ED.

ME: I have no clue if stubbornness is part of the defense or a side effect of being a polymath.

If you honestly believe he is a polymath or he is only stubborn fine, but mediation through polishing his ego only feeds him.