Indubitably you've neglected to subsume the formation contained within his initial overment a formation which provides the initial indication of which only three determinations can be concluded, falsehood, deception or psychosis (genetic or substance causative). Given the OP's follow up responses the indication implied the latter of the three possibilities as having the foremost probability.Obviously he thinks he's being perfectly logical......... But almost all psychiatric patients think that........ And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.Uuummmmm, okay....... Which mental hospital did you escape from again?
Apologies for the "funny" rating. I know you are less trying to be funny and more trying to share that you find absurd the remarks to which you responded. Seeing your comment before reading the passages you quoted just did make me laugh, so I ticked "funny."But almost all psychiatric patients think that........
True.
And given the fact he called me a government employee speaks volumes. Unfortunately I have to suspect some degree of early psychosis.
That need not be and probably isn't the only or most likely reason for his remark to that effect. People will say all sort of things when they either wont' or haven't a substantive retort to something they simply don't like to hear/see. Such responses derive from pathos, not from logos. Making such remarks doesn't necessarily bode for one's being psychotic, but neither do they militate for one's being a calm and resolutely rational being.??? Now, you're not making sense to me either. Why was "the least" of your reasons for your "diagnosis" the one you chose to highlight? I have to ask for discursively, rhetorically and argumentatively, one's least powerful reason(s) supporting one's conclusions are not the best one's to present or highlight/present solely.That was the least of my reasons for making that "diagnosis" as I'm quite aware how and why people respond the way they do.I highlighted something? I was referring to his saying I worked for the government as being the least. What tangent are you off on?
Yes, you highlighted something. You highlighted exactly what you have noted, his calling your a government employee. You highlighted it by citing it, along with your generality about psychiatric patients, albeit a contextually accurate one, as the two sole reasons for your "diagnosis."
Have no other reasons? Is his epithet of lesser importance in your analysis than is the general theory of psychosis you've articulated (very high level) and applied, or is it merely an illustration of it, thus not a reason on its own?