> On May 10, 9:46�pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> I realize that fustian antics at h.l.a.s. are typical of some at play
>> here, but doubt that it can be said this and other off-the-wall
>> behaviors are sociopathic.

>

>> Here's what once source, athttp://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html, says are
>> traits of the sociopath. �I'm listing only those that the source
>> labels "Other Related Qualities." �My comments are in brackets.

>

>> (quote)
>> 1. �Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them.

>

>> [After being refuted numerous times about aspects of alternate
>> Shakespeare attribution issues, it seems obvious that a tone of
>> "contemptuousness" is necessary to keep a semblance of face at
>> h.l.a.s., although in fact most are ex-posters now.

>

>> 2. �Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them.

>

>> [Well, we all have our idiosyncrasies, so that's okay. �Being a little
>> dotty is perhaps necessary to survive what's wrong with everyone else.
>> Shakespeare study is a sort of refuge into another world full of
>> meaningful existential issues that keep us sane, maybe.]

>

>> 3. �Authoritarian.

>

>> [How could we hope to sort out the world of a creator like Shakespeare
>> without being assertive about our position, necessary for the leverage
>> needed to set it right about its authorship?]

>

>> 4. �Secretive.

>

>> [It's true that some at h.l.a.s. try to play with a stacked deck while
>> holding a poker hand, but the stakes are very high, after all. Anyway,
>> only a few are life-long trollers at h.l.a.s. with an agenda.

>

>> 5. �Paranoid.

>

>> [If this is about "delusions of persecution or grandeur," I can think
>> of only a few at h.l.a.s. inclined to persecute others or harbor
>> illusions of grandeur. �This is easily accepted as their notion of wit
>> or jesting. �Still, the news group is not moderated, and naive posters
>> could be used as someone's "whipping boy" or such, as therapy; but we
>> have no pecking order beyond granting center stage to a couple ranking
>> literary scholars and published authors.]

>

>> 6. �Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations
>> where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or
>> admired.

>

>> [Not sure about this trait at h.l.a.s., since some may post from
>> within an institutional setting and seek out news groups for personal
>> satisfaction in these ways. �Little is tolerated, condoned or admired
>> at h.l.a.s. without just cause, IMO; but then, we are unmoderated.

>

>> 7. �Conventional appearance.

>

>> [As it happens, I am one of the few at h.l.a.s. who appear with masked
>> pseudonym, but doubt that superficial masks like that are a measure of
>> sociopathic stealth that hides antagonistic motives. �A mask of
>> "conventional appearance" is very complicated and tricky, IMO, and
>> probably involves layers of masks. �Do we act out our "masques" in
>> conventional ways?]

>

>> 8. �Goal of enslavement of their victim(s).

>

>> [Possibly in some ego-battle sense their can be domination of another
>> at h.l.a.s.; the cry of victory of the animal after dragging down it's
>> prey.]

>

>> 9. �Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life.

>

>> [I do see some evidence of posters at h.l.a.s. presenting themselves
>> as controllers; and equally, I see some who seem to present as
>> controlees. �But certainly this wouldn't include "every aspect" of the
>> victim's life," whatever that is.]

>

>> 10. �Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs
>> their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love).

>

>> [I do see survivors of old flame wars communicating along lines of
>> respect, if not gratitude and love.]

>

>> 11. �Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim.

>

>> [This repeats the above.]

>

>> 12.Incapable of real human attachment to another.

>

>> [h.l.a.s. as a substitute for getting a real life? �No, but I can see
>> how it could substitute for achievement in some ways; like, being a
>> Shakespeare, yourself.]

>

>> 13. �Unable to feel remorse or guilt.

>

>> [I wonder if this trait of sociopaths can be explained in terms of the
>> apathetic and pathetic fallacies? �One fallacy assumes a world
>> operates without feelings; the other assumes all is
>> feelings-associated. �If anything, I suppose Shakespeare may have been
>> operating on pathetic associations, not apathetic.]

>

>> 14. �Extreme narcissism and grandiosity.

>

>> [Not at h.l.a.s., I think.]

>

>> 15. �May state readily that their goal is to rule the world.

>

>> [I haven't heard this stated by anyone, at least lately.]

>

>> (The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H.
>> Cleckley and R. Hare.)
>> (unquote)

>
> Interesting but doesn't jibe too well with my own idea of sociopathy--
> which is too complex to get into here. �I think the only one who is a
> sociopath or partial sociopath at HLAS is Art--because he has no
> consideration for others, not caring how much damage he does to HLAS
> with his moronic multiple posts. �Else he's genuinely psychotic and
> thinks he's doing something for Truth. �Jim, on the other hand, isn't
> a sociopath, but seems something else not all that sane: he may have a
> misguided consideration for others, and is trying to rescue HLAS from
> Art by futilely using Art's methods against him. �But I can't say I've
> figured him out, my studies at the Stratford Grammar School ending
> before I got into KQKnaveology.
>
> The rest of us may be nuts but we're not sociopaths.
>
> --Bob G.