Javier,
There is much that can be gleaned about the TTA from this interaction. And I must say that this interaction generated much more data than I initially thought it would. We've seen you begin as a cocky, overconfident TTA who willingly called for questions to be put to him. Then we saw the TTA transform into an elusive, sly personality that accurately answered questions in a valid, yet deceptive way. From here the TTA transformed to a projective personality who began an attempt to change the premise of what was going on... to shift the focus from the TTA to the TTA's inquisitor. This began a series of judgments against his inquisitor and his style, and even included accusations that the inquisitor was "enslaving" the TTA and otherwise restricting the TTA's freedoms. When this didn't work, we see the TTA transform into the classical "poor me" personality type in an attempt to try to garner sympathy from the audience, and at the same time paint the inquisitor as evil-incarnate.
Perhaps my defensiveness towards your deceptive dehumanizing approach, maybe.
Once again I will point out that you can judge my approach however you wish, and you can claim it is evil, undemocratic, deceptive, and any other negative implications you care to throw at me. It does not change the fact that I was very up-front about how I was going to proceed, and you willingly agreed. You even seemed to admit that you understood the approach I was following. Now it seems the only way for you to "save face" is to paint me as evil, and manipulative, and dehumanizing.
I never said that that was the only thing you wanted me to focus on, but it is what you want me to focus on.
True, but again I must point out that I never forced you to do anything, nor did I even demand that you HAD to do anything. I fail to see how me expressing my hopes, and in the same breath agreeing to your right to respond to anything you wish, as being evil or dehumanizing.
Yet your interpretations clearly stretch the literal meaning of my words.
Prove it!
You make a big deal about how TTA is not a scientific person, but now you demand someone else invoke science to "prove" something that is self-evident. I have copied my literal words more than once above (and will do so again below), but it would seem that my literal words are not proof enough for you. You paint me as trying to control you (I believe you used the word "slave"), and it is clear from my literal words that there is no such enslavement going on. Who is trying to control who with such tactics as yours? Rather than try to prove this to you, as you would clearly never accept my own words as proof, why don't we ask others if the literal meanings of my words were some kind of attempt to "enslave" you and force you to do my will, and only my will. Folks?
Ray, You said to share data? If you didn't mean it in it's literal sense, and expected me to only answer your questions while I idly allowed an opportunity to reciprocate pass me by, then you should have been more crystal in your meaning.
How many times do I have to explain this to you, Javier? (Does that sort of wording sound familiar to you? It should). Never did I "expect" (your word, not mine) you to ONLY answer my questions, nor did I ever force you to do anything. Perhaps it was TTA who was doing the expecting, in that you EXPECTED me to answer your questions and rise to your baitings when never did I commit to any such thing. To be "more crystal in my meaning" let me again cut-and-paste my going-in position which you were well aware of (I assume, since I gather you read my words and understood what they said):
It is up to me how, and for what reasons, I should choose to engage you.
For the third time now, do you see how I stated my intentions when we began this interrogation (which you willfully agreed to participate in)?
The investigation as friendly as it may have began, was twisted ultimately by your sarcasm and excessive eagerness to siphon me for data with little regard to the manner in which you asked.
See my quote above. And if you think I have been sarcastic in this thread, you should really go read some of my other discussions where my sarcasm reaches levels far beyond what you think is sarcasm here.
And since you were unwilling to "share" as was the purpose, I found your inquisition unfair.
Fair enough. That is your choice and your opinion. But again I never stated that I was going to "share" anything. I was "prompted" by two other forum members to ask you questions. They never asked me to answer your questions, nor ask that I submit to questions from you. I can't stress this enough... Going in, the TTA agreed that this was going to be about the TTA. And you had no problem with that, and you even made the rally cry to bring on the questions.
And you call me an absolutist. I don't come off as one though.
Do you think TTA can be an objective evaluator of how TTA comes off to others? You may think you don't come off as being an absolutist, but perhaps others here might not agree with your self-assessment. Folks? Is TTA's evaluation of how he comes off to you valid with respect to how you think he comes off?
Well if the TTA has told you once, and you didn't get it, don't expect my approach to be like yours if it is not my field of expertise.
Now this is really interesting. Never did I expect your approach to be scientific. I merely was pointing out that mine was. But now here you are giving excuses for why you don't follow a scientific approach, and yet you call for me to "prove it" above. So you are free to not use a scientific approach, but you are also free to demand others to be scientific in how they show you how you stretch literal words in your interpretations? Interesting.
It wasn't me who began asking the question and became frusterated and rude about the answers, now was it?
Frustrated? Rude? Again I must note that you are passing judgment here. Not only have you not frustrated me, but quite the contrary... TTA has provided more than enough "data" for the purposes of evaluating TTA's personality, intentions, and motivations. And I fail to see where I was "rude". I may have been matter-of-fact in my demeanor, but perhaps you can show me where I was rude.
But I had to repeat it for you at least 3 different times, for it to click.
And how many times will you make me repeat the words I used to describe how I was going to approach your questioning? It hasn't yet "clicked" for you, as you keep on wanting to paint my approach as evil, when it is really just scientific, with some analysis thrown in as we went along.
At the very least Ray, my "tools" for communicating are not hidden by sarcasm and elitism. I believe that shows clearly, what your real intentions are all about.
Again the sarcasm charge, and now a new charge of being elitist. Now I know you have endlessly said you are not scientific. Is it possible that you feel inferior with respect to your knowledge of science, and as a result of feeling inferior you will then interpret my scientific approach as being elitist? My approach was nothing more than a modified form of a psychological personality test... an approach which you seemed to acknowledge you understood. Indeed, Scientology makes use of this same sort of standard psychological personality test in their orgs... and I find it interesting that they then go on to deride modern psychologists being equivalent to witch doctors. In any event, my "tool" has been nothing more than a personality test. And my analysis of your responses as we went along was also purposefully intended to evoke more data from you, and your personality. This is the way a psychological personality test works...that is how we collect data.
Now... let me suggest that there is a way to resolve our differences, and move on with the questions in a fair manner. At one point you had made the following comment:
Like I said earlier, this almost makes this interrogation seem democratic.
You called for a democratic process. Perhaps we can make use of a true democratic process in deciding if we can continue the questioning (which you had earlier agreed to) in a fair manner. To invoke a true democractic spirit, this would mean that the folks who are reading this thread should be able to VOTE on whether they think a proposed path forward is fair to both the TTA and to his inquisitor.
PROPOSAL: I suggest that we continue the questions, and BOTH OF US agree to not post any "stray" comments until all the questions have been asked and answered. Surely this is fair, because that would mean ALL I could do is ask specific (numbered) questions, and ALL you could do is provide you answers (as short or as long as you wish). Any commentary on those questions or answers would not be allowed until afterwards. Then it would be "open season" for both of us to post our analysis. Again, I suggest this is fair because the going-in precept was that I was going to ask you questions as a means to identify your intentions and motivations to see whether they could reveal a possible link to the intentions and motivations of The John Titor Experiment. There is really no point in me answering questions here because I know Titor was a hoax, and no one is accusing me of being the Boomer behind Titor.
Therefore, that is my proposal. And now, in the spirit of true democracy, let's allow ourselves and the other forum readers to vote on this proposal. How can you argue with this democratic approach?
<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1143326921RainmanTime">
Is RainmanTime's proposal fair & should the interrogation of TTA continue as outlined in this proposal?
<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />Yes, it seems a reasonably fair proposal. I'd like TTA to continue if he so chooses.
<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />No, I do not think this is fair, and I do not think TTA should submit to continued questioning.
<INPUT TYPE=Submit NAME=Submit VALUE="Submit vote" class="buttons"></form>
Once again, just to be clear, I am NOT trying to force you to do anything, and I fully acknowledge your freedom of choice to do as you wish. Regardless of what this democratic poll says, because you are the one who has to agree to being interrogated, you have the ultimate choice, and that is to be respected.
Finally, one question which I know you may have is "just how many questions am I expected to answer?" Fair question. And while many standard personality tests (such as the MMPI-2) have hundreds of questions, I submit that we do not need that many. I would suggest that there need be no more than 50 questions, and I pledge that I will not ask any questions beyond #50.
So...should we put our recent PAST behind us Javier, and forge ahead into the FUTURE to see how it comes out? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Regards,
RMT
