I can’t seem to find an email for you anywhere. I’d like to discuss your project, which I find charming. Please, when you have time, reach me at ScottScheule @ gmail . com

The **reality** is, I only initially heard of you through Language Hat where Dnghu is described as a “touchingly absurd project”. Steve Dodson’s negative views of Dnghu are hardly my fault.

The reality, as you say, is that Language Hat wrote about the project months after you first wrote about it, months after you called me and the organization “idiot”, “fool”, “psychotic”, “nazi”, or “racist”. You are lying and trying to create a fictional previous situation intentionally to make your case appear ‘less wrong’ or something.

Maybe the career on Linguistics should begin by teaching the name (and order) of months, so that you can lie better next time – just comparing the dates of each post…April 2007 (yours), August 2007 (theirs)

Further down that page, Christopher Culver comments, “And the idea of promoting ‘Indo-European culture’ reminds one unpleasantly of John V. Day’s work, where Indo-European means ‘white’ and ‘race-mixing’ occurs at a society’s own peril.”

The reality is that the user (who calls himself) Mr. Culver also wrote his comment after you had insulted us repeatedly with comparisons and insults as “nazis” and “racist”, so he was not original at all; in fact, he only expressed concerns of what could happen with an IE “culture” revival, not directly referred to me or the organization. The reality is that Language Hat linked to your blog (as I infer from your later dispute with them) and you knew (and read) each other at the time, what means that you possibly influenced their view – as you expressely stated you wanted to do. The reality is that, even if it was not the case, i.e. even if that user (whoever writes under that name) had compared us directly (and wrongfully) with “nazis” before you, you would have also done wrong in 1) taking those insults as your own, and 2) not quoting anything from anybody, as you wrote everything as your own personal insults and disqualifications.

Maybe the career on Linguistics should follow the basic teaching of month names and order by an ethical subject on how to be bold and assume whatever one asserts, instead of falsely blaming others and trying to hide behind them or their assertions. If you insult me and the organization (not only criticize the project or idea) directly as “fool”, “idiot”, “nazi” and “racist”, don’t blame later someone who deems the project “touchingly absurd”, or some other who expresses “unpleasant reminds” over the identification (made by one author) of “Indo-European culture” with “white”, after you had published that comparison everywhere you could…

it’s hardly illegal to note on commonly known historical parallels that may be painfully apt

I’m sure you can imagine a lot of “historical parallels” I can draw from your behaviour, insults and comparisons, that are “painfully apt” to you, your education, your intelligence, your lack of respect for basic human rights and liberties, your lies, etc. and I am sure those unending “historical parallels” I could find would qualify (in Spain and other jurisdictions) as illegal slander. That’s why ethical people often refrain from drawing such (unnecessary) “painfully apt” “historical parallels”. You, on the other hand, often use them.

Maybe the career on Linguistics should also teach students when and how to behave honorably and apologize when they do something wrong like irrationally insulting others, instead of persist in the wrongdoing by trying to justify what isn’t justifiable. Bullying and insulting someone (or a group of people) as “racist” or “nazi” is not a reasonable critic to a language revival project, however “absurd” or “dumb” you might think it is; that of Mr. Dodson is a good example of someone who wrote about Dnghu and continued (even after my answer in the forum, very similar to what I told you) with his blog and life without looking back; just like we all did. All but you. Public comment (criticism) and public answer (criticism of the criticism). End. So simple.
—
Now, let’s go on with my promise about drawing more conclusions about you – a game in which you apparently want to enter, as you “Wiki-diagnosed” me a NPD . About your diagnosis, it’s – unfortunately for me, as the world would be simpler – not correct. I certainly have narcissistic features, as a lot of men (not so women), but that doesn’t account for a personality type, as you should know from your studies in everything; still less for a PD. And, just a clue, if I am a kind of “relativist” and “solitary computer geek” as you implied, I could barely be narcissistic. And, if I were that “solitary computer geek” you want me to be, I would be using the computer to write in the websites of my projects all the time, and I write only from month to month – as the learning of month names and order would help you understand -, and only if I don’t have anything better to do – it’s a hobby. SO, I guess you will have to try again. You have still – at least – 11 personality types, and to date you have already discovered that I am a dogmatic-relativist-fool-psychotic-idiot-nazi-racist-narcissist-white-supremacist-solitary-geek. I must be more or less like in your imagination?

you constantly fingerpoint at me and claim I’m “narcissistic” (simply for having a blog or ideas of my own?),

You’re in effect saying, “My organization is failing because of one person, Glen Gordon”

A clear reason why you’re fixed on me, and none of your many other critics,

In fact, I said you showed clear 1) borderline, 2) paranoid (“they attack me”, “they are fixed on me”, “they blame me”) and 3) narcissistic features. In fact, I didn’t say you were narcissistic or had NPD, because what I know about you isn’t enough to draw such conclusions. However, it might also account (in case of disorder), given those three sentences of your latest comment, for a Paranoid Personality Disorder – I’ve added it to the post now – as you apparently wanted me to do, by continuing the thread -, but I won’t write another post about you and that possible PD, it’s too boring. Maybe after your next comment I’ll take some more time. You are a kind of obvious borderliner (=emotionally unstable), but BPD is more typical of women (=75%); men like you tend to show an (inner) odd or eccentric personality hidden behind those mixed apparently normal reactions and strange aggressive overreactions; I would bet now for PPD – just play-guessing, of course, it could also be NPD as you thought I meant, you know yourself better than we do… Now, read about paranoid a little bit (not only Wikipedia), to see if you have that problem; it might help you:

The paranoid patient, independent of the interpersonal reality in which they are inserted, only see “conspiracies”, “persecutions”, “complots”, treasons”, “snubs”, “offense”, etc. to which they usually react with great emotional intenstiy, trying to make prevail their point of view (they defend till exhaustion their abnormal and distorted vision of the interpersonal context), and in that sense they are aggressive (“bellicose”), fighters, some even use the violence to impose his distorted point of view. From that comes the excessive susceptibility or sensitivity that most of them show in their relationships with others(…)

For paranoids the world is dangerous because the others are treacherous and cannot be trusted, others are bad people, etc. which determines not only an emotional overreaction in front of minimal interpersonal difficulties, but also the inability to forgive the offenses and damages that they suffered from those relationships (or that they believe they suffered), and a tendency to maintain resentment in a persistent form. From that comes the excessive suspicion and mistrust in interpersonal relations with a general tendency to interpret neutral or even friendly demonstrations of others as hostile or derogatory. That generalized mistrust in relations with others might lead them to show pathological zeals and to see “conspiracies” against them in their immediate environment. Also, and corresponding to their vision of the world, paranoid patients see themselves as subject to constant fear, always at the mercy of the evilness of others (…)

Some authors (e.g. Vallejo, 2006) consider it possible to differentiate clinical subtypes within the paranoid personality disorder, as we described it. In this sense, it would be possible to differentiate, following those authors, a “tough” paranoid personality, and a “soft” one. A “tough” paranoid tries to assert, even with violence, his vision of the world, and because of that he is always discussing, litigating, debating… The “soft” paranoid is a very sensitive guy, tending to suffer, with the sense of being mistreated or offended, hipersensistive and with constant resentment. This second type was described by Kretschmer (1918), and those paranoids show usually depressive episodes and delusions (…)

[About "tough" paranoids] are said to show an excessive aggressiveness of innate origin (see M. Klein), as the individual projects in external objects – through the mechanism of projective identification -, with which he builds a world of aggressive and harmful objects, so that he can deny his own aggressiveness: i.e. the inner building of the world lived as a dangerous place, full of aggressive objects, created through the own aggressiveness of the patient, who – this way – defends himself from his own aggressiveness, which he (probably) lives as negative.

I selected and translated those paragraphs from my notes in Psychiatry, dedicated to you. Think about it – and maybe about the NPD, which is also a good starting point for aggressive overreactions to normal criticism -; and, again, if all that is OK with you, it’s OK with me – what you feel about certain comments (about your knowledge, career, your Paleo-Tyrrheno-Indo-Etrusco-SciFi thing, etc.) is obviously not what the rest of us feel about similar criticism toward ourselves, our projects, our knowledge or careers. But, in case your overreactions are the apparent symptoms of “inflexible and pervasive behavioral patterns that often cause cause you serious personal and social difficulties, as well as a general functional impairment”, you should look for advice, to fully enjoy these stupid discussions just as what they are.

Thank you for inspiring me to add some content here. This personal blog was almost dead before your Paleofreakyblog’s slander appeared in my Google search. I owe you a beer.

While you constantly fingerpoint at me and claim I’m “narcissistic” (simply for having a blog or ideas of my own?), the true clinical definition of Narcissistic personality disorder explains that “vulnerability in self-esteem makes individuals with this disorder very sensitive to criticism or defeat” and “they may react with disdain, rage, or defiant counterattack.” This is precisely what’s happening here with you right now. The fundamental *purpose* of your project continues to be at question and you choose to dwell on your personal feelings rather than adapt to input.

And let’s cut to the chase: A clear reason why you’re fixed on me, and none of your many other critics, is exposed by what you say above: “I discovered that his second post, his criticism about me and Dnghu, was almost on top of the Google search results for “Dnghu”“. So… you narcissisticly googled yourself and now believe (in typically narcissistic-derived egocentric paranoia) that your sworn enemy now has control over the worldwide Google metrics system and is devoting his life solely to your total destruction!

Give your inflated head a shake.

The **reality** is, I only initially heard of you through Language Hat where Dnghu is described as a “touchingly absurd project”. Steve Dodson’s negative views of Dnghu are hardly my fault.

Further down that page, Christopher Culver comments, “And the idea of promoting ‘Indo-European culture’ reminds one unpleasantly of John V. Day’s work, where Indo-European means ‘white’ and ‘race-mixing’ occurs at a society’s own peril.” I’m certainly not to be blamed for Christopher’s views and it’s hardly illegal to note on commonly known historical parallels that may be painfully apt.

The faster you move on with your life, the faster you’ll find a more constructive project that actually HELPS OTHERS rather than spending your entire days solitary on your computer confusing valid criticism against you as slander and overglorifying your own personal slander towards others as “valid criticism”.

You’re only isolating yourself from everyone by doing this. It’s not healthy.