Using psychiatric terms to explain the behaviour of someone who is doing something that doesnt appear to make sense is hardly wrong.

Yes, it is wrong. Unless you are a psychologist (or other mental health professional), you don't even know what the words mean. It's a common way to invalidate what a person says, without addressing the issues that person raises. Challenge the person's mental competence and you can ignore whether he or she has a valid point. This is a fallacy.

You characterize the OP's statements, posts, or documents as "irrational", "like the rantings of a deranged madman", "irrational". These are all opinions, and as you point out, you're entitled to them. However, they are content-free. You don't like what the OP says, that is clear. You have done nothing to show that his or her statements are false or illogical, aside from labeling them so. You have offered no basis for your opinion that the statements are "irrational", etc.

I will note that "deranged madman" is not a psychiatric term. It's nothing more than name-calling, little more than childish taunting at recess. It has no place in any rational discussion. But of course, this isn't a rational discussion, is it? It's more of a public free-for-all against someone who, for whatever reason, is unpopular.

There is no need to "explain the behavior" of the OP. He or she made some comments - was perhaps upset, or angry, or hurt. Very few people actually bothered to address the issues raised. Most people just attacked the OP for being "difficult", or "obnoxious", or "crazy", or whatever.

The fact that so many people took the trouble to attack this person, without addressing the issues, speaks volumes. It doesn't make the OP correct, or the others incorrect. But it does suggest that there is far more to this issue than is being stated in the thread. Lots of people are "worked up" over this, not only the OP. If the OP needs psychiatric help because of what he or she posted, then so do many of those who responded, and for the same reasons.

Yes, it is up to me to decide if someone's criticisms are appropriate, and to speak up if I believe they are not. If anyone here is entitled to an opinion, then everyone here is; and if one person can say what's appropriate, then so can we all.

In reply to Re^4: A New Respect by Anonymous Monk
in thread A New Respect by Intrepid

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.