+42

I mentioned before that six years ago I talked about how this guy seems to me as one of those whom I described as deceptive psychotics and the power of their convincing through character assumption, in other words the way they present themselves. Several days ago, it occurred to me how unusual and far from being normal the position this guy probably tried to take here which suggests dependence on such power.

Think about it. Even without morality, if you were in his place would you try to take the position that the other guy's refusal to take your phone calls being the insult impeding solving the issue, without making any offer? The way situations like this normally go is for somebody in my position to claim an insult based on the behaviour of the other guy in trying to reach a solution. The guy in his position on the other hand cannot claim an insult before making an offer because until then he is isolated by the capability to make the offer from feeling insulted. Even in fiction, a guy who had suffered a wrong from a rich guy could react telling the other guy that he cannot just correct anything with his money. But how many times have you seen in a movie or read in a novel things go the other way around? In other words, how many times have you seen the rich guy, where his only concern is to resolve the situation, feel insulted by the other guy refusal to communicate with him without sending an offer first? But apparently this corruption guy thought he can take both positions. He may have thought that his power of assuming the insulted character here would eclipse such an unusual situation. He even had to take it higher than this, making use of refusal of only the form of communication on which he insisted as the insult.