Are you "paranoid"

[SusanLR]

About technological observations? No.
I have so little influence or association with the outside world, I have nothing to hide anyway.

Especially concerning government etc, mainly because I can't do anything about it, so worrying makes no sense.

Exactly.

 

[Progster]

I worry a lot, but I'm not paranoid.

 

[Pats]

I hate it when I look for something on Amazon or Target or Walmart and all of a sudden it's popping up everywhere.

 

[MrSpock]

I suspect I'm not allowed to respond to this thread appropriately outside of the politics section.

 

[Graphin]

@MrSpock Should it be moved or me make a new one?

 

[jacinto]

I know I'm paranoid, but that doesn't necessarily make me wrong.

 

[MrSpock]

I suspect I'm not allowed to respond to this thread appropriately outside of the politics section.

@MrSpock Should it be moved or me make a new one?

I dunno, up to you. My response was genuine, although also a bit tongue-in-cheek, and was a comment in it's own right.

I imagine that there may also be people who wouldn't be allowed to respond as they might outside of the religion section. Since they're different sections there's no place you could put it where we are all free to respond as we might otherwise. I'm not sure if this is "paranoia" as you mean it, but it's not paranoia according to @tree 's posted definition, I've been censored here more than once, and I believe I have some understanding of the reasons behind it. Not complaining, I think it's a relevant comment, it's possible that you can't put it anywhere ideal is all, don't move it just for me.

 

[Crossbreed]

I wouldn't say that I am paranoid as much as I am (unintentionally) hyper-vigilant. Sometimes, in my hyper-vigilance, I detect a threat that others do not and am so accused of being paranoid. Most of the time, it functions as a sensory FYI.

 

[MrSpock]

...titling your post in a less general way, might have, more clearly, conveyed what subject matter you intended to discuss.

Perhaps @Graphin you might productively attempt to define more exactly what you mean by "paranoid" as opposed to paranoid as tree has referenced it. Without more clarity it's hard for us to know if your intent and presentation are well aligned or not.

 

[Graphin]

I feel like i'm the only one who sees my edit

 

[MrSpock]

@Graphin , I don't reread entire threads each time I respond in an ongoing conversation, and I doubt that I am so very unusual in this. I wouldn't expect an edit to be noticed as you seem to, I wonder if you've thought of the likelihood of people rereading the whole conversation each time.

You might have posted what you edited where instead you chose to say that you feel like you're the only one who noticed it. True, we can go back to find out what you mean, just as we can try to research your particular meaning of "paranoid".

I found his initial post, in combination with the section he posted in, clearly, conveyed the topic of which he intended to discuss.

Perhaps the two of you can easily continue this conversation by yourselves, then. I find that your post, in combination with the thread you posted in, clearly, conveys that you have knowledge that I lack. Sharing such knowledge might help the conversation be more productive, but keep it to yourself if you like.

I don't understand why you would want to start a thread and not make it easier for others to respond appropriately when that seems likely to be an easily achievable option.

 

[MrSpock]

@Loren , I did not take your post as hostile, maybe as exclusive. As though you (more likely just the OP) wanted to only continue the conversation with those already in the know in an attempt to raise the bar in the standard of conversation. That would be fair enough, I have occasionally participated in threads where people have responded willy-nilly and I have thought the threads the poorer for it.

I have sometimes thought that @tree posted definitions to make a point, but I now believe that she does this in a strict moderator capacity, and is not trying to participate in the conversation as such. Six posts in a row now are not really on topic, but it's hard to say that we're derailing the thread. The thread has no rails, tree has made the only direct attempt to correct this. It seems that the OP does not intend that the standard definition of paranoid is to be used, yet has failed to provide an alternative.

EDIT: I mean paranoid as a label that gets used today especially in digital space, i expected people to understand that as i do and put it in quote marks for that reason. It is in the category where i put it for a reason

I am anticipating that for your same reason you really ought to provide the definition yourself. If it's a definition that would be known and understood in the context of a computer lab, you might consider that you're not in a computer lab. I don't mean to belittle tree's contribution to the thread, but this seems like rudimentary communication skills to me. When somebody asks for clarification of your position, failure to provide it shows an unwillingness to participate further, with that person at least. I have not previously assumed that since you haven't explicitly said so and are young. You know plenty of things that millions of others don't, you cannot assume that everyone, or even most people, know something just because you do.

I guess that Loren may be competent to provide an appropriate definition. I might also guess that Loren is hesitant to do this because it may be slightly rude, as the OP it is your place to determine what the conversation should be about. Providing a definition is part of this.

 

[tree]

I post definitions when it appears to me that a definition
would be useful. Discussion is more fruitful when there is
a basis from which to start.

 

[MrSpock]

@Loren nothing to be sorry about. I took the following post by itself -

I found his initial post, in combination with the section he posted in, clearly, conveyed the topic of which he intended to discuss.

Upon rereading your earlier posts I was wrong to do this, you too have encouraged the OP to be more clear.

...titling your post in a less general way, might have, more clearly, conveyed what subject matter you intended to discuss.

At no point have I been offended by anyone in this thread.

 

[Judge]

For what it's worth, in colloquial conversations, I've heard the term "paranoia" used many times in a casual and non-clinical manner for decades- well outside the realm of cyberspace.

The only real person of any notoriety I can even recall who was formally diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder as such was subway murderer Colin Ferguson.

Consequently I don't give much thought to a notion of it being taken in the most literal pathological sense. Other than perhaps fictional characters like Captain Queeg (The Caine Mutiny). And perhaps a few sitting presidents. But that's a discussion for another thread. Or am I just being paranoid?

 

[Graphin]

Ahhh this thread is such a mess

 

[Ming of Mongo]

I'm anti-paranoid. Not paranoid enough. I lost a job once because of it. People told me someone was out to get me, and I blew them off. I just never saw myself as being important enough to plot against.

As far as computer stuff goes, I think I have an accurate paranoia level, since I worked in programming and security. For the most part, nobody's interested in what you are doing unless either there's money in it, or you are on the radar for other reasons.

 

[Iamnotbroken]

Yes because I also have Schizophrenia

 

[Mr Allen]

A bit.

I kind of have a "sixth sense" that if I think some aspect of whatever I'm up to at the moment will go wrong, it often does.

It's also apparently in the nature of some people with Asperger's to be a bit "Doom and Gloom" about some aspects of their life, I know I'm a bit like that, especially on aspects such as my love life (lack thereof) and employment.