Nom's future may be dealing with vic-k!

The opening line from my psyc prof’s latest email:

Apparently psychology is not about understanding various mental states but propagating mental states in others that approximate vic-k-ness.

Just remember that you chose this future nom. You chose it.

Vic-K[size=150]©[/size] [size=150]®[/size] Unauthorised users will be exterminated!! [size=85]cheeky feckers!![/size]

Lets talk copyright

No, I think they are recognize Mr K’s ownership. As in “this is vic-k’s”.

They just ran out of space for all the characters.


You hold the cage, and I will circle around him and flush him out toward you.

Not sure what is worse, that I found it funny, or I know why it’s happening.

Now listen up, young ‘n’! The time for cages is long past. See if you can put your hands on one of these 'ere yokes! We’ll cook the pigeon’s goose, once ‘n’ for all!

Finally, someone understands…

Does Mrs Nom understand this? Is she aware that the frequent association with vic-k-ness tends to create sympathetic vic-k-ness-es in the previously non-vic-k-ness associator? And if so is she OK with that? And are you OK with her OK-ness?

Wait. I think we may have established a history of … poor decision making on her part followed by maladjusted approval on your part.

They won’t let me hold a gun ever since that one little misunderstanding. Okay, instead of the cage, we’ll use the rifle. I’ll flush him straight out your way, and you be ready to shoot. What could possibly go wrong?

You’re assuming non-vic-k-ness to begin with. First rule of psychology*: always question your assumptions. Second rule**, psychopathology involves not just symptomatology but also subjective distress. Deviancy is insufficient: if nobody is disturbed, then there is no problem. If you’re the only one disturbed, then perhaps others aren’t the ones with a problem. :smiling_imp:

[size=70]*Well, maybe not the first rule. In fact maybe not even a rule. Still, it’s an excellent guideline…
**Again, the numbering may be wrong. But at least this one is close to a rule as it is explicated, in far more words, in the DSM-IV-TR. [/size]

I think many agree that there are disturbances* when mr K is involved.

[size=65]in the force[/size]