Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Desiree Capuano & James Pendleton
250 E. Placita Lago Del Mago
Sahuarita, AZ     85629
Tel: 520-288-8200
Back to Mailbox Back to mailbox
Newer Message Newer message
Older Message Older message
Re: More of what I know
From: Patrick <>
To: Desiree Capuano <>
Date: Mon, May 11 2015 11:39:15 am
No.  A dictionary provides the definitions of words.  In some cases, 
like feeling and emotions, there can be no definition due to the 
circular reference.  So, we have to look past the word and consider the 
concept which the word attempts to embody.

You're really making yourself look incredibly unintelligent here. 
Consider you have a bachelors degree (albeit, a pseudo one) and I have 
grade 8.  You're really impressing the world with your wit and 
intellect.  Thank god we get to put these wonderful discussions on your 


On 05/11/2015 11:30 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
> Oh, so in this case  isn't good 
> enough because it would make you wrong about something right?  I get it.
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Patrick 
> > wrote:
>     Desiree:
>     You're incorrect (again).  Annoyance is not an emotion. It is a
>     mental state characterized by irritation and distraction. 
>     Annoyance can lead to frustration and anger (anger can be
>     considered an emotion).  Annoyance is a potential cause of an
>     emotion (or emotional state) - it is not, itself, an emotion.  For
>     more information you can refer to
>     But you bring up a good point:  you insistence that "annoyance" is
>     an emotion, when it's actually the *cause* (or more specifically,
>     catalyst) of an emotional response, is unequivocal proof that you
>     are incapable of distinguishing a cause from an effect - just as I
>     had stated you are, a few days ago.  Thank you for proving my point.
>     I also point out that the term "feeling" uses, in it's definition,
>     the term "emotion", which uses in it's definition, the term
>     "feeling".  That is a circular reference.  You do know what a
>     circular reference is, right?  You do understand that if two terms
>     (whether in diction or in math) depend on each other such that
>     they create a circular reference then neither term can ever
>     actually be resolved.  Wasn't logic covered in your bachelors
>     curriculum?
>     Patrick
>     On 05/11/2015 10:59 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>     Oh but you can't possibly be annoyed Richard...annoyance is an
>>     emotion...
>>     (from
>>     annoyance
>>     [uh-noi-uh ns]
>>     Spell Syllables
>>     Examples Word Origin
>>     noun
>>     1. a person or thing that annoys; nuisance:
>>     2. an act or instance of annoying.
>>     *3. the feeling of being annoyed.*
>>     On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Patrick
>>     > wrote:
>>         Desiree:
>>         Admittedly, yes, I am quickly annoyed by stupidity.
>>         Patrick
>>         On 05/11/2015 10:40 AM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>         oh, don't you know? I'm trying to play right into your plan
>>>         of turning G***** against me by showing him how you never
>>>         get annoyed..."Why is it that you don't just shut up and
>>>         fuck off"  - clearly not annoyed.
>>>         On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Patrick
>>>         >
>>>         wrote:
>>>             Desiree:
>>>             If your position is that you are going to allow G*****
>>>             to visit and there's nothing I can do to make you refuse
>>>             to allow him to visit, then why are we even having all
>>>             of this communication?  Why is it that you don't just
>>>             shut up and fuck off, and let that be the end of it?  On
>>>             my end, the purpose of the communication revolves around
>>>             G***** being able to come to Vancouver for part of the
>>>             summer so that I can fulfill my duties to him as his
>>>             father.  You seem to be arguing about the same thing,
>>>             however now you're saying that you're going to allow him
>>>             to come and there's nothing I can do to make you NOT
>>>             allow it.
>>>             So, what the fuck are we talking for then?  If you're
>>>             going to allow G***** to visit then there is nothing
>>>             further for us to say to each other.  Anything I could
>>>             possibly want to say to or about you I'd rather post on
>>>             your web site, anyway.
>>>             Patrick
>>>             On 05/07/2015 04:27 PM, Desiree Capuano wrote:
>>>>             Oh you little man.  I don't fear you or G***** opinion
>>>>             of me.  I am also not preventing visitation.  Try as
>>>>             you might to get me to say 'no' I will not do it.
>>>>             On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Patrick
>>>>             >>>             > wrote:
>>>>                 Desiree:
>>>>                 By the way, I know you don't deal well with
>>>>                 reality, so I don't expect you to respond sincerely
>>>>                 to these most recent messages.
>>>>                 Patrick
>>>>                 On 05/07/2015 01:07 PM, Patrick wrote:
>>>>                     Desiree:
>>>>                     I also know that you don't want to let G*****
>>>>                     visit with me because you know that when he
>>>>                     visits we bond more and that puts more distance
>>>>                     "emotionally" between you and him; yet you
>>>>                     don't want to explicitly refuse to let him
>>>>                     visit because you know that he will resent you
>>>>                     for it.
>>>>                     So, you're trying to create a situation whereby
>>>>                     you can say it was because of me that he
>>>>                     couldn't visit.  But I've explained to him that
>>>>                     my mother used to do the same stuff when I was
>>>>                     a kid. That my father eventually stopped coming
>>>>                     to visit and I learned later in life that it
>>>>                     was because of the games my mother would play -
>>>>                     the same stuff you're doing right now.
>>>>                     As always, your scheme won't work. The only way
>>>>                     it could would be if you completely cut off
>>>>                     communication between G***** and I and made it
>>>>                     so he could only hear your version of events.
>>>>                     But there's no way you can do that without
>>>>                     grossly upsetting the court and G*****.  And
>>>>                     your versions of events always rely on the
>>>>                     listener's pity and sense of guilt. 
>>>>                     Eventually, people get tired of hearing about
>>>>                     how someone is always such a victim because in
>>>>                     reality most of the problems in our lives are
>>>>                     the result of our own actions and the only
>>>>                     people that don't realize that are the ones
>>>>                     that are always trying to blame others for
>>>>                     their problems - people like you.
>>>>                     Patrick