I'm reading right now (for reasons that have nothing to do with this thread, but with my interest in a skeptical approach to personal experiences) Graham Reed's The psychology of anomalous experience which is a bit old (1988) but still interesting to read. The book does deal with normal people (in sometimes not so normal situations) and not with clinical cases.

I was reminded of the party metapher some hundred posts ago when I read the following in a subchapter about Anomalies in the flexibility of associations (p. 182f):

"The best example from everyday life is preoccupation, when our minds revolve around a single topic...Far from there being any conscious diminuation of mental activity, preoccupation often involves furious thinking - but the thinking revolves around one particular theme. Commonly, this theme has to do with some matter of significance...But often the focus of preoccupation processes possesses little personal significance or affective tone.

...Brooding [is preoccupation]...by a belief that life is treating one unfairly, or because one has been a victim of a slight (real or imagined).

...Preoccupation is usually triggered by a particular event or problem. But the same sort of delimination of cognitive energy may in certain individuals be such a habitual pattern as to be classifiable as a personality characteristic. At the opposite extrem from the person we describe as having a 'grasshopper mind' is the one with a 'one track mind'. This is somebody who tends to 'harp on' about one topic, to worry interminably about some difficulty, or to give protracted consideration to an idea that does not seem to merit such close attention.

...The inveterate one-track-mind is liable to be regarded as a bore, to be avoided at all costs. At social gatherings, he is likely to be a 'party pooper', not by intent or malice, but simply because his conversation is ewarnest, circumscribed, repetitious, and generally tedious. His inability to abandon his topic of choice, or even to approach it from freh viewpoints, impedes the spontaneous flow of conversation and deadens the lightness of tone associated with an enjoyable party. Furthermore, even the most well-intentioned of one-trackers will display a fiendish ability to turn the line of talk back to his focal theme, should attempts be made by others to change the subject." (End of quote)

Big Mick,
I can understand the temptation to try to be as repetitive as Shambles is and to repeat ad nauseam the same Max quote. But you are bound to lose that game and there is nothing you can do about it for two reasons:
(1) The repetitions by Shambles get under your skin on the long run, but Shambles is completely immune to repetitions (or arguments) by others.
(2) Your repetitions will look stupid to yourself after some time (as they should), but Shambles' repetitions will never look stupid to him.

Wolfgang