iBores
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 10 Jun 2010 17:27 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > <http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=3761> > > > > Fantastic! That one simple idea explains so many behaviours I've > > perpetrated, and have seen others perpetrate, throughout my life. Makes > > a shedload of sense. > > It's so rare to find such a simple key that unlocks so many puzzles. > > I can only think of natural selection for an explanatory theory equally > simple and powerful. > > I'd read the book if I were you - it's a lot better than my review. From the review, I have to say the basic idea ain't quite right. Certainly doesn't apply to me, for all that I dig myself into hugely deep pits. I *KNOW* I'm wrong... But I suspect that it does apply to a lot of conventional thinkers. But how come I exhibit pretty much the same basic behaviour without the model applying to me? That tells me that the model's missing something important. I've long thought that all this stuff which can be written in actual words about the workings of the mind is bullshit. We certainly don't think in words - the words are the excuse that the mind generates to justify the decision it's made for `you', whatever `you' might be considered to be. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Steve Firth on 10 Jun 2010 17:51 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > I'd read the book if I were you I wouldn't bother. >- it's a lot better than my review. Yes well, there's a great deal that is better than that or than the book reviewed. The book itself presents nothing new and appears to offer no unique insights. It was done better a long time ago by Giancarlo Livraghi in his book "The Power of Stupidity". http://gandalf.it/stupid/chapters.htm
From: Rowland McDonnell on 10 Jun 2010 18:04 Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > <1jjvzev.23r20n11ihgniN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > > > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > > > > > > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Except they got the MMR business quite wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Completely wrong. > > > > > > > > Nope - that was covered in Eye letters: you claiming that they got it > > > > wrong just shows you missed the point entirely. > > > > > > Except I haven't seen these letters. I just got a sub to the Eye, for > > > the previous several years I've only bought two or three issues a year. > > > > So you've failed to read Private Eye, and yet claim that you know they > > got it wrong about MMR? > > > > Interesting, very interesting. > > > > That's a novel approach to evidence based conclusions, that is. > > > > So since you've not actually read the Eye's full coverage of the MMR > > issue, how are you so sure that they got it completely wrong? > > It's been known for some time that Wakefield's ideas were barmy, yet PE > carried on supporting him; [snip] Ah - I see, yes. You decided - despite having examined no body of evidence yourself, having totally ignored the case for the defence, and having paid no attention to the exact details of what the Eye was saying (which was more attacking the way in which the poor sod was hounded) - that the case for the prosecution was certainly correct. Thank you for telling me what error you made. Now I'd like to know how you fell in to that common cognitive trap. Rowland. P.S. His ideas weren't barmy - that's just your usual trick of flinging some mud at the personality which you hold in contempt. And as you know, mud always sticks - no matter how unjustified your allegations might be, they have worked to denigrate the target. Deeply dishonest tactic, personally abusing the target like that - and it's one you default to, because you never seem to have any actual *facts* at your disposal to justify your opinions on people... -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Peter Ceresole on 10 Jun 2010 18:12 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > What I see is a doctor who wasn't quite right in his ideas being driven > over the edge by a stupid government which refused to permit any public > choice over treatment options That's not true. Stop repeating it. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 10 Jun 2010 18:23
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > What I see is a doctor who wasn't quite right in his ideas being driven > > over the edge by a stupid government which refused to permit any public > > choice over treatment options > > That's not true. Stop repeating it. That's not true. Stop making claims for which there is no evidence. And do stop telling me what to do - who do you think you are? The king? Possibly you /are/ that deluded due to your creeping senility[1]. Rowland. [1] You think it's not abusive to call me a nutter. So that's not abusive either, is it? Sauce for the goose and the gander an' all. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |