Re: Dr. Richard Graham, London psychiatrist, spews venom

On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:14:30 -0400, "Robert Morein"
<soundhaspriority@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<elmir2m@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147886028.820009.201600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

soundhaspriority wrote:
<soundhaspriority@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147807690.669655.26130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So, Richard, I take it that psychoanalysis is not bringing very many
clients
to your door. I understand completely. No patient would want to lie on a
couch and listen to you rant for an hour.

Luv,
SHP

Bob, your message may be deadly but the address is
wrong.
No Englishman- not even a psychiatrist- would have baseball pop up into
his
brain as an apt metaphor. Cricket is the name of the game.
The original SHP in his Yahoo and other disguises is not a Londoner.
I know psychiatrists- SHP's jargon is not their jargon either.
Not that it matters who exactly is selling the Belt product on the web.
Ludovic Mirabel.

Ludo,
My opinion is that Dr. Graham has superior intelligence in many
respects, and, as he makes a hobby of deception, deliberately uses metaphors
to confuse. His approach to us smacks of the Turing Test, which essentially
means that the more intelligent entity can lie undetectably to the less
intelligent entity. I feel that in this regard, his posts contain a lot of
cold calculation in the tradition of counterintelligence deception. While it
is also the case that his posts exhibit lack of balance, sheer lunacy, and
possibly drug-induced mania, we should not discount the the capability to
function at a superior intellectual level.

The cons have a slogan among them: "There ain't a horse that can't be
ridden", which means, there is no one who cannot be deceived. In a mental
jiu-jitsu, the con deceives the victim into believing that he is more
intelligent than the con.
It appears to me that Dr. Graham has made this a side interest of his study
of mental processes. He knows, as you have quoted, that 29% or so will
respond to a placebo. He used this as the basic fact of his assault on this
group.

Thus, I suggest that you have underestimated the extremely high formal
intelligence of this individual. It is easy to do so, due to the extreme
instability of his emotional makeup, and the inadequacy of his "theory of
mind", which leaves him in the dark as to the mental processes of others,
except in an extremely formal sense.

Bob Morein

Robert, I still can't help feeling you're drawing a rather long bow
here. No one is THAT intelligent, still less that vigilant. Little
things such as I pointed out--Mr Sound using the term "off of", which
no one outside North America uses--indicate that he can't be British.
Frankly, in the absence of further evidence we're back to Ockham's
Razor---the most obvious conclusion is probably the correct one.

You know--and I say this most gently--we're all prone to
over-intellectualise. The reasoning processes by which you arrived at
the conclusion Mr. sound was Richard Graham just strike me as too
subtle and circuitous. Is there any firm evidence not based on
inference and supposition? More to the point, if you presented the
evidence you currently have to a court, would they convict or dismiss?
I suspect the latter.

Of course you may have other evidence you don't want to disclose. But
I can only go on what I read here, and that doesn't convince me Mr.
Sound is other than a very clever, very egotistical, long-time Usenet
poster who, as he claims, has done all this before many times. Indeed,
his easy facility with insult and abuse virtually screams that at us.
In what other school would he gain these skills? The sheer volume of
his posts indicates that, to say nothing of the (sometimes amusing)
inventiveness of his attacks. Maybe the only thing about him that
supports your conclusion is a certain malicious insight in his
posts--insight not necessarily into individuals here but into types.
If he isn't a psychiatrist he probably could have been.

Anyway, that's my 2c.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Was one ever put forward?
    ... Richard Forrest wrote: ... Based on an acurate representation of the nature of science ... Based on evidence which can be corroborated by observation and/or ... therefore the designer must be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: EXTRA: realitytrasher is completely Impeached - again -
    ... I believe that accusing Rockferd of being Richard Bullis does an injustice ... judgement based on evidence, ... could plot the times of posting, as an exhibition of time management ... ... In that event, changing names is stupid. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: Bad science is still science
    ... George Evans wrote: ... The large quantity of evidence has masked the fact that it is all based on ... suggested that you read some books on the subject, such as Richard Fortey's ... "The Earth". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mr Dawkins new book?
    ... Richard Dudley wrote: ... explanations is not evidence that I am not engaging Richard. ... I get defensive when after being very patient with someone they turn ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Global Warming , leave it to the men
    ... :> Probably the most famous, and extreme, example of that is the late ... :> This 'Iraq' global warming thing must be hitting the propoganda sites. ... :>>evidence points increasingly in that direction. ... :> will rain tomorrow and they've never, not once, 'predicted' a climate ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)