Re: Mission Impossible

On Aug 18, 2:59 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Neil

I have said before that you tend to see some things pretty
accurately.


1 You insist my mind is full of mush

Nope. He didn't.

OK. I will change that. As I recall, he said "that to be scientific
you needed to realise your mind is full of mush" but then later said
that he had not meant it as abuse.

So in that sense you are right that he appeared anyway to not be
insisting my mind was full of mush. Instead he kind of retracted
but then went onto say more or less the same thing as detailed
below. So even if he was saying he was not insisting in reality he
was insisting.

Or are you actually believing he did not say my mind was full of
mush?


2. From a position of medical authority you then say it is nothing
personal and is not intended as an insult. More that my thinking is
more aligned with the practice of witchcraft and phrenology and that i
have the kind of irrational thinking associated with the dark ages
(when hardly anybody was myopic by the way), whereas you, a
superior being are scientific and rational! :-) And to you this
means nothing personal??? Come on mate i was not born
yesterday! Do you really think i cant see whats going on here?

One must start to wonder.

Yes but who are you wondering about and why are you doing that?


3. And then annoyingly you reply to my request that you demonstrate
your ability to be rational with "Toadally".

"When the reaction is disproportionate to the action, it's usually
something else...."

Usually does not mean always. As you know.


But all of this is not just annoying. It is actually interesting
because you reveal to me the way your mind works.

Translated: it feeds your theories ... whether it fits them, and
whether they have any validity whatsoever ... is another matter
entirely.

Another matter yes. But maybe it does actually fit them. I think
so.


You have an ego centric way of thinking that is also twisted or
conflicted.

That should cost Mike a great deal of sleep.

Thats not the intention here. I am not intending to abuse Mike. His
response to me was pretty toxic. In the circumstances i have been
pretty measured when all is considered.


You insist of others very high standards.

Huh? I watch Mike try to keep the "science" in sci.med.vision.

Yes Neil, but its your science that is kept. And only your science.
My science is trashed. If you honestly believe there is no
controversy and debate over for example twin studies then you need to
educate yourself as to the real issues involved. Same goes for genes
and myopia. This list presents a very biased view of the science.
It comes down to opinion only because the controversy is never
highlighted. People describe the issues as if there is no controversy
and only facts. That is either dishonest or foolish. It is
irrational and it is not scientific. Being scientific requires being
open minded rather than convinced an opinion held dear is
true.


And yet your own standards seem very low

Pointless ad hominem?

No. Mike says one thing and does another. Thats an observation of
facts about Mike. If Mike wants he can learn from this and stop
saying one thing and doing another. For example this mush thing
says quite a bit about Mike. If he wants to be a good person then
his behaviour needs to be in alignment with the idea he has that he is
being a good person.


And yet you think you are in some manner better than me.

Andrew: that perception says much more about you than it does about
Mike.

I agree it says something about me or i would never have said it.
Even so i believe it to be true and therefore i said it. People who
dont say these kinds of things would never be on this list because the
atmosphere is so toxic. People here are irrationally determined to be
right regardless of the real facts. I want to be seen to be right
too or i just would not be here. Being seen to be right is kind of
fun actually:-)

As you know i have said to you similar things about how your own angry
behaviour is saying something about you. We are on a similar page in
that regard on what we can say about others. We both seem a bit
twisted or hypocritical. Your response is to complete ignore what i
say about you. I am listening to you Neil. Sure i can always learn
to be a better person and be more authentic. I was not intending to
deliberately go out to harm Mike. I think he is in any case old
enuf to look after himself without having the "big" boys coming in to
rescue him. What does that say about you? As you say our
behaviour can say more about us than it says about the other guy.


As i said before, "Can you see yourself in a true light?"

Whether he can or cannot, it's my considered opinion that you are not
going to be the one to shine that "true light" on the s.m.v.
participants.

I think you are being sarcastic here or something that is unclear to
me, since it seems clear that you dont think i have a true light to
shine?

But I am probably entirely wasting my time here. For now it is
often fun and *is* interesting so it suits me to be here for a while
yet.

I do actually think i have a more or less true light to shine. If
people dont want to see by it then i can do nothing more.

By the way I welcome your comments but if you dont reply to me or
simply cut out the parts of my posts that i regard as being important
with some comment that they are effectively irrelevant it makes it
hard for me to justify replying. In that regard you are a bit like
Mike. You trash what i say by more or less saying it is mush but in
fact you somewhat rudely (as i see it) refuse to get involved in the
details of what i am saying. If you want to talk i am happy to talk
but if its just a lecture then i dont want that. I am open to what
you have to say and i just expect the same from you. If you only
want to put the boot in then i do have other battles to fight. (have
you seen the financials the last few days? Scary stuff)

A.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Trailer question
    ... Mike W. enlightened us with: ... your car/suv is not listed here, I love these nice mirror "slip ons" that I ... They dont show the "installed look" ... Each state is different about needing tags, under 2000 lbs we don't have ...
    (rec.motorcycles.dirt)
  • RE: Install fails due to Norton Firewall and blankpassword exploit
    ... I agree with Mike. ... before doing any kind of install or Service pack upgrade. ... YOU DONT NEED TO START THEM! ... Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Locator ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: Katrina- an offer
    ... Dont forget to check out Archam's post in this thread and find out the ... > Mike Hendrix wrote: ... > homes having been destroyed and the jobs with it, ... > Frank Howell ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Trailer question
    ... Mike W. enlightened us with: ... your car/suv is not listed here, I love these nice mirror "slip ons" that I ... They dont show the "installed look" ... Each state is different about needing tags, under 2000 lbs we don't have ...
    (rec.motorcycles.dirt)
  • Re: noisy breaks , micra
    ... i dont think i am being defensive and i dont think i am wrong, ... listen mike theres a way of going about things and ... any help then proceded to correct my grammar ... doesnt seem to bother you and where do you draw the line? ...
    (uk.rec.cars.misc)