Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:No, he's not an idiot, English isn't his native language.!

Buy what implication all who do not speak English are not idiots.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Never said that, I said your same old diatribe is the same old crap, pay attention sweetie!

I like how you speak for it as if you could actually know, countering those that actually do. Sorry sweetie but wikipedia trumps Ariging_UK.

I'm not staying any where, I'm growing every day, just like the smarter people! And I don't use psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. I have, but I'm not. But anything about the truth of things is in fact knowledge, and thus growth potential.

Again with your denial, you're beginning to not be worth ones time. Do you think you're the only one that can read and learn, I've also taken psychology in college, but then I've already told you that. You forever conveniently forget.

I have in this thread with my other retorts, your grip on understanding is sliding, my friend.

But that's exactly what your little ditty led one to believe, funny how you couldn't see that it was true before I rubbed your nose in it.

I've already explained that to you, that you've forgotten things said just 4 years ago again shows that your mind is slipping.

Not at all! It's funny indeed that you once had it attached to your profile and after I proved it was not a faithful synopsis of your longer explanation, and that it was instead you beating your chest, as if you're some sort of queen of the jungle, with respect to knowledge, you deleted it so the proof was no longer available. Funny indeed!

It seems that in some respects, I've taken the wind out of your sails.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:No, he's not an idiot, English isn't his native language.!

Buy what implication all who do not speak English are not idiots.

My God, you're dumber than that Doc idiot! I admire manden's ability to communicate so well in a foreign language.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Yeah I understand you are jealous. If only you could do as well as him.

bobevenson wrote:Jesus Christ, have you ever heard of the term "overkill"?

Lacewing wrote: Are you asking Jesus Christ that question?

It would be a good question for Jesus! As there seems to be a very thin line (if any at all) between being a zealot or fanatic... and a complete lack of clarity/sanity. Wouldn't you agree, Bob?

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Never said that, I said your same old diatribe is the same old crap, pay attention sweetie!

I was pumpkin and since my 'crap' was about Logic your comment applied to it.
What I was commenting on was not your logic at all, unless you meant it as logic in which case it was flawed!

I like how you speak for it as if you could actually know, countering those that actually do. Sorry sweetie but wikipedia trumps Ariging_UK.

I speak for it as if I know as I qualified in it and was awarded that qualification by one of it's founders. The wiki contributors obviously didn't bother to pay attention to the fact that NLP has never considered itself a science and that their objections actually apply to all psychotherapy.
If it never considered itself science as you say, then it never deserved any consideration whatsoever as help for those needing psychological support/knowledge. Who would want to consider treatment based upon whimsy instead of science. It's a pseudo-science because for it to be considered valuable to psychology, it'd have to be based upon science. I guess that's hard for you to understand, I guess it's that pesky dictionary is still giving you problems with it's circular references.

I'm not staying any where, I'm growing every day, just like the smarter people! And I don't use psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. I have, but I'm not. But anything about the truth of things is in fact knowledge, and thus growth potential.

Then you should have no objection to the truth that NLP cannot be a pseudo-science as it does not consider itself a science in the first place and makes no claim to be such.
Then it's not worth shit. The reason it's called a pseudo-science, is because it's not based in science, the Church of Scientology, anyone? For it to be considered viable as a tool in psychology, it's MANDATORY, that it's based upon science! Even a soft science! So for all those that would wish to consider it, IT'S A PSEUDO-SCIENCE!

Again with your denial, you're beginning to not be worth ones time. Do you think you're the only one that can read and learn, I've also taken psychology in college, but then I've already told you that. You forever conveniently forget.

Did you complete your course or was this like your philosophy course?
You show yourself as a fool yet again, as no course of study is 'EVER' completed. Now I understand why you think you know it all, you actually believe you're done! I've always thought it was funny that you've believed that if people differ in philosophical belief than you, that they must be wrong, that they hadn't studied philosophy, and now I fully understand why! You really do believe you know it all! I've had you pegged form the beginning it would seem.

I have in this thread with my other retorts, your grip on understanding is sliding, my friend.

Show me these retorts that actually apply to what I have said and not just you on your white-horse?
My white horse? Who the hell am I coming to save? I'm taking on your old tired diatribe, that is aimed at placing you at the top of the heep! At least in your own limited, now closed mind, by your own admission, just above.

But that's exactly what your little ditty led one to believe, funny how you couldn't see that it was true before I rubbed your nose in it.

You rubbed no-ones nose in anything as I pointed out in my replies to you. You just don't wish to hear a message that conflicts with your erroneous epistemology and pet psycho-babble.
There you go again with your canned response meant to shake people down to their foundation, instead of dealing with the facts. I HAVE YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT SAVED AS AN HTML WEB PAGE! so you can't lie and cheat your way out of it, KIM! You're such a fucking liar, or just loosing your mind, take your pick! If it's the one I'll feel sorry for you, the other I'd prefer to shit down your neck, guess which one is which!

I've already explained that to you, that you've forgotten things said just 4 years ago again shows that your mind is slipping.

So now you agree that dictionaries are not the source of meaning in language and communication?
Never meant it that way, you forgot the word "today." Everyone knows this, but I'll say it again for the daft, Ariging_uk, I said that in the beginning all meaning was word of mouth, contained in story telling, passed down from generation to generation until we invented written forms and printing presses. Now I'll not say it again, no matter how much you try an evade by lying, or conveniently forgetting.

Not at all! It's funny indeed that you once had it attached to your profile and after I proved it was not a faithful synopsis of your longer explanation, and that it was instead you beating your chest, as if you're some sort of queen of the jungle, with respect to knowledge, you deleted it so the proof was no longer available. Funny indeed!

Since I've never attached anything to my profile I have no idea what you are waffling about now?
YOU FUCKING LIAR! I have copies you idiot!

It seems that in some respects, I've taken the wind out of your sails.

Impossible given the amount of hot air you expel.
One of your canned emotional responses to evade your admission, to be expected from one of your personality type.

If I was of a psychological bent I'd find it most interesting that you appear to have a form of emotional colour synesthesia when it comes to your replies.
Good thing you chose to include the word "appear," as it shows that at least you do pay attention to me to one extent or another, it both shows that you can't be certain, compliance with truth, and that it could also be your sensing that lends to your conclusion. There may be hope for you yet!

thedoc wrote:

Lacewing wrote: Are you asking Jesus Christ that question?

It would be a good question for Jesus! As there seems to be a very thin line (if any at all) between being a zealot or fanatic... and a complete lack of clarity/sanity. Wouldn't you agree, Bob?

LOL you're asking Bob about sanity, that's good. LOL.

bobevenson wrote:
As the only person with any sense around here,

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:
As the only person with any sense around here,

Good for you, hang on to that idea and don't let anyone talk you out of it, I'm sure that for someone like you, it's very comforting to think that.

bobevenson wrote: I can only shake my head

bobevenson wrote:I was wrong

Harbal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I was wrong

That's isn't exactly front page news, bob, you're always wrong.